Aren't the Terrorists in Iraq fighting U.S. soldiers like we used to fight the British?

Question

The British were so arrogant back then that they didn't think they needed to cover or run when fighting the U.S. Isn't that the same in Iraq where the terrorists can see us but we can't see them. Isn't this the recipe for a defeat for the U.S. eventually just like the Mighty British got defeated?

To some of you who said that the terrorists are not the same as what we did to the British. I know that! It's the concept of how they can kill us easily then we can kill them. That's what I'm talking only. Not their mission or our mission. It that they only killy one of their own but several our soldier die. So they are in essence winning. And if it stays like this way they will win.

Answer 1

Hmm, it seems you have learned the history of 'standing conventional army vs. guerilla force with popular support'. It's too bad the morons in the Pentagon don't realize the same thing. Oh well, 3-5 years from now when we leave and nothing much has changed, then everyone will suddenly remember this little history lesson...

Answer 2

I am a combat wounded veteran of the Iraq War, so I consider it to be a very personal issue. Although I don't like the inference of your question, I will answer it as rationally as possible. The short answer is no.

The Americans who opposed the British differ from the Iraqi Insurgents in a number of ways.

1) Americans were rebelling against their rightful sovereign king. Thus, we were, in effect, fighting ourselves.

2) Many of the Americans were not insurgents at all, they were members of the Continental Army. They had rank, uniforms, and officers to command them and restrain them. The same does not apply to the Iraqi Insurgency, which does not have unity of command, uniforms, or anything resembling a regular army.

3) American Colonists did not make it a practice to kidnap, torture, and kill the British or their supporters. See what happens if you walk around the streets of Baghdad un-escorted.

During the American Revolution, most of the actual battles were won by the British. There are a few exceptions (Yorktown, Cowpens, Saratoga, etc.). The same is true in Iraq. Whenever the enemy engages us directly, we annihilate them. I invite you to look at the Battles of Fallujah and Najaf. It's when they attack us with roadside bombs that things get messy. We've yet to develop a sound tactical approach for defeating roadside bombs and their users.

Finally, getting wounded by a roadside bomb is not a sign of arrogance. There's just no telling when or where one will explode. Believe me, if I had known that an IED would nearly sever my arm, I would have sought out cover.

Answer 3

What an 'intelligent?' mind that you came up with the question and comparison. The Americans were fighting the British to keep the immigrants under the control of the British government, while the Iraqi insurgents are fighting the U.S. soldiers rightly so because Iraq was already a government in existence. The U.S. troops are only there being killed because one man thought he could be the George Washington of the Iraqi people.

Answer 4

some human beings say the pen is mightier than the sword yet when someone replaced into swinging a sword at my head i imagine it ought to do a lot less damage if it replaced right into a pen.it really is uncomplicated for pacifists to take the moral severe floor.yet we do no longer rejoice with the freedoms we savour contained in the west we whinge about CCTV and the police conserving our information on document.those fanatical countries haven't got any qualms about abusing human rights and disobeying the Geneva convention at the same time as wars are fought attempting to launch those countries from corrupt and oppressive regimes is truly complicated and won't be able to be spoke back with a short answer suitable to morals

Answer 5

What makes you think the terrorists are fighting in the same manner we fought the Brits? I don't remember reading in the history books where Washington ever said go target civilians INTENTIONALLY.

Would Washington have used IEDs? That's hard to tell, they didn't have them in those days. But considering the general rules of engagement at the time, I doubt it.

There were many accounts of the Brits having reprisals on civilians for supporting the rebels.

Sorry your analogy doesn't fit the situation.

Answer 6

Well, with each new war comes new tactics, each time they seem more brutal then the last war. In every war, there is some sense of of Guerilla tactics. For example, in WWI, the use of machine guns and trench warfare was compared the same way. In WWII, the atomic bomb. In Korea, the heavy use of the assult rifle, in Vietnam, jungle fighting and napalm. The list goes on and on. It becomes clear that in every war there is a defending side that uses new tactics to their advantages, but, as we see in WWII with eastern Europe (excluding Russia), the defense doesnt always win.

Answer 7

There is a little bit of logic to your statement but you have to realize also, the people fighting for Iraq willingly kill civilians which causes collateral damage which is bad for the people who want to win the war. So, the countries trying to stabilize Iraq need to defend themselves and the people of Iraq. Pretty tough mission.

Answer 8

How can you relate the two? What a stretch. Most of the terrorist attacking us in Iraq are not Iraqi citizens. They are not fighting because of "taxation without representation". Just to list a few of the differences.

Answer 9

That's an Insult,, so you consider those people who fought us Britt's years ago Rag heads. And did they smell of curry. And did they cut off peoples hands. And cut off there heads with a blunt knife ( see ogrish.com under beheading) NO. because the Americans where Britt's, Scottish Irish Welsh and so on . And also they didn't live in a filthy medieval toilet ether.

Answer 10

Not exactly. Guerilla warfare had never been used on the British back then. Now we are fighting in the streets, which is something we started learning about in late WWII.

The difference is, the British were surprised, we aren't.