We are hampered by our own humanity. The war would quickly be resolved if we simply went in and bombed indiscriminately, killed all males above a certain age, and confiscated all material goods.
Of course we're not going to do that. What is taking so long is that we're trying to not kill any more innocents than is absolutely necessary.
The insurgency has an advantage in that they do not care if the kill huge numbers of innocent people, we do.
2007-03-07 04:53:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by permh20 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
iraq war lasted 4 years
2016-02-01 02:52:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Stacee 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The real Iraq war lasted about two days. A war is a conflict between two or more organized uniformed armies. The Iraqi army folded like a tent.
What we have now is labeled a war on terrorism. It like war on drugs, war on poverty, war on ignorance, etc, can't be won.
Wipeing out terrorism is not the job of the army, it's police work. Policemen know their beat, and know who's doing what. The people of Iraq instead of turning in the terrorists, are protecting them. They won't turn a bad Iraqi in to a foreign army.
The army is trained to capture the ground held by the enemy. What ground is there that the army can't take ? The army is trained to fight a uniformed enemy. There is none.
The army is trained to kill soldiers of the other side. we're training them. The "war" can't end officially without the head of the opposing army signing papers of defeat. There is nobody in command of the gangs.
Insurgents blend into the civilian population, again that's police work. The army can't be trained to do effective police work in a foreign country where the language isn't understood, and the civilians hide the trouble makers.
2007-03-07 05:15:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It is not uncommon for wars to last 4, 5 or more years.
Problem in this one is we do not have enough troops to get the job done fast and right right away, due to the cuts the military experienced in the 90's were we lost HALF the forces due to the budget cuts, the imaginary "surplus" which was money taken from Defense and put in Fort Knox to make the 90's administration look good, we have now half the forces compared to what we had in 1991, during which time I served
So we are unable to really flood iIaq with a massive army and pacify the country, counting instead in that the Iraqui army can be trainned fast enough to do the job, and that takes time, an army is not trainned over night (it takes years) plus it gaining in experience (to be any good) also takes time.
2007-03-07 04:58:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Krytox1a 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
The US military trains to fight traditional military battles. This is not A. a traditional battlefield and B.this is not a "war".
This by history's standards is a skirmish with a hint of coup. We have to right the doctrine as we go along. We cant just annhilate the country like we did Germany or Japan because there is more at stake here than meets the eye. These people have been taught through the ages that the Christian nations are infidels, and if let the fears of their ancestors become facts then we will never win.
2007-03-07 04:52:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Primary reason is there was no need for this war and the tactics used in past to take over a country had been done in a more quiet manner.
How many know that Gerald Ford used our spec ops and sided with indonesian dictator and after hearing how they had killed over 300,000 on just one island in only one month sent the dictator a letter congratulating him for doing it so quickly and quietly along with a set of Presidential golf balls?
That the leaders and the American people thinking that because no one else in world could withstand our power felt it imperative to invade and occuupy in a hurry a small nation to protect our oil supplies is just a minor mistake in our foreign policy decisions.
An invasion of middle east to insert our dominance had been planned for a long time and when the opportunity came up with Iraq we jumped on it.
We thught that by placing sanctions so severe upon Iraq and adding in our non UN approved bobning in North and south that somehow the Iraquis would get rid of Saddam, we would become a best friend to whomever they chose as a new leader and get our base on the cheap.
That plan failed as it seemed Saddam ahd made vast oil dals that would quickly rebuild his countrty not just as it had been in past but one a lot stronger economicly and had cut out completly any US influence in area by doing so.
World knew real reasons we invaded and even though they rejected our legitiamcy to do so the american people had been so manipulated into beleiveing we were in danger, gonna make country a democracy and a whole host of high sounding idealisms jumped both feet into the war fever.
Teh incompetance and outright greed from the first destroyed any chance of a civil regrouing among the Iraqui people and that fell right in with the leaders needs to hide real intentions of war and to further unsettle areas they deliberately inflamed inter religous rivalrys to further destabilize country.
To make matters short,, the Iraqui man on street is not stupid never was and until we kill all the ones with any brains of balls at all will never be. He could see the outright greed, the brutality of the US as it abused and tortured people who had no terrorism contacts justt did not like the way US had stole thier country so they being humans decided to begin a revolt.
the rest of civilized world did not come to our aid for fear of being branded ruthless and having given up colonial asperations for profit long ago held off their compliance with US demands for help.
Americans cannot see that the actions they began have nthing to do with fighting terrorism, and are in fact just part of our continuing foreign policy designs.
As much as I hate seeing death and destuction the very outcome we have today was forewarned about by people of sane minds before we invaded and now all we have left to do is kill and kill yet more in order to subdue a once proud people who now have no longer a nation to live within.
2007-03-07 06:11:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because most of the people in the Bush administration are a bunch of chickenhawks, that have not a clue how to run the military. Hey, Roosevelt wasn't a Veteran, and look at all his bungling that got us into WW II and how long it took for us to win. Every war we have had, that the President was a military Veteran, lasted a short time. An example is Goerge Herbert Walker Bush. We invaded Iraq, basically wrecked his ability to invade any other country, and we got out. GHWB was a Navy Pilot in WW II.
2007-03-07 04:56:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by ProLife Liberal 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
Actually we are fighting a well trained militia with up-to date weapons in almost endless supply, this includes shoulder fired rockets etc.. Historically we know it has been almost impossible to beat a guerilla force, however 4 years for a war is not very long and compared to otherw ars we have made astounding progress in such a small amount of time. The USA should feel no shame.
2007-03-07 04:56:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
1) The war is over. Iraq was over run and the dictator deposed. Mission accomplished. Now we are engaged in helping our new ally attempt to avoid an all-out civil war.
2) We could have easily ended this conflict long ago. However, unlike our enemy, we attempt to minimize civilian loss and collateral damage, even to the point of sacrificing more of our soldiers lives and dragging this conflict out.
2007-03-07 04:52:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Our enemies use tactics like human shields and embed themselves into highly populated civilian areas. Plus our soldiers cannot fire until they are fired upon. If they were given orders to search and destroy, it wouldn't take too long to rid Iraq of insurgents. But we are trying to keep the existing country and civilian infrastructure intact as much as possible. It's not a question of not being able to obliterate the entire region. We could do that without use of any military.
You can disagree with policy all you want but don't disrespect the soldiers. These soldiers are fighting to protect your freedom and to keep our own country from turning into a battleground. Ungrateful scumbag.
2007-03-07 04:57:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by chikkenbone 3
·
2⤊
2⤋