trouble fighting & beating insurgencies? I mean they've got a decades worth of material from the Vietnam war. Shouldn't insurgencies be a US military speciality?
2007-01-26 04:03:01 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It's not that the military can't defeat insurgencies; the problem is that our troops and resources are stretched too thin.
2007-01-26 04:10:29 · answer #1 · answered by Nicole M 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Times were greatly different then. It was the time of "free love" "tune-in" and "drop out" and the drug culture coming into vogue. Experimentation with drugs especially marijuana become wide scale with over half the civilian population trying it at some point. You also have to remember that not all that much was known about it and how it led to harder drugs and there was a huge counter culture rising up for the first time against established social aspects, legal and law enforcement parts of society as well as the military. Testing was not widespread and counter drug approaches were not developed yet and in place to keep pace with this overwhelming swell. It was also thought that soft drug users could be rehabilitated an the military developed the drug retraining program which largely failed and was discontinued in 1973. Also the need for the draft and sufficient numbers of US males for the Army really also helped create an atmosphere where you were retained and kept in the military even though you might have been busted for using soft drugs like marijuana. The zero tolerance policy that is in place now was not adopted by the US military until the mid to late 80's and well after the end of Vietnam.
2016-05-24 02:04:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you aware that at one point the military could not fire on anyone that was not firing at them? Its tough to win a war when the government puts the same restrictions on the military that they do on police officers. Vietnam was won in the field and lost her at home. The Gulf was won already, and is being lost because of people being fooled most of the time by the Liberals and their mainstream news organizations. When is the last time you have heard anything the soldiers have done in Iraq or Afganistan come out anywhere but page 5 of the society page. People better grow up and come up with answers instead of pointing out all the problems. Guys died and were wounded because there was no support for them back home. Thank the Lord WWII was not like that or we would either be goose stepping to work or bowing hello to each other.
2007-01-26 04:32:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Vietnam was different, so don't compare them. Have you ever tried playing a game of hide and seek before? It isn't easy, especially when their are IEDs, everywhere.
They hide and plant road side bombs, everywhere. They're cowards. Suicide bombers aren't brave, if you lived in a horrible country and their was a war going on and some guy offered you maybe 100,000$ USD for your family, to be a suicide bomber. I'm sure you would do it.
I'm assuming one of the big factors in Iraq right now is civilian casualties. If their weren't any civilians in Iraq, then this war could be over with it. Or more of the insurgents would be dead.
2007-01-26 04:11:33 · answer #4 · answered by D.O... 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The problem lies in three little words that pose problems to the military in these types of situations...
Rules of Engagement
The problem is that their 'enemy' has no such rules....our military needs to follow those rules before they can declare someone an 'enemy'.
Even after Vietnam, people looked at the military for killing so-called innocents. But the military knew exactly what was happening with those so-called innocents.
Kinda hard to make everyone at home understand that some woman in a foreign country is strapped to the teeth with bombs so they shot her!
Media loves to only show her as an innocent bystander. But ignore the fact that she was a walking bomb!
2007-01-26 07:24:00 · answer #5 · answered by Nibbles 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US never beat the Insurgencies in Vietnam, they pulled out of Vietnam without a win... So I don't think that they learned to much on how to fight & beat insurgencies...
2007-01-26 04:18:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Very good question.
Read, "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife".
It's mandatory reading for officers in the 1st Cavalry Division.
We didn't learn how until after the war and haven't fought an insurgency since.
2007-01-26 04:10:51 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So who do we shoot?...that is always the question.
And that is what our troops are stuck with.
I suppose we could find the militia that would cooperate, pay them big money, and assign them the task of killing whoever we needed elimated. That is one way to handle it.
Comparison with Vietnam kinda off track.
The opposition was ARVN and VC.
We were not stuck between numerous hostile factions.
2007-01-26 04:23:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Every war is different. We fought Vietnam in the jungle. Now we're fighting in Iraq in the desert. The people and beliefs are also different. You can't learn everything until you are thrown into the situation. HOWEVER, contrary to what Cheney said, we should NOT have expected them to welcome us in with open arms.
2007-01-26 04:14:00 · answer #9 · answered by nyanks27 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You ever try to win a fight with one hand tied behind your back, turn the military loose and see what would happen then. You would have all of the Libs standing on their soap boxes crying how cruel we are, and that they are all war time criminals
2007-01-26 04:12:34 · answer #10 · answered by ULTRA150 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋