Could US troops actually win the war in Iraq if they didn't have to follow the Pentagon's Rules of Engagement?

Answer 1

We have never won a "limited" war.

Answer 2

The "war" was over a while ago. It's an occupation -- with the aleged goal of staying there until the Iraqis can "defend themselves" and become a "stable pro US democracy" The problem are we are seen as a occupying army, in the aftermath of the war we didn't provide security, didn't rebuild, tortured and imprisoned people indiscriminently, had corrupt and incompetent people runing the Iraq provisional authority which all turned the Iraqi people against us. The government that's in place is corrupt. Over 60% of the people want us out of the country. Do you think looosening the rules of engagement is going to change any of that? All that means is more US Service people and Iraqis will be killed. The solution now isn't military, it's political and it's the Iraqis who are the ones ho have to figure out how to stabilize the country and stop killing each over. The US has to get out of the way as we have lost all credibility with the people and a government seen as being propped up by US will always be suspect. Too bad due to our screwing up the aftermath our "victory" most of the secular middle class has left the country or been killed by the religious factions. Bush's refusal to heed advice to get other countries in the region involved dimplomatically isn't helping the situation. Also, you over simplify by labeling all the fighters as "terrorists" -- if all the foreign terrorist surrendered you would still be left with SHi'ia vs. Sunni, a corrupt government and most of the people wanting us out. The overall problem with your arguement is that you think we can "win" militarily at this point -- it's beyond that now. As Colin Powell said "You break it, you own it" and man did we break it.

Answer 3

Actually if there were no Rules of Engagement (ROE) I suspect Iraq would not exist today. It would be rubble and refugees. The US military has ROE to protect innocents and the possibly innocent from what might be considered extreme measures. If there were no ROE, every time we had a sniper in a building we would just drop a 500 pound bomb on it from a B1. Don’t even have to leave the compound. Call the air strikes while watching TV.

The military is hampered by civilian intervention. Always has been, always in the American way will be. I did not always agree with the ROE but it is to protect the noncombatant. Does it make the soldier less safe - Thats a big "Yes Sir"

"The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Our is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living."
- General Omar N. Bradley

Answer 4

It's the war rules under customary international rules of war and the rules of war set by the UN Charter that we must follow- the Pentagon's rule of war are subordinate to these...Yes, America can win ANY war against ANY country or COUNTRIES...but we would lose in the long run through a cessation of trade for our ignorance if we were to ignore the rules- you catch more bees with honey...

Answer 5

They could actually win the war if politicians would stop pretending they know more about war than the generals who have spent their entire lifetime learning the "art" of war. These generals earned their high ranking as opposed to simply winning a popularity contest like the elected "officials" who merely played upon the unpopularity of our current situation in Iraq to get themselves elected.
After 13 UN resolutions against the Hussein regime, the U.S. finally stood up and did something and whether or not you like President Bush, we have not had a terrorist attack on U.S. territory since 9/11.

Answer 6

Depends on what you consider victory. If victory is delivering a peaceful, democratic Iraq, no, not without the cooperation of the Iraqi people - which is clearly not forthcoming. If victory is pacifying Iraq in a semi-permenant occupation, yes - though they'd have to be just as brutal as Sadam to pull it off. If victory is overthrowing a brutal dictatorship and giving opressed peole a chance to vote in free elections, then yes - in fact, they already /did/ win the war, the Iraqis just decided they'd like to elect a Shiite-dominated government and fight a civil war.

Answer 7

They already won. Democrats were caught on tape this week admitting that we won the war 4 years ago, which is the truth.

Our men and women in uniform can obviously operate in any conditions and win. With handcuffs or without.

Answer 8

Can you explain which parts of the ROE are causing us problems?

Do you even know what the ROE says? If you do not understand the ROE - how can you make any opinions about it?

Answer 9

YES, They could win using their rules, No being micro-managed by those who have never served

Answer 10

they have already proved they can kick there butt. if they didnt have the rules everything would be over.