Should we pull troops back and increase air attacks as way of controlling violence?

Answer 1

Bombing for peace is like fuc_ing for virginity!

Answer 2

There are parts of Iraq that aren't so bad; the Iraqi gov't/military/citizens needs to relocate away from the violent areas and then 'dig in' and fight from more 'solid ground'. This concedes the interim loss of a city or two (Bahgdad included), but I believe trying the establish Law & Order in Bahgdad is absolutley hopeless--we will be at war FAR longer than nearly everyone predicts--that's always proven to be true in cases like this.

This isn't retreat--it's tactics. In war you should hit where soft and take what the opposition 'gives you'. This allows easier victories and, in this case, greater physical separation between who's for us and who's against us. Greater separation will increase prudent opportunity for our air attacks and reduce our troops' casualties. Air attacks will also soften the opposition and allow for a greater exansion of easy victories. This can be repeated until you gain total victory.

My other option is to pull out--save our precious lives and hard-earned money and forget about their crappy lives that have gone on for centuries without us anyway. This war has cost a lot of money---money that goes to contractors (largely a company owned by the Vice-President). The war turbulance has increased the cost of a barrel of oil, but the American oil refineries still maintain their profit percentages---resulting in record profits. This war has greatly greatly benefitted certain contractors and the US oil industry--George W. & Dick C. say keep going!! I hope nobody wonders why.

Answer 3

Wow--an Air Force question that I'm not qualified to answer...but have an opinion! How tempting.

As a strong believer in Airpower (gee, I wonder why), my kneejerk reaction is, Heck Yes <>! BUT:

The situation "over there" is so urban and close-quartered that even with today's precision-guided (GPS, etc) weaponry, the best imagery, great intelligence, etc., we're still in the business of going "house to house" or "business to business" hunting some of the badguys and their toys.

Our warplanners and commanders in theater are using Airpower when it is the right tool for the right job--they're doing it now. They are also using ground forces where necessary to get "down in the weeds" and ferret out those pockets of resistance and supplies that prolong this conflict.

In short, should we "pull back" the troops in order to use Airpower instead? Probably not. We should continue using Airpower where it is appropriate and effective and ground forces where they are necessary.

Answer 4

The only realistic way of controlling violence in Iraq is to just bring the troops home and let the Shitties and the Sunnies duke it out themselves!

Al Queda left Iraq months ago and the US hasn't realized it yet!

We should not be involved in Iraqs secularized war!

Answer 5

Air ops, whether it's mission or mission support is used for a high threat. If it's one threat with a high casualty producing weapon, or a lot of threats with small arms, OK. But to pick off each little threat, it has to be done with ground troops. You won't use a smart bomb to take out 1 or 2 insurgents firing at you with AKs in downtown Baghdad. You use a squad of soldiers being that it is quick, cheap, and effective, and if everyone does their job, nobody gets hurt...except maybe the insurgents, but that's their call.

Answer 6

In case you haven't noticed, even with smart bombs, air attacks are no where near the precision of ground troops. You would have a big increase of innocent victims and not too good of effectiveness.

Answer 7

That could be very messy, unless you had extremely reliable and accurate intelligence, you would have an unacceptably high civilian death rate, you would basically be stepping back in time to the Vietnam era and carrying out carpet bombing, but whereas in Vietnam the enemy was in the jungle, this time the enemy is in the populace.

Answer 8

yes we should level the whole country with the air force then move the ground troops in to clean up the survivors just to show everyone that we mean business

Answer 9

Why would you do that?

We are to the point where we need to get up close and personal with the enemy. bombing would only kill more civilians and our enemy is doing a good job of that, already.

No. Bombing is not the answer. Putting soldiers on the streets of Baghdad to quell the violence is the answer and replacing them, slowly, with Iraqi Army is the answer.

Answer 10

Not sure where SANDY got his info....maybe he ought to talk to the Carthaginians about Rome.....or the peoples in Central russia that were exterminated by the Mongols......or how about asking the American Indians....or how about Spain and the Aztec Empire......as far as the Nazis...if the US does not intervene then they are probably still ruling Europe...Get real.....

Maybe a little more study.......

Answer 11

Maybe just pull the troops back.