English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Fighting insurgencies requires doing what the Turks did... with only a squadron or two they controlled mass populations as Occupiers (which is what the US is in Iraq now). They got the "local notables" and told them look, if you don't get your people YOUR PEOPLE to get off thier asses and find the insurgents who they are hiding and lying to us about then hey there will be escalating punishments all the way up to mass executions, sorry deal with it. And guess what? They got results, and didn't waste good trained valuable soldiers.

INSTEAD we are doing Vietnam Part 2 and letting this insurgency ruin our moral in Irag and walk all over us again, Gutless politicians, brave troops (with thier hands tied). It is pathetic.

You fight wars to win, not maintain corporate rule. Americans should know this it is how WE won over the British.

Maybe Bush doesn't want us to win in Iraq? Pelosi? c'mon people...

Win or send em all home and let it be as Vietnam was, peace with dignity.

2007-01-25 13:44:59 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

but um... dude, everyone knows Al Maliki is our puppet... c'mon, wake up.

2007-01-28 11:18:44 · update #1

3 answers

We could fight more effectively if the media was not up our asses. Every move we make and every "mistake" we make is scrutinized all over the world because of the news media. Don't get me wrong, i like the fact that civilians can see just how crappy it is over there, but if a civilian building is destroyed by accident, or a civilian is killed, its like we are running around doing it on purpose. If we could fight, and fight as we are capable, we would be far more effective in putting down the insurgents.

2007-01-26 00:15:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We can't do it like the Turks did because the Ottoman Empire planned on staying as occupiers, and we want them to be independent allies. Have you spent much time thinking what it must be like to be al Maliki? He's had a difficult position, and it's only been in the past couple of weeks that he's felt he could afford to take our advice, and we're treating him as a leader of an independent country we're trying to help. To do as you suggest would announce to the world that he's just our puppet, which would not only be counter-productive, it would repudiate our stated aims. People seem to forget he's been in office less than a year, and he has to keep his Shiite brethren happy while not giving the Sunnis the impression they're being cut out. I continue to be amazed at how impatient Americans can be. We have a very complicated situation over there, and I don't see how we can expect a simple, fast solution.

2007-01-26 04:02:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The Troops have to follow orders from the Commanders and the Commanders have to follow orders from the whoever? Nothing is ever easy and in a case, such as this, different stradegies have to be tried; since we're not dealing with NORMAL people here.

2007-01-26 00:30:09 · answer #3 · answered by Nancy D 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers