Most of our troops are killed and injured by stealthily placed roadside bombs. Up to now whatever strategies we've had for dealing with these IED's haven't been effective. How will "doubling down" on the troops in Iraq make any difference? Other than to give the insurgent's more targets? I would like a serious answer from anyone who might support the idea of a "surge".
2006-12-29 14:02:05 · 7 answers · asked by Mangy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I support now and supported more troops when I arrived in Iraq in Sept 2004. As you point out...the only effect ive method the insurgents have in killing our troops is the use of IEDs and VBIEDs. The increase in troops will initially expose more troops but only for a limited time. More troops (and if you aren't aware there are special IED ID units...enough said) will be available to target, track and destrory the bomb making capablities.
The more troops on the ground will allow the suppression of the insurgents by sheer number of men to keep the bad guys heads down while they are hunted down and killed...notice I didn't say captured.
And to Norman777...please explain to us and the US ARMY your ingenious plan for stopping IEDs overnight. And don't say pull out the troops because you apparently don't have the sense to have observed that fully 40% of IED and car bombs are set off against Iraqi civilians, police and soldiers. And as for your insulting comment regarding Generals sitting around in saftey drinking booze...
First the Commanding General (OIC-Iraq) implemented General Order #1 - no alchol in the thearter; period. And during my 18 months in Iraq I dealt with 1 star & 2 star generals from time to time...out in the field and we were all in full Kevlar and on occasion placed under attack my mortars. I also traveled on troop aircraft (C17, C130, C23) and they had no special protection and they weren't passing a bottle of vodka back and forth. So before you continue to make up your BS and insulting men who have dedicated over 25 years of their lives to serving our country why don't you spend some time in IRAQ or shut your F'ing mouth ***hole.
2006-12-29 14:26:17 · answer #1 · answered by iraq51 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A "surge" in troops in Iraq won't stop roadside bombs, but then again a "surge" isn't meant to. A troop surge could detur or halt open uprisings, or militant clashs between rival factions within Iraq itself. Much like the National Guard presence in riot stricken LA did following the Rodney King beating by the LAPD reduced the crime rate, gangs simply stayed home, rather then deal with the possibility of a shoot out with the national guard.
So a "surge" in troops in Baghdad meets other needs. Phrasing the question "Will a 'surge' stop road side bombs?" is misleading. A troop surge in New Orleans after Huricane Katrina didn't stop flooding, but it allowed for recovery of stranded individuals and a reduction in looting. Would that warrant such a troop "surge?" Most people would say yes.
2006-12-29 22:21:41 · answer #2 · answered by Shane H 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
20-30K more troops won't do enough to stabilize the country. Maybe if you went in with 500,000 troops maaayybe you could pull it off, but even then it is an iffy thing. With due respect to the military vets who answered, the military attitude is always "Can Do!" and is reluctant to admit that it can't accomplish a mission. The very thought is beat out of you from day one. For most situations this is the right thing, but while the generals might not have been drinking hootch they were guilty of either misreading the situation badly in Iraq, or if read correctly, of informing the civilian leadership of the measures that needed to be taken, or if they did inform then they are guilty of not filing formal public protests, at least until the retired with their nice fat pensions safe and sound.
2006-12-29 23:11:27 · answer #3 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The surge could possibly put more pressure on the bomb makers. More checkpoints to search for materials used in bomb making. If you come across a civilian with 8 RC toys in the trunk chances are they're not gifts. Maybe more patrols on heavily used MSR's and other routes, more EOD with Buffalo's and Meercat's. At any rate no major army in history has won a conflict against guerrilla fighters. And as for our TTP's without them our losses would be much higher. We knew going in we would be there for a long time. We fight and adjust fire as best we can and will continue to do so until the mission is complete. Whenever that may be.
PFC US Army
Ft. Polk, LA
2006-12-29 22:34:19 · answer #4 · answered by ya ya 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Honestly, I agree with you, buddy. It does just seem like it will give the insurgents more targets. No matter how skilled our soldiers are over there, there is no way to stop that many road side bombs or IEDs. Accidents still happen and we are losing way too many good men and women over there.
2006-12-29 22:19:26 · answer #5 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will never be stopped until we have good American leadership there.. The generals and all that crap are incapable and totally inexperienced and have no conception as to how to fight a war.. OH. how I wish I was in charge.. those roadside bombs would cease almost over night... I know how it is.. the generals are sitting in their club houses drinking booze and taking pride in the stars that they wear..
2006-12-29 22:05:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
A good point, and I hate the answer
2006-12-29 22:05:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋