English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This is NOT a question about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq. This is a question of, after we are there, how it should have been handled

2006-11-26 08:39:36 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

20 answers

We have well paid professional soldiers, the Pentagon. We should have let the pros handle the war, and told the liberals to keep quiet, you are emboldening the enemy! The ones that would not keep their silly opinions to themselves should have been charged with treason for lending aid and comfort to the enemy! Our brave troops deserve better than the left has given them over the past five years! The world needs to wake up to the truth of the threat that the Islamic Fascists are to everyone! Mahmud Ahmadinedad is the one behind all the troubles in the Middle East with his plans to bring on Armageddon and world domination. We need to get serious and fast!

2006-11-26 09:16:07 · answer #1 · answered by Bawney 6 · 1 1

The whole of the "Triangle of Death" or "Sunni Triangle" which ever you prefer, should have been hammered by a relentless air campaign.

This could have eliminated the Saddam Loyalist that are comprised of ex-Republican Guards, the Fedayeen, and also harbors the bulk of the Al-Queda in Iraq operatives.


Muqtar Al Sadar should have been eliminated when we had the chance in 04. This may have prevented his Mahdi Army from maturing.

Also, if Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, and Murtha wouldn't have undercut our President at every turn: this too would have helped.

All of this is just my admittedly uninformed opinion, of course.

I trust those officials and military leaders with access to classified intelligence to have a better and more realistic handle on the situation.

Mine are but mere guesses, and as such mean nothing.

2006-11-26 17:00:46 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 1 1

When the breakout to Badgag first started I could not help but think of the Battle of Aie, and Custer's last stand.

Both used the same strategy. A smaller force allowed the greater force to pursue them into a trap.

Occupying the Western Desert under the guise of a systematic search for WMD. Would have drawn out the Republican Guard.

We know what would have happened.

Occupying Baghdad played into the hand and needs of the now defunct Sunni Army.

And again we know what happened.

Go big red Go

2006-11-26 16:52:24 · answer #3 · answered by 43 3 · 1 1

As our troops are being used to occupy a country to protect the plunder of Iraq and the private contractors doing so, probably nothing should be changed. Occupation has always been a mess for the locals and the troops required to carry it out. It never works, and the occupiers always have to leave, it is just a matter of time. If we were really there to liberate Iraq, the population would have welcomed us with flowers and hugs, thanked us and gone about the business of setting up a new government without fuss or violence of any significance. That our troops are required to fight door to door, all over the country, shows our mission is different from what we were told, that they were not happy about our toppling their government, and that they want us the hell out of there. There is no effective way to subjugate a people without losing your soul along the way.

2006-11-26 16:53:50 · answer #4 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 0 3

As of now?

We should take all of the money Congress has voted to use over the next however many years in Iraq. Use it all to supply weapons and training to the Iraqi Police Force/Army. Train the hell out of the Iraqis w/ their new American weapons; train a handful of Officers and make them pledge loyalty to the Iraqi Constitution. This will make the Iraqi Army a hell of alot bigger and more powerful; not great, but alot better than it is now. And then lastly, pull out. Pull every American man/women serving in the Military out of Iraq. The Iraqis will fight alot harder for their freedom obviously than an American would. Just like we had to fight for our freedom, let them have the same opportunity. (Actually alot better opportunity since their not facing a world power and they have training and good weapons but you get what I mean).

If they loose, they loose. We will not come back in and save them; only under one circumstance will we come in. And thats if another country comes in and trys to help the Iraqi Insurgents against Iraq, and then we come in and kick them out.

Our fore fathers had a chance to fight for our freedom, let the Iraqis do the same.

2006-11-26 16:48:35 · answer #5 · answered by I Hate Liberals 4 · 2 1

First of all most of the American experts in Iraq who could speak the language and knew the culture should not have been fired and replaced with a bunch of Bush appointees who didn't know jack ****....only how to make money. Secondly, Hussein's army should not have been let go with all their guns and ammunition. Iraqi weapons holdings should have been guarded instead of allowing them to be flooded into the country. Bagdad's beautiful buildings should not have been destroyed. The city should have been protected.
And, the borders should have been guarded to stop weapons from coming across the borders. We also should have protected any WMDs (LOL) from leaving if Bush & Cohorts really believed there were WMDs!

2006-11-26 16:53:13 · answer #6 · answered by Raven 5 · 1 3

We should have made secret agreements with the U.N. before the invasion for them to take over once we ousted Saddam from power, because not only do they have Ks more soldiers than us, but the Middle Eastern terrorist community would not have reacted nearly as strongly.

2006-11-26 18:50:14 · answer #7 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 0 0

It's impossible to separate the two questions. If the invasion should never happened in the first place, how it "should have been handled" is irrelevant.

Perhaps you should have linked the question to one of the multitude of constantly changing justifications for the invasion and occupation. How the imposition of our system by force on a society that doesn't want it should have been handled is completely different from how enforcement of a UN resolution (without the support or consent of the UN) should have been handled.

2006-11-26 17:09:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Since I am not part of the Intel briefs and don't have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of what is going on over there, I feel compelled and completely comfortable by the way, to leave it to our Senior Officers at the Pentagon. After all they have had the training for this, I haven't, and I suspect nobody else on here has been to the war college either.

2006-11-26 16:43:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Prepare for an insurgency. Use the Powell Doctrine and have an overwhelming amount of force to keep it bottled up. Enlist the rank and file of the Iraqi Army to keep order rather than disband them and create enemies.

2006-11-26 16:54:36 · answer #10 · answered by Yahoo Will Never Silence Me 6 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers