If you planed a War. Would winning be part of your plan??? Or just drive in circles until a bomb kills you???

Question

Somehow driving in circles seems to lack stratigic panache.

I was watching an interview with a Army Lieutenant. He was going on patrol (drive in circles) in Baghdad. He said we drive the same route every day. The reporter asked if that was safe. The Liutenate answered NO but all the other roads are blown up.

If even a Liberal News Reporter knows driving in circles waiting to be killed is not a good plan. Why hasn't someone explained this to Bush.

Answer 1

Here is how the planning goes in Iraq.

CO: Tell your men to drive in circles until they get blown up.
Platoon Leader: I can't they'll tell me to f**k off.
CO: ErrrAhhh Sargent. Tell them to drive around town to "establish an American Military Presence". The rest will take care of itself.
Platoon Leader: Yes, sir!

Answer 2

Don't be missed guided my friend....
.... think outside the bubble for a minute.
Could you imagine, if the sole reason for the war is simply just to get involved? Look at the first and second world wars. After those wars what was lots or gained? boundaries stayed the same, Just millions of innoscent lives were lost!
War is a like fuel. It fuels the economy. If the Americans said NO to all of its wars and acted as peace keepers and nothing more. Then the economy would be 1/10th its size today (or Canada). The fact America is in Iraq, simply translates that its spending money and dropping ten year old bombs, using ten year old technology etc etc. The americans say they are paying for this, but are not! Creatively, they have the country under attack pay for all of this. Oil, service contracts etc etc REBUILDING the country is where the money is. The promise of new power plants, water treatment facilities, communications. Its like building new cities from scratch... but with waiting customers willing to pay and use these services.
I suppose the true reason why canada did not go to Iraq, was clear. Americans did not guarantee Canadians rebuilding contracts as they did in the first gulf war, KUWAIT. Americans are taking the imperialist attitude and go at it alone. Now the problem is they cannot secure a country as quickly hence, rebuilding cannot occur as quickly! this may back fire on the AMericans.... so in hindsight, they should have SOLD their ideas to the world, woe the international community and the host community before invading IRAQ. This would have been a bigger investment (lost of profits to other countries) but would have secured rebuilding contracts.
Ie/gulf war part one, or Germany WWII.
anyways... no worries... Republicans are losing office and the American economy is slipping into recession. They will be leaving Iraq soon enough.
Just watch out for the next target... Iran or Siberia?? (it would be a inexpensive war... its a short bus ride over!)

Answer 3

First Military personnel (GI) Government Issue, these people signed a contract with the government of the USA and are bound to that contract and if they breech they are jailed and get a dishonorable discharge that will hunt them latter.
Winning a war to the common citizen is just that, but to the government winning has different meaning, that are not shared so they objective may be only to put up bases or missiles after they win the political battle they leave, war is over. They hate to loose personnel but that sacrifice is needed to achieve their goals. The citizens have no power, they are the sheep, out spoken perhaps and seldom win battles, but still sheep. Its all for them we get the crumbs, because that's what we settle for.

Answer 4

Actually, I think if I planned a war, I wouldn't stop until China owned 100% of our national defecit. Ive always liked egg drop soup...

EDIT: movngfwd, I'll agree with you that SOME past wars stimulated the economy, but this one has not. It's dragged on waaaay too long. And yes, the US government is paying for rebuilding Iraq at least partially. They put certain contracts out for bid. I work in this industry and have seen it. This is turning into a Vietnam financial sinkhole.

Answer 5

Now the soldiers will get to stay an additional 3 months on their tour of duty! Wow, it's like an extended vacation! I'm sure they are not totally exhausted. I betcha they don't even miss their family. If they volunteered to stay it must be alot fun to drive in circles all day.
Bush never had a plan on how to win the war or an exit "strategery".

Answer 6

Many years ago there was a movie called "War Games". The point made ultimately in the movie by a super intelligent computer was the only way to win a "war game" is not to play the game.

Answer 7

Now i'm by using no skill a fan of the guy, i do not even supply him the respect of calling him the president because i have self belief he stole the election, yet i am going to guess he doesn't make those judgements about the conflict. i don't think of he's smart sufficient. i imagine he leaves those type of tactical issues to the generals. What does Bush study about military judgements besides? he's never been to conflict...he particularly went with the help of his own nationwide preserve provider.

Answer 8

Wars are tremendously hard to plan. There're these guys called 'the enemy' that do everything in thier power to screw up any plans you do make.

So, winning needs to be /the/ goal, not just part of the plan. And the 'plan' needs to be constantly revised, or even tossed completely by commanders in the field in order to react effectively to the enemy's efforts.

Answer 9

that depends on whether your objective was to win the war or merely to sharply increase defense spending

think about it, what is more profitable for defense contractors, to have a short, decisive war or to have a long, drawn out conflict?

I think it's a mistake to assume that the people in power have the same motivations for engaging in war that people like you and I do

Answer 10

Winning is a much better strategy than trying to make it a never ending war profiteering adventure.