if we are forced to have a war with should we even bother occupying it?

Question

I think if they keep on on direction they are having now it might be better to have a clausewitz type action and then just let it be and not let are selves get pulled into the actuall country with a neocon restructing program, what does any body else think.

Answer 1

The major problem we have in Iraq is our image worldwide.

If I was a little-sheet head (it's not a towel they wrap around their head) and if I thought Islam were the best thing since sliced limburger cheese, I'd view America with some amount of disdain.

After all, we are such an evil country, 1 out of every 32 people are in prison. 25% of the world's prison population is here in the US, but we only have 5% of the world's population.

Our government is so corrupt and irresponsible we have the largest national debt the world has ever known.

We totally ignore our own Constitution, and we want to set them up with one?

We live in a Constitutional Republic, but we're trying to make their country into a "democracy". What's with that?

With all our baggage, who the hell do we think we are telling them how to run their affairs?

Answer 2

The "purpose" of any war is to achieve a political result by the use of force. So the need for occupation depends on the political result desired. If you are going to attempt (as we foolishly did in Iraq) to change the entire governing style of a country you are going to have to go to long term occupation. If you are trying to prevent a country from doing something (like building a reactor) an air strike (such as the Israelis used) will do the job.
The United States has a huge problem by repeatedly getting involved in conflicts without a clearly stated purpose. The first gulf war and WWII were examples of wars fought and won with a clear goal stated and achieved. I have yet to hear a real goal defined for Iraq or Afghanistan.

Answer 3

Bush is a fool.
Fools should never be followed.
only fools follow a fool.