Let´s say you were Lt. Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, how would you win the war?

Question

Rules for answering the question:
1. Serious answers only please.
2. You can not ask for more troops.
3. You can not withdraw the troops from Iraq.
4. You have a free hand on the political front (meaning... you can go after anybody in Iraq)

Answer 1

There are 18 providences, 5 of which are hostile (they are all or part of the Sunni triangle). I would put a colonel in each providence and one in Bagdad. Since I hate the general numbers, I'll start from scratch. For the 13 providences that are peaceful, I would have given them 4,000 troops. 1,000 would be to recruit and train for each providence 10,000 soldiers and 1 police officer for every 30 civilians in the providence. 2,000 would be to patrol the area. 1,000 would be guard infrastructure stuff that exists and is coming online.

That leaves me with 108,000 (It's been reduced to 135,000 total, but since I'm starting from scratch which was 160,000 at one point) to put in the 5 hostile providences. So now I would put 15,000 in each hostile providence and 33,000 in Baghdad. Their mission would be strictly patrol and guarding infrastructure.

The British would have gone from controling a providence to running supplies to all the troops and performing medical on the troops. We would never have needed the national guard in Iraq. The job of our other allies would be to train and equipt 20,000 soldiers in each of those providence, 20,000 soldiers in Baghdad and 20,000 in reserve. They would also be training one police officer per every 30 people. The basic training (3 months) would be done in northern Iraq where it's much safer and they wouldn't have all got shot up in the begining. Once trained, they would be mixed with U.S. troops and put on the hold part of clear and hold. Then they would be trained to keep holding the area.

In two years time, 252,000 Iraqi troops and about 900,000 police officers would have been trained, equipt and holding Iraqi territory. Three years after Bagdad was taken, the U.S. and its allies could leave.

Right now 3 of the providence were handed over to Iraq's government already and I think all of our allies are leaving this year. So now with 135,000 troops, I would put 4,000 U.S. troops in each of the 10 remaining peaceful providences. I would move all the Iraqi soldiers and put them in Bagdad. That leaves me with 17,000 soldiers per hostile providence. I would use 10,000 troops for medical and logistic support. I would need to train 65,000 more troops and 765,000 more police. This can be done in 9 months (3 months per training) with help by our allies (that will be training just the soldiers and first two batches of police) before they leave (which would take 9,222 instructors and 9,222 linguists).

In April, the first batch would be online and I would be placing the first batch for training in the peaceful areas first. Then I would be taking 2,000 Iraq soldiers from Bagdad to each peaceful provience with 8,000 greens for training while 2,000 U.S. forces train the police forces. I would take the 2,000 from those peaceful providences and put them in the five hostile providences, boosting the number to 19,000 troops per providence. Around April there would be a massive clear and hold in the smaller towns of the hostile providences using the new police recruits trained from our allies to fill the gap there. In August the next batch of mostly police come online. I would do a clear and hold of the major cities in the hostile areas and place the new recuits in those cities. In January 2008, the Iraqi soldiers would do a clear while the new police do the hold. In March of 2008 the 10 peaceful providences would be handed over to the Iraqi government, in June 2008 the former hostile providences would be handed over to Iraq. By October 2008, the U.S. forces would be out of Iraq and in Afganistan.

Answer 2

I would definitely do all I could to avoid unneccessary killing of innocents. When the US Army kills innocents by accident, the families of the victims often turn against the US and join the terror camp. That's the last thing we need. I would give AL-Maliki and Iraqi Army generals an ultimatum saying that their military and police force should handle the security by July, or else we will leave. We might want to try keeping security in all of the relatively peaceful provinces and forcing the Iraqi units to take care of places like Baghdad and Sadr City alone (with limited American help in terms of strategy, not soldiers). If they prove that they are unable to step up to the plate, and take responsibility, then we have the right to leave. The government has the resources to carry out operations in deadly areas alone. If they show promise in Baghdad, then we can move from the peaceful provinces and hold ground for the Iraqi units, places they have been through and swept the militants out of. We give them incentive through conditional support, but also help them if they have the stomach for the battle. After all, we cannot take care of their security forever. Unless the Iraqi government alone makes Iraq secure and stable, the people will never respect the government and will be less confident about their democratically-elected Parliament. Americans should focus much more on the Al-Qaeda terrorists in Al-Anbar province; after all they were the ones who attacked us, not the other Sunnis and Shiites.

Answer 3

I'd train the Iraqi army properly and station troops and police in the pacified areas so they stay pacified. Then, I'd win over the public. If the public supports the government, the insurgency has no foothold to exploit and no place to hide. I'd win over the public by building infrastructure. Hospitals, Mosques, Schools, Fresh water, Basic utilities, repair the roads, etc. Providing security is the single most important thing that needs to be accomplished. If people fear for their lives from insurgents, then they'll not support you. Next, the sectarian violence MUST end. If they can't get along with each other, then democracy has no chance of survival. If I have to jail or execute every leader of both sides (Sunni and Shia) then, so be it. If it is worth your life to start a religious fight, then maybe they'll think twice about it. I know what you're thinking, they strap bombs to themselves and blow other people up, so death threats won't bother them. The leadership doesn't strap bombs to themselves. They're smarter than that. They know that once you're dead, you can't influence anything anymore. Once those things are accomplished, I believe they'll be well on the way to succeeding.

Answer 4

You just tied my hands. If we are to win in Iraq, it would take far more than 22,000 troops. You would need hundreds of thousands. That's what Gen. Shinseki said before the war started, and the administration forced him to retire because of it. You would also need to have adopted the Powell Doctrine of full overwhelming force instead of trying to do it on the cheap the way Rumsfeld did.

Your rules are basically the same as the reality of Iraq now, and that's why we aren't going to win.

Limited war for limted objectives doesn't work. Either get in it totally or stay out.

Answer 5

Your parameters are to strict...so I fudged on some of them...but this is what I think should be done. There are no right answers and this war will never truly be won in the traditional sense...and a civil war b/w the Sunni and Shia will be fought.

I think what we should do, is pull out the majority of our forces, but maintain a strong special forces/intelligence op, working in conjuction with the new Iraqi government to monitor Al-Qaeda activities (which was supposedly what we were there for). Also we should establish lines of communications with the head clerics of the Sunni and Shia and try to establish what they require in order maintain peace, we should resist the urge to patronize them, b/c they have more power than almost anyone in Iraq. We should then work to strengthen our borders which are so porous it makes our stance on "protecting the homeland" laughable. There are no easy answers...and I can almost guarantee that no matter what happens...it won't be the right thing because there is no right thing to do.

Answer 6

Our forces are spread out thin in Iraq. To be able to be more successful, portions of Iraq would have to lose some of their 'protection'. Mass the majority of the forces in Bahgdad and do the section by section sweeps of the areas to clean out any and all insurgents with the Iraqi military. Once a higher level of security is maintained in Bahgdad's capitol and once the Iraqi military have proven they can keep up the security as needed, then the majority of the forces section off to other cities and continue their sweeps of Suuni/Shiite insurgents. Before you can have a good offensive attack, you need a sound and defendable base. This is just utilizing sound military tactics.

Hope this helps.

Answer 7

Start at one end of Baghdad and capture and control one section. Get basic services up and running in that area, restore calm and a sense of security before moving on. This way the residents will be less likely to support the rebels. Do this area by area and it will get easier each time as each area will want to be like the ones you liberated. If your getting attacked by a group hiding in a Mosque, give them one hour to leave, then if they do not, level it. Yes, there will be outcry, but no Imam will allow other groups to take refuse in their Mosque. As of now, there is no reason to support our troops if your an Iraqi. Yes, they beat back the rebels, but they leave a mess behind, hunger, no services, and a power vacuum to be filled. Until this issue is resolved, all the men in the world will not make a difference, cause once you leave the problems will start over again.

Answer 8

I'll give Bush my resignation. The war is already lost from the start. It's just Vietnam all over again. It's only that Bush doesn't have the stomach to admit defeat, and wouldn't pull-out without losing some face. Remember, the events that are unfolding now will go into the history books. It's unpleasant for him to see the war resulting in disgrace. So, he'll do everything no matter how many more thousands of lives and billions of dollars it will cost. The word "defeat" must not appear in the history books.

Answer 9

The way they got Pablo Escobar was to start killing the people who supported him. They went up the ladder until, out of fear, people turned on him. At the end his support was gone, and he was running scared. Was it ethical? No. But this is a war, and all is fair. Sometimes you have to become a monster to kill a monster. So what we need to do is immediately execute anyone supporting the Al Queida. It's better to shoot them than to have them kill dozens of people with a suicide bomb. Get nasty. If they retaliate, we get nastier still. By being aggressive, we will put them on the defensive. To simply defend the new government won't help anything because once we're gone it's over. It's not the number of soldiers fighting this war that matters, it's our mentality towards this war. These people are every bit as cold and ruthless as the Nazis during WWII, and it's time that we starting treating them that way.

Answer 10

No, i'm getting extra disgusted the added I watch it. i'm effective the final is a honorable guy and a unprecedented military guy, yet Iraq isn't a valid conflict. This conflict has been 5 years of B.S.. This conflict isn't "winnable" from a US standpoint. we received't settle on the Sunni and Shia ethnic and cultural transformations. we are sacrificing the lives of yankee squaddies for what? you may %. from a minimum of a 1/2 dozen lies fed to the yankee human beings by technique of the Bush administration attempting to justify this conflict. no longer to point that this conflict is without delay bankrupting our economy, which by technique of ways, is between the governmentgoals of Al Qaeda, who would no longer also be energetic in Iraq. We all started by technique of battling Saddam's Baath party military contained in the starting up, and for the merely correct various years, annoyed Shi'ites because we area with and placed into ability their longtime enemy, the Sunni's. we want to get the hell out of Iraq, now.