Why is the American military unable to control the armed opposition in Iraq?

Question

Republicans are always saying the UN does not do a good job. Well, the US with help from many other nations have not been able to do whatever is Mr. Bush says Americans are going to do.

Answer 1

It's an excellent question, the armed opposition is Iraq, made up almost exclusively of Iraqi's, who have suffered under Saddam, and now have a puppet government imposed on them. They do not hide amongst civilians, they are the civilians!

An army, any army, cannot control the will of the masses, they can imprison themselves, call it a green zone, venture out occasionally with air support, but they are not and never will be in control.

They do not want the USA to occupy their country, and steal their oil, it maybe a secret in the USA, but the Iraqi's are under no such illusions. They don't need military hardware, they are many, the invaders are few, they have all the time in the world to pick off the sitting ducks, it is their country, they aint goin nowhere.

It is exactly the same if another country occupied the USA, the US. citizens would not stop resisting until the invaders had left.

The Iraqi government is a farce, if the Americans left it would be overthrown, and rightly so.

The people who benefit from this war - the war profiteers have an interest in keeping the war going for as long as possible, they need a weak Iraqi government, they profit from the chaos. And it just so happens that they are the US. government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group

When war profiteers run the most powerful country in the world, don't anyone be expecting peace

Answer 2

The reason is that we planned the war badly. Since the end of WWII, the US has been on a continuous war footing even in peacetime. Our govt. has used the military budget to keep the economy going. We have fallen in love with big, elaborate, expensive weapons systems--supersonic fighters, tanks that cost $30 million each, guns that shoot over the horizon, etc. etc. These weapons would have been very useful in WWII, where we fought another the army of another nation, people who wore uniforms, but they are indadequate against the kind of war we're fighting in Iraq, just as they were inadequate in Vietnam.

The problem is that we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys. We can wipe out whole cities but we can't find two or three insurgents among 1000 innocent civilians. So the choice is either to ignore them or to 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out'.

President Bush made the HUGE mistake of listening to the advice of naive ideologues rather than real experts. All the military experts (including his own sec'y of state who had already fought a successful war in the same area!) told him it would take 500,000 people to 'stabilize' Iraq, but the non-experts wanted to fight the war 'on the cheap' with 100,000 soldiers. From that point on, Bush and his people haven't been able to come up with an alternative plan, instead they have just insisted that this plan is working, and have done all they could to keep the war going just a little longer.

I think Bush's plan now is to wait for the Democrats to take the war out of his hands. Then the Dems will withdraw the troops, and for years and years after that Republicans will say we were winning but the Democrats made us surrender.

Answer 3

Ringo G has apparently not kept of with the news. The Al Qaeda Iraq was a phony. The "insurgents" are very much foreigners. There is no "civil war".

It is very difficult for an army to control those who deal in murder and death of civilians.
Take note of France in World War II. How did the underground operate under the Germans.
How did the guerillas operate in Missouri during the Civil War when the feds occupied the state.
How did the filippinos operate under Japanese occupation.
The US military is doing well but the situation won't be resolved until the Iraqi's get with the program.
Imagine a armed guerilla force inside the United States numbering about 500,000. Why can't the police get control of street gangs. The rules are one huge reason. We play by them and the enemy doesn't.

Answer 4

First, you needless to say dont comprehend something approximately American infantrymen. we are no longer inspired to do what we do for merchandising, or funds, or something. we are serving the rustic we adore. sure, the money could be good often times. And we've discovered to believe the equipment to sell us while we do properly. Now, to the challenge in 'controling' Iraq.... Our infantrymen are no longer police nor are we pleased with combating an enemy that hides in the back of harmless civilians. that provides an benefit to the ruthless murderers who dont care what number extra effective people get interior the way or die as they conflict for ability. and those 'grubby little terrorists' are no longer triumphing on the floor -- the place they are triumphing is interior the US press and in feeding the will a number of our very own politicians for inner maximum ability. The insurgency is supported from the outdoors (syria and iran) and feeds on the outragous issues that are stated right here interior the u . s . a .. The Al Quida varieties will combat to the top, yet while the locals knew that the US became totally committed to a stable Iraqi government with honest representation of all factors then they might quit their murdering of one yet another in tries to 'ethnic cleanse' their aspects and regulate the votes.

Answer 5

We have. Of the 18 provinces in Iraq, 16 are under complete control. Of the other two, one is about 50%. The Baghdad province is the only one in question. However, in March 2007, three provinces were completely out of control. Now we have one and a half in contention. We have progress. It is hard because the enemy is hiding among the civs and it is hard to determine who to shoot. If the enemy used a uniform, then we could easily ID them and take them out. Only sound intel and proactive patrolling can be used unless you want us to wipe out a bunch of innocent civilians.

If the UN were in charge, there would be no patrols, only check points and UN troops wouldn't be allowed to protect the civs. UN troops can only protect themselves if fired upon. On the contrary, Bush has continually stated our job is to allow enough security and time for the govt to stand-up and provide its own defense. Remember, it takes the US military 5-7 years to make a great NCO. We are training Iraqis with no experience.

Answer 6

We had no business being there in the first place. Just think of all the lives that could have been saved not to mention all the billions of dollars that could have been used to green up our world and try to make friends instead of enemies. Very poor leadership.

I wish John Kerry would have won the election. He's a true leader of the people. He would have given more thought to the prospect of war and the outcome and whether it would have been the right thing to do.

America voted for Bush. He was going to set everything right. Look what we have now? Pretty sad state of affairs and do you think he gives a ...... NO!

Answer 7

They can control it to some extent...most Iraqi's will be scared shi*less compared with the force of the US & British armed forces...the problem that many people do not know is that some reports you see on TV & in the media are not always the real story...see the question on false flag ops...
Example; Two SAS officers dressed as Iraqi's went out and after being stopped at lights, shot at the guards, killing one. They were subsequently arrested but the SAS went and freed them later that night...why the hell would 2 elite British soldiers be dressed in this way firing on their own men? If you do not believe me, please follow this link...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...

The war needs to continue in Iraq for political reasons, which is why it is looking difficult to control over there...but that is only what we see. I fully respect and admire the men & woman who are over there, but certain factions seem focused on extending the war...to the loyal men & women I applaud you...to the people who are stirring the pot over there...you should be shot yourself.

Answer 8

To be quite honest? Rules of Engagement or "ROE" plays a large factor. If you were to let the dogs off the chain so to speak, they could control the opposition. The problem is that soldiers are severely limited as to what they can or cannot do. Also consider, would it be worth the humanitarian cost to actually control the armed opposition? MANY more civilians would die if we were to actually just let the military off their leash.

Answer 9

Do you know that there was armed opposition in Germany after WWII that took us time to overcome and if you look at the real facts on how that occurred no one would say how evil we are at Guantanamo. We unleashed the Soviet special forces in many areas who took no prisoners - civilian or troops that were in opposition to the allied win.

Answer 10

because the american people have elected congressional members that won't let them do their jobs. We are locking up soldiers trained to kill and trying them for murder when they do what they are trained to do. We constantly criticize, which puts handcuffs on our troops and their leaders, then we complain that they can't do the job.
there are too many Americans and Congressmen/women that WANT THEM TO FAIL. Because in their minds the Donkey vs. Elephant struggle is far more important than the struggle against militant extremist Islamists.