How do you win in iraq?

Question

With 70% of iraqis being under the age of 18, how can foreign occupiers (obviously foreign) not CREATE anger and support for revenge? Many of these kids know a family member who has been killed. Some (not many) have had parents or very close relatives killed. And in the later case, do you expect the child of a killed father to join the killer of his father?

I think the way to win is to arm every household in iraq. Famalies can the protect themselves. We can leave.

With a force of 5,000 soldiers, 50 tanks, and 10 bombers we could hit up to 150 targets a day. Those targets could be coordinated by iraqi military.

It is obvious that PATROLS by americans are a useless way of creating anomosity towards us, and the true method of creating peace is by blowing the living h*ll out of whoever the current iraqi government deems the enemy.

Any small patrols to be done will be done from now on in TANKS.

Do you think the current strategy of slowly bleeding works?

!!!Our soldiers should NEVER HAVE THE ROLL of PLAYING AS POLICE!!!

IEDs dont effect tanks liek they do humvees.

"killing people doesnt solve anything" typical comment. Hug the rapist, give the serial killer a backrub, ask the robber if he also wants you to call up your grandmother so she can drive over her jewelery.

Answer 1

I think that you're on to something here.

The Iraq Freedom Congress (http://www.ifcongress.com/english/index.htm ) is a libertarian, secularist, non-violent, democratic, and progressive group that opposes Ba'athism, Islamism, and nationalism -- as well as the US invasion/occupation.

The Iraq Freedom Congress has organized a self-defense Safety Force that patrols neighborhoods in Iraq (population: 5,000) and has reduced sectarian violence there to zero. However, far from supporting this effort, US forces have assassinated the head of these Safety Forces (http://tinyurl.com/25yknr ).

*****

The fact is, ending the threat of jihadist terrorist attacks against the US and its allies would be easy enough. You just need to do what Ron Paul has done, and pay attention to the actual motivations of the jihadist terrorists. Every serious analysis has concluded that their hatred of the US is motivated by actions that the US government has undertaken in their part of the world -- harmful interventions against Muslim populations. These include backing Israeli attacks on Palestinians, the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of Iraq and sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, support for various dictators in countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.

In order to eventually halt the jihadist terrorists from making these attacks, the US should stop committing these harmful interventions and thus remove the motivation for the jihadist terrorists (whose attacks on civilians they by no means justify) in the first place. Ending these harmful interventions would in any case be the right thing to do from a moral standpoint.

This should of course be combined with a strong law-enforcement effort to go after the jihadist terrorists who undertake such attacks.

Instead, though, the Bush administration has chosen to deny reality, misrepresent the terrorists' motivations, and to engage in even more of these harmful interventions (the invasion/occupation of Iraq, Ethiopia's proxy invasion/occupation of Somalia, etc.). This simply makes the problem worse, motivating more and more Muslims to join the jihadists, and landing the US in the Iraqi quagmire -- much to the delight of al-Qaida, as they state in their internal documents.

A caveat is in order, though. This strategy would take some time to eliminate the motivations of the jihadists -- that kind of hatred and fanaticism does not end in a day.

Another helpful thing to do would be to aid the good groups in the region, such as:

http://www.rawa.org/
http://www.ifcongress.com/english/index.htm
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm
http://www.awalls.org/

News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

Answer 2

Here is how you win (and this has been done in Libya back in the 1930's when Italy was having problems with insurgents):

1) Send enough troops.
2) Use coalition troops to seal off the borders. You MUST cut the inflow of supplies and reinforcements to the insurgents.
3) Isolate problem towns, same as you would seal a border in #2 above.
4) Use mixed Iraqi/coalition troops to patrol the cities.

The result? The insurgency, without supplies and reinforcements, will dry up over time, and the Iraqi military and police will gain morale and courage as they face decreasing opposition.

Answer 3

Youve answered your own question my friend and i totally agree with you. The British recently have quit Basra but still remain in the south as a rapid reaction force. And it is totally true that the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi streets seriously pisses them off, let the Iraqis take over again ,the allies did what they went to Iraq for in the first place.

Answer 4

Tanks are too expensive. A $15 million machine being blown apart by a $50 bomb? I stay stick it out.. I support the troops 100%.

Answer 5

i live in america. i dont support the war at all. people killing people doesnt solve anything. it only makes people angry or sad. but how the he|l would blowing people up solve anything either? dont be stupid. this is real not a video game.

Answer 6

There has yet to be a definition of win for this invasion/occupation.

Answer 7

Leave asap. Iraq was a bigger mistake than Vietnam.