In 1969, Nixon had a troop reduction so that the burden of fighting would gradually shift to the armies of South Vietnam. Don't you think it could work here?
2007-09-22 04:53:53 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Senior Citizens
That has been the goal since the end of major offensive military operations in 2003. But, we are fighting a new kind of war. One which doesn't require massed troops with vast armored and aerial support to go into pitched battles against similarly disposed forces. To be blunt, it now requires small troop units (squad or platoon size) kicking in the door somewhere and shooting people in the head. Not only are our forces in transition for that sort of role, so is the reconstituted army of Iraq. That's why David Petreaus is in command right now. He's the co-author of Field Manual 24-3. That's the "bible" on counter-insurgency warfare. The new type of warfare I just described.
The problem in Iraq is the lack of patience by certain political leaders in the U.S. They decry Iraq not becoming a fully-grown democracy over night, like it was some Chia Pet that you watered. For the first ten years of our nation's existence we had a hard time making the idea of a republic work. We finally had to sit down and draft a new Constitution to get ourselves out of the hole we dug with the Articles of Confederation. During those first ten years we had states ready to go to war against other states. We had rebellions against both state and national government.
Have we suffered casualties in Iraq? Of course. And each of those deaths is tragic. But, we lost 7,500 on active duty during the eight years of the previous administration. Between 1980 and 1984 we lost 9,555. And no one was shooting at us!
The plan used by Nixon was in the process of working. The trouble is that he resigned and was replaced by a man who had not garnered a single electoral vote for President or Vice President. So, the Congress "rolled" him and, in the autumn of 1974, they cut off all funding to South Vietnam. Saigon fell on April 25, 1975. Those who want to constantly compare Vietnam to Operation Iraqi Freedom conveniently leave out that historical reality.
2007-09-22 05:34:33 · answer #1 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If done properly and without Congress' constant interference and the media's constant badmouthing I think its very probable that it could work. However a defeatist attitude isn't what we need, I don't want to bring our troops home then within months a civil war breaks out in Iraq, because that means we failed and the consequences will be as bad if now worse then Vietnam. Remember, militarily the US didn't lose the war, we lost because of the media and hippies, don't allow them to cause the US to lose another war.
2007-09-22 05:03:57 · answer #2 · answered by rz1971 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your evaluations, i'm afraid, would get hit complicated from the liberal view factors. it particularly is totally complicated to talk all and sundry who has already thrown interior the towel and properly-known defeat as a available selection. i in my opinion consider you, i think of we would desire to continuously the two combat this conflict or get the hell out (with the authentic threat of basically having to return later to confront a better prepared, emboldened and better equipped enemy). i would not be adversarial to sending not 50,000 troops, yet somewhat 500,000 troops - and at that element, i'm fairly particular the Islamic radicals might get the message. Given the terrorists' background, i will't help yet think of that in the event that they gain any style of perceived victory in Iraq, they'll proceed their approaches on their march to added their ideology of hatred and domination. there is not any reason what so ever to think of that they are going to abandon their approaches of terror and indiscriminate homicide in the event that they are powerful. i've got faith we've yet 2 techniques: defeat those terrorists or settle for their demands. Given the background of attempting international kinfolk and its dismal checklist of fulfillment and the recent occasion of the Pakistani failure to barter a non violent end to the the Mosque takeover through Islamic militants - i myself do not want to hearken to anymore approximately how we would desire to continuously be chatting with those demented psychos.
2016-10-19 10:10:12 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I honestly am not smart enough to voice an opinion, There are so many things that I don't know. The one thing that I am absolutely sure of is I want our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, moms and dads and cousins, returned to us safely and in one piece with no residual after affects
2007-09-22 05:42:38 · answer #4 · answered by slk29406 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I pray so. My son just signed the National Guard Reserves papers. I really hope was goes on in the middle east stays in the middle east. And my son stays in Colorado putting out fires.
2007-09-22 05:25:35 · answer #5 · answered by Granny 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. It would put our troops who are still there in danger. Besides we are not being told the truth, that would be giving our enemy information that could undermine our military, you don't broadcast your manuvers to the enemy, come on , give it a rest.
2007-09-22 07:10:14 · answer #6 · answered by hilbamabush 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We never should have gone there in the first place! We
definitely should bring our
men home. they won't have
civil war, they just want US
OUT.
2007-09-22 17:13:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well stated slk! I agree with you!
2007-09-22 05:50:22 · answer #8 · answered by noonecanne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋