If the US has one of the best armies in the world????

Question

Why are they getting their asses kicked by a bu nch of poorly trained and poorly armed Iraqis?

The US army is not one of the best in the world. They tried to win the Iraq war with technology which worked for the invasion part but the occupation part has gone to pot. The US army was redesigned by Rumsfeld to act in short term conflicts on a get in and get out quickly basis! They are simply not able to cope with a guerilla war in which the enemy doesn't confront them on a battlefield.

The technology is ok for the first stages of the war but you need an army that is well trained to finish a war and the US army have proven that they simply aren't up to the task.

If the British army were the best in the world why could they not defeat the IRA!

I think cynthiatw... puts it well. It looks like the terrorists have the best trained fighters.
Mind you to say that the US doesn't have full reign in Iraq is preposterous. The Invasion was received little support and still went ahead. If thatdoesn't give you full reign to do what you want nothing else will.

This is funny.

4.Tell me what experience in the military do you Have?

I have never been in the army but lived through the daily bombings and shooting for 30 years in Belfast. I know how terrorists operate. Iv've seen them on the streets fighting so called well trained soldiers. 70's and 80's Belfast was a warzone.

5.When were you in Iraq? To get first hand Facts?

Why do I need to go to Iraq to get facts. I read the news and follow the body counts from independent and other sources. I see the reports of US soldiers killing and raping innocent Iraqis (thankfully some are being convicted for the crimes). Did someone have to be in Vietnam to know the US were losing, or to be in Germany to know the Germans were losing in 1945? Of course not.

6.How Long did it take for the U.S. to get it's Independence?

What the hell has that got to do with anything. that was over 200 years ago and you were helped and supplied by the French! And you were all ex Europeans!

This one is funny too.

These aren't even hit and run tactics. These are guerrilla attacks on convoys. The vast majority of insurgents and terrorists are too scared to take on the American military in a head to head engagement (not even fixed battle mind you). Those that did fight usually hide within the population after firing a few rounds then running away.

What about the film recently shot by the truck driver when their convey was attacked. Those US soldiers drove off faster than an F1 driver and abandoned those civilians. Caught on camera too. The shame of it.

So what if the Iraqis don't want direct engagement. Would you go up against a tank head on with only an AK-47? Of course not. The US didn't want direct engagement until they had destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure with cruise missiles. There is little difference between a roadside bomb and a missile.

And Misterz mentions my IQ and then says

"Those terrorist don't play by the rules, they kill civilians as they please .. While US troops must get the civilian out of way, if they are killed and they didnt move them, then they get charged with murder...

So US troops are playing on the downside here, personally if it was up to me, I would order the tanks to fire shells on the town of terrorists then pick out the rest. unfortunetly we have to worry about civilians... So no.."

Firstly you could probably train a child to fire tank shells at a target as big as a town. Thus that has nothing really worth while to add to a discussion on how well trained the US army are.

Secondly if you would allow such things then you are no better than a terrorist. Killing the innocent obviously appeals to you. And you talk about my IQ. Go to school, then University and when you have your Ph.D then maybe I'll listen to your comments.

For jw0rk

Why do I need military experience to see that the US are losing. Even your own politicians admit that they are in trouble? Did reporters need military experience to report that Germany were losing the war in 1945? No.

"There is three sides to every discussion, your side, my side and the truth.
Newspapers have their slant on things just like You do. Editors pick what gets printed. You telling me that they are impartial?

I'm not discussing. Nearly 3000 dead US soldiers and climbing. Fact! Impartiality or not you can't change the body count, not to mention the injured which is over 10,000.

6.How Long did it take for the U.S. to get it's Independence?

Still irrelevant to Iraq.

In Ireland there is no longer war. We have a peace process just like what will eventually happen in iraq and the US people will ask "why did over 3000 have to die then?" That's what we ask ourselves in Ireland.

Still for jw0rk.

I know nothing about Algeria so I can't comment on it. As for the other two points they are merely statement and not questions.

GAH has obviously never read a history book. Think WW2. Who was on the winning side. That's right, Russia. They lost the most soldiers in that war and they came out on the winning side. The same goes for Vietnam!!! More North Vietnamese died than Americans and still the US left with their tails between their legs.

More Iraqis have died than American soldiers but there is no figure for "insurgent deaths". Near 3000... maybe if you count the suicide bombers. I read more stories about soldiers dying than about insurgents dying. I read the most stories about innocents dying.

Once again jw0rk the level of violence is spiralling upward and not downward. That tells me that the US aren't winning. The numbers of US troops dying is increasing daily as are the numbers of wounded. The words from your own politicians and those around the world and the words of journalists who are there also tell the tale. All together this tells me you are losing.

I still don't get your point about US independence. The US aren't fighting for independence but are the occupiers. The Iraqis are fighting to throw you guys out and they will succeed. It is simply a matter of bodies before it becomes a political issue and you retreat with tails between your legs like Vietnam.

Regarding Ireland you are a litle confused. Peace was offered but was derailled by Loyalists in in the mid 70s so the IRA kept fighting. Peace could have been achieved without a war. When you learn something about the N.I. troubles then I will happily discuss it with you.

Answer 1

They face an old problem.
They are equipped and trained for a particular type of conflict. However the enemy will not give them that type of conflict. Commando groups (now called terrorists in order to generate political support) are capable of inflicting damage without the use of large armies or resources. The British army in South Africa during the Anglo Boer war (19th - 20th century) faced just the same problem.
The fact of the matter is that where you have motivated individuals, they will go to great lengths to fight for their perceived rights. No amount of technology is going to stop that

Answer 2

The US does have one of teh Best Armies in the World!!

However, due to its leadership (Or lack thereof) they have been handcuffed from being able to accomplish their mission. The US military is very good at going into a Foreign Nation and defeating their military. The US Military is not very good at Peace Keeping Missions, which is what the Iraqi Mission has transformed into. The US Military is not an occupying force but rather they are there to assist the Iraqi Government in setting up and running a Democratic Government. The Iraqi Military is not able to maintain order in their country and have asked that the US Military assist them until such a time as when they are able to perform and accomplish their mission.

Guerilla Warfare is the easiest form of warfare. It causes the most carnage with the least amount of resources.
Road side bombs (or any other type of bomb) is designed to strike fear in the opposing force. As you should well know having lived in Belfast !! You never know where a bomb may have been placed or when it is going off. Again economy of forces. 1 Terrorist to make a bomb and another to place the bomb. No need for someone else to set it off. Just blow it with a time delay fuse.

Technology is a great thing. It has made it very easy to kill an opponent from far away. Yet Technology cannot and will not ever hold any ground. To occupy and hold ground still requires the human element. The Terrorists have studied US History and know that if the Body Count climbs too high then the US will leave. Viet Nam showed that. Desert Storm ended to soon because the US was worried about a large body count.

I disagree with you about the fact that the US Army has proven that they simply aren't up to the task of finishing the War. The war is over. The Iraqi Military was defeated. The US is not in direct action against the Iraqi Military, They are in fact in direct action against Terrorists, freedom fighters, call them what you will. .
You stated...
"The US army was redesigned by Rumsfeld to act in short term conflicts on a get in and get out quickly basis! They are simply not able to cope with a guerilla war in which the enemy doesn't confront them on a battlefield."

A very true statement. Dont know though if it was Rumsfeld who thought this up or not but will go with it.
The rules of engagement were designed to reduce collateral damage. The US does not want to harm any Iraqi Citizen who is not in direct action against the US Military. This would be counter-productive to the US Military goals and create more personnel who are against the US.

Answer 3

Don't normally answer these idiot's questions...

When has the Iraqi Army from the previous regime or these insurgents and foreign terrorists ever won an engagement against American forces? Never.

These aren't even hit and run tactics. These are guerrilla attacks on convoys. The vast majority of insurgents and terrorists are too scared to take on the American military in a head to head engagement (not even fixed battle mind you). Those that did fight usually hide within the population after firing a few rounds then running away.

So know some facts before you make the statement that we've actually lost a battle or engagement in this war.

Answer 4

The problem is that despite being numerous and well equipped the US military is not exceptionally well trained. They are not trained to an exceptionally low standard, but nor to a high standard either.
As many people here have mentioned the superiority of British armed forces I will comment on this - basically the British military is not as powerful as the US as it lacks the numbers and the funding the US armed forces have. The British troops are not comparable to those of the US when it comes to weight of numbers nor when considering air and artillery support. The British troops are trained to a far higher standard and also usually carry less expensive equipment but of a comparable (some would say superior) quality.
There are in fact very few military organisations that can successfully suppress large scale guerilla activity. One need only look to history as proof of this. The Persian empire had rebellions in Sardis, Babylon and many conquered Greek cities. The Romans had a large scale rebellion in Carthage. The examples over recent decades are too numerous to begin to list.
There are only two ways to successfully occupy a nation:
1 - To dramatically alter the infrastructure and government while adapting the local military and economy to help keep the peace and retain as many religious and political leaders as necessary but ensure they are loyal to the new administration. This worked for the Romans and later for the British Empire.
2 - Kill most of the people there and rule by fear. This is how the Romans recaptured Carthage. It works but is usually seen as a war crime - and not without good reason!
There is no easy way to suppress guerilla activity and as many of these organisations use a cell structure one can not attack the chain of command.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" - Mahatma Gandhi

Answer 5

Who's getting kicked? In the 1860's, the army could lose 30,000 casualties in a DAY. Fourth-generation warfare is by definition protracted, and we've had no Little Big Horns. Have there been operational and tactical errors? Plenty. But the Marines used to be good at this sort of thing, back in the 1920's and 30's, and they're dusting off and updating the old manual. And the Army are buying in. We're eventually going to have to adjust the overall force structure, because the American public are very sensitive when it comes to civilian-soldiers, our old ideal, and we rely too heavily on reserve and guard units. These are changes that we can't do in a matter of a few years, but then I've been hearing people talk about "exit strategy" since the thing started, while we still have troops in Germany and Japan!

Answer 6

1. We are controlled by Civilians. That means he tells us what training we can use.

2. U mean we can go do what the Foreign Legion did in Algeria?

3. They were winning. But the Lace Panty Folks got they're panties in a twist.

If the U.S. Army Had Free Reign Like You Say then we would be winning. Just like the French were in Algeria. But their methods were unacceptable. The Terrorists are using those tactics.

4.Tell me what experience in the military do you Have?
Seeing is not Doing. I've watched Micheal Jordon play. Doesn't mean I can do it. Or know how.

5.When were you in Iraq? To get first hand Facts?

How do You know we are getting our Butts kicked? By the Body Count? How much is too much. What do you base the decision on? What country has a Well trained Army?

There is three sides to every discussion, your side, my side and the truth.

Its Hollywood myth that you can be super man and not get touched in a fire fight or bomb explosion. Unless you just bomb or shoot everything that moves. Even then People are shooting at You.

If that is the case then why did Reagan get shot? Because the Secret Service were Buffoons? Or because the Secret Service Had to deal with the Orders of their superiors and that Reagan was going to do risky things.

As Far as those who raped, Leavenworth didn't get built yesterday.( Military Prison) But I do believe that other countries have Jails for their Military.

Of Course the Chinese used to just take you behind a tree and shoot you.

Newspapers have their slant on things just like You do. Editors pick what gets printed. You telling me that they are impartial?
So They say we are losing because they have their Slant. We Need to leave. It was a mistake. Try telling that to an Iraqi who has lost a family member to Saddam. Or have one of their Daughters raped by Saddam's Sons. Different slant Yes?

Based on your thoughts, reasoning, experience and Beliefs you make decisions. How close that is to the truth of the matter might be debated.

6.How Long did it take for the U.S. to get it's Independence?

Nothing is Free, King Geogre wasn't going to roll over for a bunch of Rebels.
Just like the Iraqi Rebels Aren't going to give up on a quote made by Stalin. " Power comes out of a Barrel of a Gun."

That was their Goverment for the last 20 years.

The Brits didn't let the Irish Cathlics Vote in 1707.

Why are they talking now?

It has to do with how long it took, how many lives it took. Yet the Colonies got their independance. Valley Forge was pretty Hard.


What about today in Ireland? Still a War Zone?

Your saying that there would have been peace talks If the Irish just asked?

How about Statements 1 thru 3 ?

Answer 7

Its plain and simple. The reasons that the US Army is having problems with insurgents in Iraq, the reason the British army has trouble with the IRA, is the same reason it was so hard in Vietnam, simple put the US Army, British Army and any other country which agreed to the Geneva convention follows certain rules of engagement when it comes to armed conflict. Terrorists, insurgents, the IRA, etc do not follow these rules.

Imagine playing a game of poker, where you are following the rules to the letter, but the other guy is cheating, who do you think will win?

Answer 8

You also need the purpose and goal of an occupation to be open, honest and clearly stated. Seeing as this has never been the case in Iraq the occupying forces are deeply mistrusted and hated. They have an impossible task. The Iraqis may be poorly armed and poorly trained but they are passionate people believing the occupation to be utterly wrong. They're fighting for their lives and what they believe is rightfully theirs.

That's some heavy artillery, just in their heads!

What are the US soldiers fighting for? George Dubyah! Come on!!? How can you get passionate about that?

Answer 9

Those terrorist don't play by the rules, they kill civilians as they please .. While US troops must get the civilian out of way, if they are killed and they didn't move them, then they get charged with murder...

So US troops are playing on the downside here, personally if it was up to me, I would order the tanks to fire shells on the town of terrorists then pick out the rest. unfortunately we have to worry about civilians... So no..

Those terrorists have determination on their side, and that's pretty strong. They are willing to kill them selves for their religion and to get the troops back out and it's amazing that people are SIGNING up to become SUICIDE bombers... While the US troops have nothing really worth fighting for there...

Think before you ask a question, you'll waste your points and IQ.

Oh and take a look at the Independence... Britain had the best army yet the Colonies won, because of determination.

Answer 10

just wanted to say that the only people that think the USA has the best army in the world is Americans, just look at the answers and you can tell that.

i guess that is why bush was running around 3 years ago begging for help fighting his war. Germany, France, Canada, Australia, and actually most of the world said no. now we all are witnessing what the "Americans" can accomplish on their own.