Could we stabilize Iraq if we put in enough troops and resources and backed them 100% from home?

Question

How long would it take if we gave it our BEST effort?

I can't help but think we have handicapped ourselves unbelievably by our half stepping.

Answer 1

Wars are not like football games.

There are no time limits.

But yes, if Americans stopped crying for retreat, it would decrease the propaganda of the enemy as well as take their morale down a notch. It would stop telling them how to win. And it would stop inspiring them to try to kill our troops.

One can never have too many friends shooting at the enemy in a firefight.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-DfkctJU7dK5B7LcNROoyVQ--;_ylt=AiNXZokI1G6zowgYXNnJS9m0AOJ3?cq=1
The unpoliticized groundtruth about the war, from a combat veteran that has been there.

Answer 2

Yes, if you go buy historical standards it takes about i soldier for every 25 citizens at a minimum. I believe Iraq has around 28 million people if memory serves, so that means we would need over a million troops to completely stop the violence right now. Thats not going to happen, but if we increase the size and effectiveness of the Iraqi force we would get much closer.

Also, much of the violence is done out of economice incentives from foriegners with suitcases full of money paying $50 bucks to lay an IED or $25 bucks a month to be a gunman in the local militia. Some areas of the country have around 60% unemployment. We need to subsidize some of there old manufacturing state run facilities to get these young men off the streets and into work. Once that happens we can work on making those businesses profitable.

Oh, to all those that thought the war in Vietnam ended when we left, tell that to the 65,000 S Vietnamese that died within 6 months of the fall of Saigon. Or the over 2 million Cambodians that died when the communist Khmer Rhouge took over, after we left.

Answer 3

Iraq, with all the foreign fighters, will not be stabilized anytime soon or in the next decade. everything Bush wanted to fight and go against has made a comeback because of the incompetence of the administration. We can't leave either, not with Al-Qaeda making it presence known in Iraq now. We have killed or captured some big guys in the terrorist network but it has made a minor ding in the whole operation.

I dont know about you, but I think the country, citizens i mean, back the troops 100%, i dont doubt that for a minute. The resources are not being delivered to the troops for buraucratic BS. thats the problem. get the troops as safe as possible no matter what the cost. they need to organize the money a little better and spend as much on the troops as they need to

Answer 4

Too late.

The region's in too much chaos already. We've lost any will or respect of the people that we once might have had. Maybe if we had gone in with 400 or 500 thousand in the beginning, but now... The window of opportunity is closed.

The military can't enact a lasting solution. Only a political solution, i.e. getting some kind of ruling structure with leaders that the local populace will willingly obey is going to end the chaos.

Sending troops to endlessly put out the fires of rebellion only waiting to erupt in pockets all over Iraq is an endless game with no solution. The root of the problem lies in the fact that there is no legitimately recognized authority from the people's point of view.

Answer 5

A very good question, but also impossible to answer; which is why war, and the politics of war, is so difficult and dividing.

First, how do you define stable? There could never be zero violence unless the border was impenetrable and every single person within the country could be monitored 24 hours a day. So then is stable only one bombing a day? One a week? The definition becomes a matter of personal choice.

Second, what is our best effort? Assuming the U.S. was willing and financially able to commit as many troops as necessary, how many would be needed? I suggest looking to Israel for a possible answer. Israel has a 168,000-member active duty military to patrol a country less than one-fifth the size of Iraq with less than one-quarter the population. If the U.S. was to have a similar presence in Iraq, the military would need to commit between 672- to 840-thousand troops! Also, the comparison doesn't take into consideration the large Israeli reserve military, their civilian police force, or (perhaps most importantly) the millions of vigilant Israeli citizens prepared to report unusual people and activities.

Last, how long it would take to make Iraq a "stable" country if the U.S. people were united in that goal. The short answer is: decades. The problems in Iraq are many and historic. Peace in this region has not occurred for a long time, religion and ethnicity both divide the country, and true democracy has never existed.
A lot of hatred exists between the two main religious groups. To make things worse, the Iraqi people have very little loyalty to Iraq as country. The culture is such that loyalty is given to religion, family and tribe first, country last, so there is currently little motivation to work together to stabilize Iraq and create a working government. Further, religious radicals hold much of the power and can prevent many reforms, spread hatred of the U.S., and recruit religious soldiers to attack Americans and its allies as well as other Iraqis who oppose them.

In order for the U.S. to "win" in Iraq, an number of things would need to happen. First, the military will need to prevent a large amount of the killings that are occurring in order to interrupt the growing back and forth attacks and scale back the civil war between the religions. Second, Iraq would need to be rebuilt (hard to do when things keep getting blown up) to allow people to go back to work and make a living... estimates are that more than half are unemployed and 20-percent live in poverty. Third, there would need to be a grass-roots, community-based effort to reduce the influence of radical clerics (very difficult and very time consuming), aided by building new public schools and possibly removing religious material from daily education. Fourth is to promote diplomacy between Sunni and Shiite leaders to improve communication and heal wounds between the two branches of Islam. Fifth is to promote within Iraq a sense of national pride that would encourage the different groups to work together to govern and build the country. Also necessary is to prevent outside interference in all the above from various governments, particularly Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, as well as from terrorist groups, and perhaps to get neighboring countries to help more in the defense and rebuilding efforts. Quite obviously, this is country building and will take decades to make happen.

I personally believe the attempt should be made... we destabilized Iraq and we have a responsibility to fix it. However, some things need to change: better resources/equipment given to the troops (not sure the number of troops can be increased without burning them out), a better strategy developed that includes options other than just military ones, more international involvement (hopefully the next president can mend some fences), better use of diplomacy to generate support among Iraqis and in other countries for the efforts , and more oversight of the rebuilding process so that money goes where it's needed and not in some U.S. contractor's or Iraqi politician's pocket.

Answer 6

It is impossible to stabilize Iraq by military means, even if we had 100% support on the home front, which is doubtful.

The prime directive in any confrontation is to know your enemy.

It's impossible to tell who's who over there until they start shooting at us, which is contrary to that very basic assumption.

The same people who sell us pineapples in the market by day, are lobbing pineapple grenades at us by night.

The US military can kick their a--'s in a clear cut well defined firefight. They know that, and have adapted their tactics accordingly.

We simply don't have enough regular and reserve forces to occupy another country. That holds true anywhere, not just in Iraq. Then there's the issue of cost. 10-15-20 years ? More?

We obviously didn't learn from Viet Nam.

We couldn't readily identify the enemy (unless they were N.V. Regulars in uniform), and then as now, we didn't have enough troops to occupy another country.

Then there's the issue of incredibly long supply lines, and we have another duplication of stupidity.

We seem to be violating some of the most basic precepts of war, and failing to learn from those mistakes. Over, and over, and over, and over...

The only solution that will work over there is a religious one, and this country isn't likely to accept a theocracy, even if it were elected democratically.

Answer 7

Sure.

It would take -- at a SWAG estimate -- probably four or five times as many troops as we currently have, with a corresponding increasing in spending up to probably 50 billion per month (5x current levels).

It would probably take 2~3 years, if planned well, and then we'd need to maintain current troops levels for most of a decade after that to prevent any returning insurgency or flare up of civil unrest -- and we'd need to maintain the same degree of rigid control that Saddam did (even if with less retributive punishment).

Are we willing to commit half a million soldiers -- 100% of our current regular army or 50% of our entire regular armed forces -- and most of a trillion dollars (at least double the entire current military budget) per year, for at least the next 3~5 years?

Answer 8

Yes we could if we would pour troops in we could stop the fighting. Guess what though we would have to stay till judgement day, because the day we left all the hatred the Sunnies have for the Shities and vise versa would come back with a vengene.

Answer 9

most freedom fighters cant afford a ticket to america

so they goto Iraq, where the enemy comes to meet them

iraq is 6000 years old America a few hundred, you cant make them like americans

its real easy leave Iraq to the people who live there, America never fixes anything remember Nam anyone? America has only made things worse

go hard

Answer 10

There is more to it like politics, people dying and drug trade, kind of like Viet Nam I think. Cut them off and let them have their dirty little war on their own terms.