What is a better method of fighting?

Question

I don't know a lot about the Iraq war and stuff..so i was wondering if you guys could help me =)
Based on how we handled the situations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, define the approaches we took. Was it our best interest to act the way we did?
What is a better method of fighting--attack or defend?? and WHY?

Answer 1

An aggressive policy is usually the best way to defend yourself. The problem is, you can't claim to be defending yourself when you attack someone who has not threatened you and does not have the potential to do so.
Afghanistan - we were probably too slow getting into the areas where the Taliban were hiding Al-Qaeda.
Iraq - we had no right to invade because they didn't have WMDs, were no real threat to the world and had no proven link to Al-Qaeda.
If it was based on links to Al-Qaeda then the US should have been chasing the Saudis, Bin Ladens home.

Answer 2

The approaches were very similar - Air strikes followed by land incursions to ensure ground troops are nuetralised. Was it in the USA's best interests... thats a point of conjecture... however the best defence is a good offense... so lets think - would you rather fight a war in New York Harbour, the Streets of L.A. or in Downtown Chicago? No of course not dont be stupid... so what do you do? You fight it on your enemies land and ensure that even if... IF... you lose your enemy will have lands worth less then camel dung.

The USA is defending not only its allies in both regions - but also its foreign national interests - We never whinge or ***** how China removes foreign aid at a whims notice because they arent happy at wat the receivin country is doing - or that the Commonwealth of nations suspends members or even that Iraq constantly kidnapped, tortured murdered raped and waht not thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians. Lets make it clear - so long as the citizens of the USA dont back their government the government cannot fight effectively. TWICE the USA population have not supported a war - and TWICE the USA has struggled and been defeated first at home then abroad...seriously the people of America need to think the world doesnt stop at the edge of the coast... it keeps going on and it doesnt wait for anyone.

Answer 3

Well of course you are only going to get opinion answers on this question, but here's mine.

I think we've changed 'strategies' a million and one times, simply using the trial and error method. Which is destroying the potential of a positive and rapid outcome in Iraq. Entering Iraq was hasty, and could have waited until further assitance from the UN was defined.
Entering Iraq, our military tactics were passive, and shifty. Now that time has gone by and we are no longer fighting a specific enemy, but instead we're fighting the extremists that our presence has created-- we are just now 'stepping up tactics'.
I think our tactics should have been more agressive to begin with, but that could only work if the intellegence is in place. Being that terrorist groups are emerging and begining to spread their beliefs and support presently at fast rates, it's becoming impossible to gather intel on groups that dont exist yet.

I can tell you that defense, is no longer an option. Troops in Iraq cannot sit inside the base walls and wait for pre-emtive attacks on American or allied presence, while innocent Iraqi citizens are being killed in the streets in pathetic and desperate attempts to demonstrate opposition of western presence.
It's time America goes on all out hunt for terrorist, sympathizers, and supporters in Iraq. When the Iraqi goverment is comfortable that American troops can begin withdrawl, then we should absolutley be on our way.

Was it in our best interest to invade Iraq? No.
We entered Iraq assuming the threat of WMD was going to cost Americans and our allies harm. It's obvious that the intel was bad, and the premise of invasion was based soley on that intel. Now, we have created a terrorist playground, that is costing Iraqi lives, and the lives of coalition forces.

Answer 4

That's a master's thesis level question there, for sure.

There were two VERY different approaches to Afghanistan and to Iraq. They were two VERY different situations and we went in to both countries for VERY different reasons.

I'll start with the initial combat...

Okay...Afghanistan was handled with air power and Special Forces as our prime-movers. The SF hooked up with the Northern Alliance and we provided a LOT of air support, weapons, supplies, and funding and let them do a lot of the fighting.

Iraq was a much more straight-up army on army fight. The Iraqis (in both GWI and GWII) had a VERY strong army with a lot of tanks, artillery, WMD's, good morale ,a strong Air Defense system and so on. They were very experienced and fighting on their home ground. Our commanders used a brilliant set of strategies in both wars to outflank, out-think, and out-fight the Iraqi army but a big part of it was C4I attacks. Our Air power took out Iraqi communications links, headquarters units, logistical points, transportation hubs and so on. This meant that our Armies were facing isolated units who had no idea what was going on. With absolute control of the skies, our air power could dominate the battle space. It surely helped our ground forces out in the fight.

Both wars were over in record time, stunning military experts the world over. Both wars will be studied as prime examples of military art for centuries to come. There is no question that from a military standpoint, the strategies, tactics, and logistics employed were the best way to go.

Now, afterwards - Both countries have insurgencies active within them, and both are cause mostly by sectarian and inter-tribal strife. In both countries, the insurgency is mostly supplied by, motivated by, and staffed by foreigners who have an interest in maintaining unrest in that country.

We have tried a couple of methods for dealing with the insurgency in both nations. We're trying new ones - In Iraq, there is really only one province that is the source of most of the hard-times. The rest of the country is going quite well. Basra has an on-going gang-war kinda like Chicago in the 20's, Baghdad has the very pissed-off-and-looking-for-revenge Shiites hunting down Sunnis, al Anbar has the Sunnis being kept stirred up by the Iranians and so on. The current approach (the Surge) seems to be working quite well. With only 1 Brigade in place out of 4, violence is already down 80% and many Sunni families are returning to their homes in Baghdad.

Is it the best? We won't know until it's over. You never do. Hindsight is always 20/20.

If you want to learn more, particularly about Iraq, here are several sites that will give you some good information from the troopers who are there, and from the people who actually LIVE in Iraq:

Answer 5

If your not in a fight to rip the heart out of your opponent and eat it, whats the point. We can and most likely will play armchair quarter back for centuries, they certainly go over it in the military academies for as long. I don't like what I see in Iraq or Afghanistan but I'm not going to sit here and bad mouth the people in charge who have far more information than I about what is going on over there simply because they wasn't the ones I wanted in charge to start with. If ya don't like what's going on then do something about it, don't just beat your chest and act like you could do better when ya know damn well ya can't. If ya honestly want to know about what was done and why then read, there are plenty of books, articles and whatever out there covering this war. I would suggest that your read those by people who were actually there or in on the planning of such things. Don't expect anything but cow paddies from 'Answers'. Most of the people here are here because they are bored to death and have nothing better to do than pass wind. Yes, just like me.

Answer 6

So far, we've definitely been more aggressive than defensive, and used traditional "cannon fodder" tactics to gain territory. "Cannon fodder" tactics are the use of huge amounts of troops thrown at the enemy, in hopes that the constant barrage would weaken their defenses. Those tactics have been used since ancient warfare.

And when comparing aggressive and defensive fighting, it all depends upon the situation. In this situation, we are trying to establish a government in Iraq, so in my opinion, now that we have Baghdad and other major cities secured, we should keep those cities well-protected, and try to root out any insurgents still hidden within the city.

Answer 7

well you could say we are being very aggressive, we invaded a country that is not part of the Un looking for nukes when the don't have to obey United nations law about nukes, we were very agressive in afghanistan, but at the same time we are defending are allies saudi arabia and israel from the taliban and al jazera

Answer 8

The best way of fighting is to sit down together and smoke the peace pipe and work out our problems with our minds not our first or weapons.

Answer 9

attack AND defend. At the same time.

Answer 10

it is called carpet bombing......used to work really good, could finish this situation no problem