2007-10-22 13:49:49 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
the us won the war they have there oil and all they gotta do is reduce the state of anarchy
2007-10-22 13:53:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your question assumes that given more time the U.S. will win this "war". Maybe you aren't old enough to remember Vietnam. This war is not now nor was it ever winnable. Invaders have a difficult time convincing the local population that their leader was so bad. Just think if the United Nations and Russia decided that GW had committed war crimes and was mistreating a sector of our population. Russia invades the U.S. Some people would be thrilled that GW was gone. Others would fight tooth and nail. Some would try to settle old scores. When the war was over and the Russians and others didn't go home, but instead began building 14 bases in our country, would we behave any differently than the Iraqis? This war will never be over, but we will always call it the "war on terror" instead of what it really is, our big oil grab. We will never leave Iraq unless our government's foreign policy changes drastically. We have never left Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, The Netherlands, The Balkans, Azerbijan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and some 70 other countries we currently have troops in. We are doomed to repeat the failures of every great society in history. Guess we should have studied Rome a bit more.
2007-10-22 21:12:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the initial invasion, our ROE was shoot anyone with a weapon. It was easier back than, and we did win the "war". The Iraqi army was decimated in what, 100 hours. What we are involved in now is not a war, we are in a police action, something our army is not really designed for. But the war part of this was easily won.
2007-10-23 07:38:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No ROE is not good. The cowboys would come out......A realistic ROE with fighting a war in mind would be much better. War is not politically correct and is very messy. A too liberal ROE is counter productive. A too conservative of a ROE produces adverse results that we see now and in another war....USA 11B DAV 89-04.
2007-10-22 21:53:17 · answer #4 · answered by frederick t 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This war is not supposed to be won.
Besides that the rules of engagement have nothing
to do with the problems at hand. The iraqi armed
forces were defeated faster than the support troops
could supply the advancing spearheads.
It wouldn't have been much slower if the troops
were ordered to play cards every other hour.
2007-10-22 21:55:11 · answer #5 · answered by Alex S 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The war is already won. But if you are asking would the insurgency be quelled without a ROE, probably not. Having said that, there would be a decrease in American casualties, because as it stands now, our soldiers can't shoot someone unless they are being shot at.
2007-10-22 21:17:20 · answer #6 · answered by cwaldman15 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably, if they were a little more brutal. Brutality is what kept the Baath party in control of Iraq for so long, after all.
Member of your unit killed by IED? No problem! Shoot two dozen civilians from the surrounding area for every one you lose Ride through town, bash skulls, kick down doors, confiscate all weapons and execute their owners, shoot Iraqi security forces if you don't think they're trying hard enough...
Of course, that'd be silly. There'd go your only possible justification for invading and continuing to stay in the first place.
2007-10-22 21:08:46 · answer #7 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No -- the Iraq conflict is a civil war -- we're not even one of the sides.
The only way the US would have ended the Iraq civil war any faster is by killing everyone who was on the other side -- genocide of entire tribes and regions -- because that's the only way you are going to get them to stop.
Saddam tried that -- and it worked -- we kicked him out -- and how we face the same problem.
Rules of Engagement just mean we follow the laws and rules -- because the alternative is genocide and attacking civilians like the terrorists do.
2007-10-22 20:59:23 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Its really hard to answer that question. I mean its war nothing is certain. Just look at it now. We are the most well equipped nation in terms of warfare and were having a hell of a time fighting a bunch of insurgents with cold war era weapons.
2007-10-22 20:54:27 · answer #9 · answered by Adeptus Astartes 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question makes no sense, there must always be rules of engagement, especially in limited warfare but even in an all-out war. For example, what you are proposing would turn over operational control of tactical nukes to field grade officers. How would that make things better? It would just make it a big mess.
2007-10-22 20:55:30 · answer #10 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It was won a long time ago. The real war and warfare are two different things. When they took their uniforms off, it was won.
2007-10-22 20:56:17 · answer #11 · answered by snipeswife 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋