Can the US military step up attacks against Iraq insurgents without putting civilian lives in danger?

Question

If fear of killing civilians tying our hands more than anything else and what would be the solution? I'm hoping to get some answers from people that have been in Iraq. I'm not military and I would really like to understand the situation over there.

Answer 1

I would agree that in Iraq and Afghanistan there is no way to prevent civilians from being in danger while stepping up attacks on the enemy. The enemy loves to hide amongst the people, for nourishment and protection. However, there is a way to minimize damage to civilian property and minimize civilian deaths… on our part at least. The US military has been using too much firepower; got an insurgent holed up in a house? Use arty or close air support to blow it up! Yeah, except that there are women and children inside. There are a few other options; but it involves more risk on our servicemen’s part. That is to either siege the place or to engage the enemy in close quarters combat. But by doing so, we can prevent civilian casualties and damage to property. Basically, kind of what SWAT does when there’s a hostage situation.

Right after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was successful the strategy should have been to create Combined Action Platoons or the ink blot strategy. Basically the same thing that the Marines and Special Forces did in Vietnam; live with the people… and I mean in the town, training local forces, and protecting the locals. Pacification can only work when the troops are always there, denying the enemy passage and shelter. This would require substantial amount of troops, but in Vietnam, the CAPs were only of a reinforced squad of Marines who did not need heavy firepower and were masters of infantry tactics to fight the enemy man to man, and kick their ***. These CAPs were able to protect a large area from the VC and make friends with the populace. They worked with the people to try to better the people’s lives and even to this day, the Vietnamese in those villages who were protected by the CAPs still honor the Marines today. That would have been a much better path to go than the conventional cordon and search, raids, and sweeps.

Answer 2

The remedy to mines and explosive ambushes doesn't lie with defending against them, per se. When the North Vietnamese were supplied new shoulder-launched guided missiles to use against American helicopters, the Americans didn't respond by welding armor plates to them - instead, they developed new strategies and tactics that involved decoys, escorts, jammers and cover that would make launching such missiles suicidal. To relate it to today, some vehicles are mine resistant, but a big enough bomb will do the trick. Even the famed Abrams tank has been knocked out from time to time. Perhaps different alternatives are in order. How about more dependence on air supply? Patrols using drones rather than Humvees? Research into more efficient off-road transport vehicles that can take random routes through the sand? Mine resistant vehicles are all well and good, but in a future conventional war (the kind the military was built and trained for) they'd just be impractical.

Answer 3

Hi,

If the (Decider) bush, continues to call the shots in Iraq, what is keeping our hands tied is bush not allowing the military tacticians to do their jobs.

Bush's illegal war in Iraq is now a total and complete disaster in a country that is on the edge of civil war. Many have said they were better off under Saddam, at least then they had a country that was not in total ruin with civilian deaths in the hundred thousand range.

The study results now being released, showing bush tactics to be a total failure, are being ignored by bush.

How does the saying go, . . .a wise man changes his mind based on facts and changing conditions, . . . .but a fool does not have a mind to change.

Darryl S.

Answer 4

No we cannot. And, with each passing day Iraqi civilians become insurgents. Most now say that life was better and more secure under Saddam than US control, that it is OK to attack and kill US soldiers, and want us out of their country.

I was only in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, but I assure you that these people (and this goes for the Iranians as well) have already suffered through far worse than anything we can do to them. To them, shock'n'awe was just a sleep'n'yawn.

Answer 5

Unfortunately, the insurgents and the civilians are often one of the same.
It is highly unlikely that we could step up any military action agaist the insurgents without incurring civilian casualties.

Answer 6

"War is cruelty, and there's no way to refine it."
Our troops' training and doctrine is unprecedented in history in terms of limiting non-combatant casualties, and they're learning and adjusting all the time. Compare Arthur McArthur's troops in the Phillipines or Smedley Butler's marines in Haiti for historical perspective.

Answer 7

No. Thats why people are dying....