do you think the war in iraq was prosecuted aggressively enough?

Answer 1

no, i think and still think. hate breeds hate. we need to light up there buildings and ground from the air. light their as_ es on fire. let it burn to a cinder. till nothing is left..............but that's just my opinion that's why they'll never be a woman president................

Answer 2

Initially it was through the whole march through Iraq and the dissolving of Saddam's government. However, the policing up afterwards was not. I think that the military stood around a little too long after the march through Baghdad due to ineffective guidance. I was in Iraq from April 2003 -Aug 2003 and the guidance was a little reserved. I don't know if it was just the unit I was with or if it was Iraq wide, but it was almost like "Don't shoot unless you've taken a casualty". I remember walking from the "hooch" to the main TOC in Ramadi and we had some small arms fire in broad daylight. You could see where the fire was coming from but none of the guards on the rooftop returned fire. Also on our convoy, we were fired upon but the convoy commander told us to hold our fire. These instances only emboldened the opposition and gave them more courage to keep the attacks going. If we would of just eliminated them every time they fired, they probably would of lost confidence instead of this constant ramp up of terrorist behavior.

Answer 3

As Techmseh Sherman in the Civil War and Esienhower and MacArthur in WW2 show, the only way to victory is thru total war.

Total war was not practice in Iraq. Selective war was.

So, no we did not prosecute the war aggressively enough.

Edit: If the whole point was removing Saddam, then we had Marine and Seal sniper teams that could have done that with minimal loss of life and minimal destruction of the Iraqi infrastruture.

Answer 4

I would say no. The Iraq war was started on false pretenses and falsified intelligence information. As is the case for every illegal war, the majority of America's citizens doesn't support it. When there is a lack of support for the war, you cannot expect those that fight in it to be aggressive enough.

Answer 5

More initial troops may have shorted the time frame of the war. But you know what they say about hindsight.
Decisions were made from the Intelligence from many countries - I guess no one is infallible.

Answer 6

I would have like you to ask that question about Afghanistan. I don't think we should have invaded Iraq at all. Iraq was contained after the gulf war.

Answer 7

Too aggresively , that's what's caused the problems now..
There was nothing to beat but it was fought as though there was a big threat there and the whole of civil society was destroyed. That's when the people turned to the militias for protection.

Answer 8

Yes. The objective of taking over Baghdad and overthrowing Saddam, and then capturing him was achieved fairly easily.

If you are asking if we should have started killing more civilians in order to keep order and peace, well, that is up for debate.

Answer 9

Looking at it objectively I would say no. Bush made the grave mistake of underestimating his enemy. You can tell by how his actions are now vs when the war first started

I am against war. thoroughly against war, but you didn't ask that :)

Answer 10

"aggressively enough" yes, we just did not go in with enough forces in the beginning to insure stability.