That's very true...I guess I was looking at it from the perspective of the "take the gloves off" approach a lot of people seem to be advocating. Our problem in Iraq isn't that we weren't serious or vicious enough, we were just stupid.Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
That is a damn good question...and probably THE question....but I don't have the answer.Originally posted by: Rainsford
But how does that work when the enemy is not nation states but state-less groups of radicals?
We absolutely DID NOT do the same thing in Iraq. First of all, we didn't "crush" their armed forces, we took their weapons and let them go free, and we didn't even try to retain any of them as a core for a later army or police force. Secondly, we sent in only 140,000 troops, because our idiot president thought the entire nation would turn out and throw flowers at the mere mention of esoteric words like "freedom" and "democracy". He was clearly wrong. First, you occupy the country in such force as to be able to actually enforce security and rule of law and order; then you worry about democracy. A "free vote" doesn't mean sh*t if half the populace is still getting blown up just trying to buy groceries or go to work.Originally posted by: Rainsford
And I think it's worth pointing out that we DID what you suggest with Iraq, we crushed the armed forces of Iraq and fully occupied the country (although not with the number of troops experts recommended).
We failed exactly because we did not "do the same thing" as we had with Germany and Japan. Sorry, but if you decide to knock over a country's government, then you are taking responsibility for filling the breach and putting them back on their feet. Watching $9 billion be carted way in wheelbarrows to be spent God knows where is NOT the same as the Marshall Plan.