What Should The US Have Done Differently?

Question

in Vietnam (1960s); Iraq (2000s); Somalia (1990s) & Cuba (Bay of Pigs 1960s) ?

What Should The US Military Have Done Differently While At War to reach an outcome that was better for the people of America and for the people of the country concerned?

I'm sure you'll know more than I - but I suspect the answer has something to do with the US antagonising too many of the people, rather than restricting their invasion to only targeting the 10 most wanted people + the constitution & all the rest may stay unchanged.

Answer 1

Vietnam - the US should have supported Ho Chi Minh's independence bid from France - then he would have never turned to the Communist for support.

Somalia - what more could have been done? It wasn't a US military operation - it was a UN Peacekeeping force. The constraints as such were ridiculous. I know - I was there. The answer would have been to allow the US military to operate without anti-victory constraints and to meet force with equal or overwhelming force.

Cuba - The US Military was not directly involved with the BoP. That was a botched CIA job. What could be done now is to normalize relations with Cuba. Want to neutralize Castro? Do it the way we did it to the USSR - show them the benefits of capitalism rather than embargoing them which hasn't worked for 50 years.

Iraq - not invaded would be the easy answer. However; now that we are there - we need to finish the job. Leaving Iraq in a anarchic mess will indeed breed terrorism and most likely lead to an invasion by Iran. The US/UK needs to wage an all out war with overwhelming force. And get the press out - who wants to run a war with a camera in your face.

Answer 2

One, Vietnam, the communists had technical support from communist countries, this military support came from across the border, as Vietnam is long and narrow geographically speaking it would be difficult to counter or fight a war strategically. Iraq: why did Bush senior retreat just moments from entering Baghdad, he might as well have gone straight in I only say that given Iraq did invade Kuwait, and is Kuwait not worthy of saving?
Two: they need to win hearts and minds which is about politics and suppressing members and organisations of the former regime, law and order is a first issue when winning the battle.
Three: I personally don't know more than you, because you had the insight to ask the question,. but winning the war and then giving out food aid without doing something about the law and order situation is not the way to stabilising the territory, the temporary caretaker government should not be exiles who have been away from the country for so many years that they honestly don't know where and who the culprits are. however war is war and those who haven't been fighting in war can only theorise about the practical realities of war. Very much admire those who have survived war, regardless of position, status, etc.

Answer 3

Wise Kai ... A fair question, but I think very hard to answer. I say this because there may be an unintended implication that there was just one cause for the problems you mentioned. I feel this is not the case.

I think you may get some silly answers, unfortunately, such as "America should have just stayed home." I guess you know this policy is called isolationism. Here are some examples of what can happen from being passive or adopting isolationist policies:

• What America endured in 1941 for minding our own business while the world around us was being dominated by Hitler and the Japan. This ultimately led to America being attacked at Pearl Harbor, of course, which marked the beginning of our involvement in World War II.
• What France got in World War II: near complete destruction and domination at the hands of Hitler's forces.
• September 11th, 2001 (see my link below). The first attack on the World Trade Center was a truck bomb explosion that occurred in February, 1993. We learned later that the bombers had hoped to cause one tower to tip over and collapse upon the other tower. This did not work, of course, but they did succeed in 2001, unfortunately, the result of not doing enough about the attempt in 1993.
• The bombing and destruction of our two embassies in Africa in August of '98.
• The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October of 2000.

There are other examples, but I feel these are the most widely known.

Since we're the "biggest guy on the block" and have so much to lose, it's vitally important that we be vigilant and try to tend to problems before they lead to bigger situations that may be much more difficult to deal with.

Some of our efforts are the ones you mentioned. But should we quit trying because these efforts did not succeed? I think not ... Just my view.

Thanks for a good question.

Answer 4

The British faught a Gorilla war in Malaysia that was as near to the Vietnam war as you could get!
The British tactic was to send in the SAS and identify friendlies first and then attack the enemy!
This was after the Americans told Ted Heath to Bomb the hell out of them! Ted Heath Refused!
British casualties totaled 130 odd for a 5 year venture!
The US tend to blow everyone up creating as many enemies as it destroys!
If the US had fought the Iraqi war with the same Tactics the initial battle would have claimed more US lives because big bombs wouldn't have been practical but the war would have been long over by now with a lot more gratefull Iraqis!

Answer 5

I don't know about Vietnam or Bay of Pigs, but we didn't need 'regime change' for Iraq. We could have just dropped some bombs on targets if it really was WMD thing we're worried about. Remember that they argued they know for sure Iraq was producing WMD. Why not just drop bomb on manufacturing sites? Iraq regime change was in people's head since 91 Iraq War and should never have been coupled with post 911 concerns.

We've been bombing Iraq in 90s after 91 war anyways. Why not just do that some more and just blow up WMDs?

So, if they really had satellite photos where Saddam was making WMD just drop some GPS guided bombs, cruise missiles and be done. No regime change, no insurgency, no IED, but blow up WMD. We were capable of that.

Answer 6

Getting rid of George Bush and Rumsfield would have been a good start.

What gives the USA or the UK the right to illegally invade an independant sovereign state, and also illegally sieze control of its assets and effect a regime change?

Forget all the hype, Sadam may have been a dictator but wasn't it dear Donald R who supplied him with the chemical weapons?

Remember the massacre of students in that square in China? That hasn't stopped Bush or Blair cosying up the that bunch of dictators, now has it?

Answer 7

I think it is all very well to say "what should have been done". I agree - The CIA mostly has fucked everything up, but it is important to realise that without the Americans in control: if they had stood by and let Russia do what it wanted during the cold war, then we would all probably be living in a fascist world state.

So whilst the US have screwed up, they are the lesser of two evils.

Answer 8

i don't hate Iranians and that i don't think of that a majority of the people in the U. S. hate the people. i'll declare that we've a extensive disdain for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the detest that he coach in the direction of your neighbor Israel. we are additionally no massive followers of a central authority that's led on religious principals fairly than the central of fairness . it rather is not knocking your faith yet i might undertaking to declare that the Shai', Sunni and Sufi might all agree that it would be greater effectual if it have been their variety of Islam. Sunni's of direction can not even run for place of work I unquestionably have worked with a number of Iranians over my 30 year occupation in the semiconductor marketplace. those people have been sensible and friendly. i might say which you would be taken care of nicely in this united states of america, a minimum of by way of the folk that i know. we are actually not the folk that Ahmadinejad might such as you to have confidence that we are. i can inform you that maximum people do not desire the Iranian government to have the potential to create nuclear weapons. a minimum of not including your cutting-edge government. i may additionally inform you that if I have been to holiday to Iran, there is now way i might choose to objective topersistent in Tehran My short answer is that I hate your government, the anybody is particularly a lot diverse that what the propaganda movies shown from them to be. How do i know? To many institutions from Iranian co-workers that have all instructed an identical tale.

Answer 9

"Kill" with kindness is my motto!
So much healthier than bombs & bullets, don't you think?

How do weapons make people happy?
How do weapons bring peace? The USA needs to re-examine their logic!

They could use stun guns against bad guys... then put them on trial. That would be so much fairer than go into buildings shooting at anything that moves... They've done that since before Vietnam. They didn't care if kids & women hiding there... bang, bang, darn, we killed 'em, never mind, move on, next bush, BANG BANG. Darn, same again. Oh, hell. So what? BANG, BANG.

If they adopted a TRUE mandate for freedom, that would get respect- but their actions are to install capitalism.

Beating people is NOT the answer!

Answer 10

Wrong?? They just had to face the fact that a country that voted Bush for president a COUPLE of times must disappear from the map immediately...