Especially consider the fact of hindsight when our Generals and Historical advisors can look back at all the similar conflicts in history. We still can't get it right, so is it because we are too soft or is too much bureacracy?
Peace,
2007-01-10 15:29:19 · 29 answers · asked by George 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
From personal experience in Iraq, I believe our military faces too much bureaucracy to accomplish our ever-changing strategies. From the Korean War to present day, our military has been ordered to act more as occupying police as opposed to just conquering an enemy. Does anyone really think that a third-world country would stand a chance against the U.S. military otherwise?! I don't want to sound bias, but we have the greatest military force the world has ever seen. The problem is that politicians tell us how and when we can fight anymore. They dictate our rules of engagement and tell us we have to fight according to rules that none of our enemies have to abide by.
2007-01-10 15:58:52 · answer #1 · answered by curtis_wade_11 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well Bill, I'm glad you asked. I've been in the Marine Corps for over two years and I'll tell you first hand this war isn't going as it should and it damn sure ain't America's fault. Iraqis have known nothing but reliance since Saddam came to power and probably before he came to power. What Americans are trying to show Iraqis is self-reliance through security and politics and you can bet it's gonna take time but it's eventually going to happen as long as we stay there till it's done. The question is how many us is this country is willing to sacrifice to have a conerstone of democracy in the Middle East. Thats really not up to me whether I like it or not and I try not to let it effect my job and performance, hell all of us are entitled to an opinion. And no I'm not just talking out of my ***, I've been to the Middle East and I've had Shi'ite Muslims tell me themselves what they think is going on. But if your question is why are we losing with all this technology. Where do you know where to apply all these bombs and guidence devices when they sit there hiding within a peaceful and somewhat supportive population. That's why the conventional war back in 03 was so quick. At least we knew what needed to die. Right now were fighting an army of two faced bastards.
2007-01-10 15:47:31 · answer #2 · answered by Patrick W 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The Germans produced the first operational twin jet fighter plane which really pronounced strive against, the ME-262. additionally they produced and placed into the strive against the purely rocket powered plane in historic past to be certain strive against action, the ME-163B. to boot, the armour produced with information from the Germans, the Panther and Tiger to boot to the upgraded variations, continues to be different ideal armour ever produced. The V-a million and V-2 rockets worked all precise, were produced in tremendous numbers and were the purely tremendous scale rockets used with information from any u . s . a . in the course of the warfare. to boot, their gadget guns had recommendations-blowing charges of hearth and that they had already more suitable rifles that could want to shoot round corners with a curved barrel, something nonetheless attempting to be perfected to on the present time. with regards to technological advances, the Germans were nicely earlier than numerous the different international places in touch contained in the warfare.
2016-12-02 02:53:07 · answer #3 · answered by lesure 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
George W. Bush and the people around him had a fundamental lack of knowledge of the Sunni and Shiite people as evidenced by many recent reports (esp. where intelligence officers are asked the difference or those in power were asked which one Al Qaeda are, etc. This ignorance, combined with an intense will to topple Hussein, to build the budgets of defense contractors and corporations, and the belief that this is a holy religious war, made ample opportunity for the president and the people around him to be both nearsighted and blindsided. At this point, this is about the lack of political and intellectual courage of administration leaders, including the president, who are unable and unwilling to say they were wrong, they lied, and they are devastated by the affects their actions have had.
I pray for the soldiers who must follow the lead of a confederacy of dunces. They deserve better and America's military families deserve to have the lives of their loved ones treated with more dignity and respect.
In closing, this is not a winnable war. There is no winner and there is no chance to prevail. They should have seen this going in.
2007-01-10 15:38:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Because this is not the type of war we know how to fight, Just like in ,Nam we can not tell for certain who is Friend and who is Foe. Seem we have learned nothing from .Nam at all We are repeating the same mistakes we did there . The best thing We could do is get the hell out of Iraq where we never should have been in the 1st place( our fight was in Afghanistan against Bin-Laden and his followers) and let the Iraqis fight it out amongst themselves
2007-01-10 15:46:08 · answer #5 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The only way we could succeed is if we were ruthless and set up a puppet government...by using half measures we cannot win....But because it was an elective war and our survival was not at stake in Iraq, we could not justify being ruthless...Bush wanted to be ruthless and caught a lot of flak for it...no matter how much he says to stay the course, most of us know it isn't for survival...this isn't WW1, 2 or 3.
2007-01-10 15:40:54 · answer #6 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because no planning went into it! Even today it is still chaos!
It seems that no matter how powerful one is you can not just bomb the hell out of a country killing civilians and all and expect to win. Can you imagine how the people of USA would fight till their last breath if someone more powerful just started bombing and killing us and putting thousands of troops on our soil. History has proved time and time again that mass killings of less powerful does not end up in a win. Example : Holocaust!
2007-01-10 15:43:31 · answer #7 · answered by rose 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is almost impossible to win and maintain a victory over a native peoples in their own country.
Throughout this war we have failed to make any diplomatic overtures to those who oppose our presence. For any kind of lasting peace we have to talk to and get talking all sides in this war, no matter how much we might dislike the other guys.
2007-01-10 15:35:30 · answer #8 · answered by San Diego Art Nut 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
because we don't have the technology to change people minds or their preconcieved ideology. This is the main point that Bush doesn't understand. It took many and many years to make a Middle East that hates America and a highly advanced missile isn't going to change that ideology in a day. And continuously sticking a gun in someones face doesn't make them like you any faster. We may have good intentions, which we probably don't, but a gun to your head doesn't really tell someone that you mean well
2007-01-10 15:37:25 · answer #9 · answered by cthomp99 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Short answer: It's an away game. There's not enough soldiers or policemen in the world to keep order if the population isn't interested in keeping order. The idiots who got us into Iraq (Mr. Cheney primary among them) didn't learn the lesson of Vietnam, and now we've lost more in Iraq than we lost in NYC. Tragedy. Bush should go on trial for his war crimes.
2007-01-10 15:33:17 · answer #10 · answered by blue_diamond_49 1 · 7⤊ 1⤋