Many believe we should have used more troops when we invaded Iraq. Are they right?

Question

The Russians lost in Afghanistan because they used huge numbers of troops who simply became more targets for a hit-and-run enemy who hid amongst civilians.
Rumsfeld wanted to use small numbers of specially trained forces to fight that same enemy, in order to hold down the number of casualties.
Maybe these second-guessers,and the rest of us, will find there is no known way to fifgt such a cowardly enemy.

KASEY C--I agree w/ most of what you say. However, hindsight gives you 20/20 we must admit.
It's becoming obvious that our biggest problem is gathering intelligence.

We were led to believe there were Iraqi rebels ready to take over as soon as Saddam was taken out.
The Shia and Kurds were already trying to take over. Did they have no idea what they intended to do if they succeeded?

Non Compa--You answer the question by ignoring it?
Why do you bother?---Bored?

OB10830---You're right, he had to choose which advice to follow.
Powell's ideas seemed to be obsolete.

Answer 1

Rumsfeld was advised by military leaders on the number of men to use. Yes, he wanted to keep the numbers down, and he also wanted to keep civilian numbers down. If the USA wanted to they could have blown Iraq off the map. But they didnt. Now its the Iraqis' killing thier own, and that isnt because we invaded Iraq, its because they have done it for years.

Answer 2

False. The problem in Iraq is as follows:

1) Not enough civil affairs people -- after the war the country needs rebuilding, not combat troops patrolling the streets. Civil affairs are the people who organizes such things, and there aren't enough of them, at least those that speaks Farsi. Special forces are already busy enough in Afghanistan going after Taliban and others.

2) No law enforcement other than MPs -- when all of the police went home to hide, the entire country became an anarchy. All the government buildings got looted. This makes restoring order that much harder. Combat troops are NOT law enforcement, and forcing them into law enforcement will NOT work, and we've seen the signs of breakdown, such as killing of a family as "insurgents", shooting "unarmed" people on camera, and so on.

3) No existing infrastructure / underground in Iraq that can take over once Saddam's government falls. In most countries, there is an "opposition party" or "shadow government" that can pick up if the regular government is gone. There's no such thing in Iraq. Saddam was too effective in crushing his opponents and separating the opponents so they can't unite against him. The administration had hoped for a "popular uprising". What they got was a low-level celebration, but at the highest level you end up with Sunni fighting the Shiites fighting the Kurds, nobody trusts each other, as Saddam has them fighting each other for so long they need time to unlearn the Saddam stuff and do it the democratic way. It took them this many years to get a National Parliament finally up and running.

4) No central majority in Iraq -- this is like an extension of (3). Iraq has Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. While Shiites are the majority, Sunnis are quite numerous in Sunni triangle, and Kurds are in the north and south. Iraq is NOT a homogenous state, and only the high-pressure governing of Saddam kept it in one piece, mainly by playing one part off another. Sunnis are minority but kept in power by oppressing the Shiites. Nobody likes the Kurds. So when it's time to talk, Sunnis are fearful of retaliations and fought everything the Shiites want. Shiites want their fair share since they got a nice majority, and Kurds are trying not to be ignored this time, as they are the ones who actually FOUGHT (and got killed) by Saddam.

5) No impartial power anywhere -- every body belongs to one of the factions Sunnis, Shiites, or Kurds, nobody can claim to be impartial... Except the Yanks. (The infiltrators don't count) Makes refereeing and law enforcement extremely difficult. Nobody recognizes the power of the "state" yet.

6) No secure border -- anybody in decent shape can sneak across the border of Iraq almost anywhere, with weapons and more.

More troops may help solve 6, but it won't help with the other 5.

EDIT: The brass REMF *should* have considered at least 3, 4, and 5. Their goal always has been to "oust Saddam Hussein". So to say they have no plans beyond that would be idiotic. While it would not be good to be seen setting up a puppet, US can at least ask all neighboring countries to form a advisory council to run on UN's behalf while Iraq rebuilds or something.

Answer 3

Not needed to invade, Saddam fell without a struggle, in no time. We needed more after the war, to stop the Syrians, Iranians, and al qaeda from coming into Iraq to do what they are now doing. Afghanistan is more Nomadic and Tribal than Syria and Iran are, which is why the Taliban is coming back in that country. Caves, their own people(civilians), hiding like the C.S.'s they are. And with all the money going to weaponry instead of their own people, their people are uneducated and can be brain-washed to strap on a body bomb and blow up innocent people. Iran and Syria are funding these policies, and possibly Saudi Arabia as well. Sunnies, Kurds, Shiites, etc. all fighting each other in the name of Allah !!??? And you are right, they are COWARDS.

Answer 4

no, america should not invade iraq, increasing the number is not a solution because what is going here in iraq is streets war not army against army

Answer 5

Yes they are right.

Rumsfeld was advised repeatedly that his 'plan' was going to fail from day one because of an inadequate number of troops. He down-played it and basically, threw that advice to the waste side.

Answer 6

This is a war baby..doesn't matter how they fight as long as somebody's a winner.....you american always talk about your dignity....Do you have one?....To much too makes you blind. you don't see what's really going on around the world today...Sexy in the city all day and 15min of objective journlist news makes you american blind. don't just buy it, when you hear it. Try to see it for yourself.

Answer 7

The more troops, the more casualities. They shouldn't be there in the first place.

Answer 8

a man defending his home is ten times more powerful than an invading force,,,,,yes we should have used more and been a bigger target, lost more brothers then maybe americans would wisen up faster that we should have never gone there....not for corporate greed anyway,,,,,,,,,

Answer 9

Too late.