i mean they are not fighting a real army with airforces and rokets and carriers and stuff-----they are just fighting some guys wearing sandales and some aks 47 since wolrd warII ----and they can not win in Afganistan or Iraq ??---maybe they do not wana win to stay there as long as possible
2007-01-30 15:54:42 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
law200 ---how u guys could run it better ??
2007-01-30 16:11:01 · update #1
they wana stay-----for oil and israel
2007-01-30 16:01:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Well first, we won in Afghanistan. Our objective was clear and we got it done.
Iraq is trickier, to say the least. You mention that we are not fighting an organized military and thus imply this should allow us to win easily. Actually, the fact that our enemy is not organized in a traditional military style is precisely the problem. It was the problem in Vietnam, too. It makes it more difficult to determine who the enemy is and where they are. It also makes it easier for them to hide amongst the civilians. Another issue you did not mention is that they blow things up indiscriminately. They don't come out and attack us because they know they would lose, so they attack things that are not very protected.
I can promise you that no one wants to stay there as long as possible. The reasons and requirements may be different, but everyone would prefer to leave Iraq as soon as possible.
2007-01-31 00:20:04 · answer #2 · answered by TCSO 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'll tell you exactly why we are not winning in Iraq and Afghanistan... it's because spineless politicians in Washington think they know the tactical situation better than our commanders and troops who are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of letting us (the military) run the war, they are using it for their own political agendas and we are dying. We need to set our own rules of engagement for each situation, instead of some stupid senator sitting in the comfort of his own home. We also need to ignore the defeatists in congress and push on with our missions without their negative input. I have been in the US Marine Corps for 17 years and this is the most screwed up conflict I have ever seen and it's due to all the political correctness being shoved at us. We are paid a salary to be fighting men and women, it's time that congress backed off and let us do our jobs so we can come home alive.
2007-01-31 00:04:38 · answer #3 · answered by dr_law2003 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Who says we haven't won? Where in Afghanistan is Mullah Omar? Where is Saddam? In one very important sense, we have won. On the other hand, those we are now fighting are stateless guerillas. How on earth are we supposed to negotiate a peace with them? Who is the al-Quada foreign minister that we can negotiate with? They are an enemy that blends in with the local population. If we wished, we could wipe them out and take all of the innocents with them. Suppose there are 15 al-Quada in a town of 10,000. An Apachee helicopter could erase it from the map in a matter of minutes but we would prefer to minimize civilian damage.
2007-01-31 01:27:41 · answer #4 · answered by Jesus Jones 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well I don't think I can add much more than many of the other people have with the exception of an observation.
Where do you get six years? It has been four years. I kind of kept count since I was over there for 2 of those years and plan to return.
2007-01-31 01:36:14 · answer #5 · answered by iraq51 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How long did it take us to win World War II? Oh yeah, we're still in Germany.
Kosovo? NATO is still there.
Bosnia? Yep, NATO is still there as well.
Plus maybe if someone put "Hi, I am a Terrorist" on all the terrorists our troops would be able to know who they are, which might speed up the process.
Oh and kudos for you, dr_law2003.
And if troops did run the show over there they can decide what troop strength they need, decide what equipment they need, set policies on retention of personal, training, and they are more worried about the objective and not worried about being reelected.
2007-01-31 00:11:18 · answer #6 · answered by Zabe 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
This is a very easy question to answer. The answer is because we are a bunch of wimps. In order to win against terrorism it requires an iron fist, we are much more interested in being seen as "compassionate". Ask yourself why Saddam was able to keep Iraq together...force and fear! The fundamentalist Arab world sees us as Bin Laden said a "paper tiger". We send an additional 20,000 troops instead of sending an addition 100,000 so that we don't look like we want to be occupiers. We have no backbone, the liberals in the news and congress have castrated us. Even the Republicans act as they have no interest in really winning because they fear the media calling them war mongers and uncompassionate. What message does it send the insurgents when we talk about pulling troops out with our tails between our legs. What message would the Nazi's have received if we talked like this during world war II. We are better at playing video games on our 50" flat screen televisions than dealing with reality. We are soft. The answer is simple...we need to grow a pair!
2007-01-31 00:34:55 · answer #7 · answered by blissdds 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Actually it only took 9 days to topple the government of Iraq. Lets face it, Muslims can't do a "stand up fight" as they don't have the courage.
We have been involved in a police action, look up the definitions and you'll see the difference. A country goes to war against a government, we're trying to protect the people of Iraq against their neighbors.
PS; if you use your spell checker only your mechanics and syntax will su*k.
2007-01-31 00:03:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
1 billion Moslems
2007-01-31 00:08:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
That's true. You can't win a "War on Terror" because they're will always be terrorists and you can label anyone a terrorist you desire. It's a sham.
2007-01-31 00:01:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋