Better defined as being able to pacify the country in short order.
2007-02-19 14:43:11 · 11 answers · asked by Ejsenstejn 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
the roman army
2007-02-19 14:51:48 · answer #1 · answered by olampyone 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not possible to pacify a population without understanding the context of the cultural forces at work! In the case of modern day Iraq, it's not possible to find peace while so many dissident groups in the region are seething against the presence of an invading army. I wish it to be otherwise; but, do not believe it will happen. Assuming pacification requires force of arms, I believe will we fuel the resistance for years to come. What then is the goal? Eventual annihilation of dissenting groups in order to reach pacification. It will get larger before we see the end.
2007-02-19 23:02:05 · answer #2 · answered by Point36 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Salvation Army.
2007-02-19 23:09:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sadams Republican Guard. Their the ones who kept all those factions apart to begin with. But unfortunately DUBBYA was too stupid to realize this. The Brits drew the map of the middle east without any thought of tribal, religious, are ethnicety. Thats why there is so much oppression of the people over there. It takes a strong man like Sadam are a repressive gov. like Saudi Arabia to keep the peace.
2007-02-19 23:01:52 · answer #4 · answered by c321arty 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Handling civil disorder is not a military function, it is a police function. Armies are taught to kill and destroy, police to pacify and control. An machine gun is an army tool for handling a crowd of opponents, a water canon is a police tool for the same job.
2007-02-19 22:52:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The US Army and political leaders in 1945.
2007-02-19 22:51:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam's Republican Guards. Iraq was relatively peaceful and prosperous. Too bad for some Kurdish or Shiite factions though. They should not have gone againsts Saddam in the first place.
2007-02-19 23:42:04 · answer #7 · answered by Speedjak 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Genghis Khan. With his compassion and tolerance for arguing, he would be a better peace maker and keeper for that region. I say let's find his body and clone him and his entire army.
2007-02-19 22:56:06 · answer #8 · answered by bamafannfl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the ex-iraqi army ,that wasnt saddams army,but the national army of iraq.it consisted of all the iraqi spectrum,shiaas,sunnies,kurds,and cristians.it was the best who knew the country,the people.and all the shambles arose after it was desolved.
2007-02-20 05:47:13 · answer #9 · answered by zuhair a 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No military force could do a better job.
Too bad they are sabotaged by one of the most spoiled, rotten, monomaniacal, selfish, money-and-vote grubbing, partisan unpatriotic and anti-American Congresses and their socialist lackeys in U.S. history.
Disunited, we die.
2007-02-19 22:57:02 · answer #10 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋