West can't fight: doomed to fail every war.

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TravisT
There are a lot of things that we currently aren't willing to do when it comes to fighting terrorists. Mosque's is the first thing that coems to mind. A religious temple wouldn't stand in the way of killing a few terrorists in Patton's opinion, i can assure you.

Perhaps, but Patton would have also started the occupation with more troops, worked quickly to make sure disorder and lawlessness didn't have a chance to get started, and refused to buy into the ridiculous "sweets and flowers" fantasy...none of which require the heavy-handed approach. The idea that we're running a perfect war except for the lack of brutality is silly, and I think Patton would be the first to point that out. Perhaps some measure of "taking the gloves off" IS necessary, but the idea that we just haven't bombed enough mosques yet is naive stupidity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps we should brutally kill anybody in leadership positions and all of their family who suggests doing violence to others whoever or wherever they are. This ought to bring the casualties of war way way down.

But then who knows, maybe we like leaders who want to start wars because we are filled with an inner violence of self hate and actually want to kill others. It's very frustrating for those who want to act out that violence vicariously in the brutal extinction of enemies when our leadership pussyfoots around. They aren't getting all the jollies they require to manage their demons.

 

[GTKeeper]

I have said this so many times before. The reason we are losing Iraq is because we disbanded the Iraqi army.

Its not because we were not 'tough' enough or anything, its because we let freaking civilians do the military's job, i.e Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bremer.

How the HELL do 3 losers like that call all the shots in the war? We had generals making deals with the Iraqi army to take over security days before it got 'disbanded' and when it did, the attacks on U.S forces started.

I think people get so caught up in the ideology of this war, but its really quite simple, just like any war. Army comes in, begins to occupy you, strips you of your rights and your job, you are left with nothing and a starving family. A radical group makes an announcement that they will pay hard cash to fight the occupiers... what do you do?

 

[ayabe]

There are many reasons why things are the way they.

Something that isn't highlighted enough is the lack of electricity. According to what I read today, Baghdad residents only get around 2.4 hours of electricity per day this month, which is the lowest ever since the invasion.

Text

If the people of New York City or any other major metropolis in the US only received 2.4 hours of electricity there would be catastrophic violence as well.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I have said this so many times before. The reason we are losing Iraq is because we disbanded the Iraqi army.

Its not because we were not 'tough' enough or anything, its because we let freaking civilians do the military's job, i.e Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bremer.

How the HELL do 3 losers like that call all the shots in the war? We had generals making deals with the Iraqi army to take over security days before it got 'disbanded' and when it did, the attacks on U.S forces started.

I think people get so caught up in the ideology of this war, but its really quite simple, just like any war. Army comes in, begins to occupy you, strips you of your rights and your job, you are left with nothing and a starving family. A radical group makes an announcement that they will pay hard cash to fight the occupiers... what do you do?

Are you trying to tell me that if we start murdering everybody in sight in Iraq we can't regain the advantage? Maybe we can run some statistical tests and see how many families we need to kill per town to tone violence down. We can kill brother and sister in some places and in others everybody our to third cousin and keep meticulous records. Or we can just make it easier and kill 100 civilians for every soldier they kill. Then we can up it from to a 1000 and 10000 to whatever it takes to end the resistance, no? The answer to all our problems is obvious as the nose on your face. There just aren't enough people dead.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I was against the Iraqi war for all it's premption, lies and unessesary death, still am, but for another reason at this point and that's we don't have stomach, republicans and democrats alike, to really put the screws down and win.

I was Shocked when I learned we did foot patrols for snipers to hit. Shocked to learn we do drive patrols for IEDs to blow to soldiers to peices. Shocked we did'nt surround a whole town and strave them out until they capitulated. Shocked to learn we did'nt shoot looters, thugs and other malcontents on sight but jailed them instead. Prue idiocy. We need to read up on Clausewitz instead of what passes for military education these days (just war theory). You destroy your enemy as quickly and brutally as possible and avoid a long protracted conflict and even more deaths and instability. We havnt done that since WWII. The last war we won. In this war the Fallujah catastrophe stands out as a perfect example as we warned let the city drain itself of most hardend before action. Fallujah and every living thing in it should have been vaporized the same day they butchered those American contractors. Our invasion of Iraq was too "surgical", too low-casuality with no message other than guerilla warfare is profitable an carried no family responsibity with it. The Mujahideen just laughs at us.

Anyway good article here by Ralph Peters entiled "'P.C.' COWARDICE DOOMS FIGHT AGAINST IRAQ'S KILLERS" talks about how we are going to leave 99% of peace loving Iraqis to thugs and killers because of our nancy boy ways of fighting.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10242006/ne...ets_columnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=1

Your post, is my entire complaint about Iraq. :thumbsup:

 

[pcy]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Peter all your objections have been addressed in this thread already. The part about whole population will rise up is completly wrong. People by in large want safty first, only the most hardened warriors will fight..this has been proven thoughout history with every succesful conquer of one peoples upon another...eliminate them and/or make the body of the population rely on you for it's safty ie we won't kill you if you roll on the militants, and they will succum. Are the native americans still scalping us?

I never said the whole courtry would actively fight, though I did suggest that most would want to.

If safety were actually on offer and deliverable (including safefty from being killed by the occupying forces) - which it isn't:

And if we were actually prepared to try to conquor Iraq, and subjugate it's entire people - which we are not:


Then the sort of tactics you suggest might work - though I doubt it.


The history you cite is not on fact so clear cut. Sucessful conquests have usually involved replacement of the defeated population by new settlers. Note that in a very highly hierachical society often only the elite were replaced, therir underlings essentially uninvolved in the conquest and reamining subjugated by the same social system as before. I see no rush of US or UK settlers to Iraq to take over control of their land and industrial infrastructure and form a new bedrock population to consolidate a military conquest.

In a modern socieity with some collective national identity and awareness of geopolitics, and with an invading army not able to capitalize on its military success by means of Genocide, and with no replacement population possible, conquest is not an option.


Nor, indeed has anybody even suggested it, as far as I am aware.



Peter

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I have said this so many times before. The reason we are losing Iraq is because we disbanded the Iraqi army.

Its not because we were not 'tough' enough or anything, its because we let freaking civilians do the military's job, i.e Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bremer.

How the HELL do 3 losers like that call all the shots in the war? We had generals making deals with the Iraqi army to take over security days before it got 'disbanded' and when it did, the attacks on U.S forces started.

I think people get so caught up in the ideology of this war, but its really quite simple, just like any war. Army comes in, begins to occupy you, strips you of your rights and your job, you are left with nothing and a starving family. A radical group makes an announcement that they will pay hard cash to fight the occupiers... what do you do?

Are you trying to tell me that if we start murdering everybody in sight in Iraq we can't regain the advantage? Maybe we can run some statistical tests and see how many families we need to kill per town to tone violence down. We can kill brother and sister in some places and in others everybody our to third cousin and keep meticulous records. Or we can just make it easier and kill 100 civilians for every soldier they kill. Then we can up it from to a 1000 and 10000 to whatever it takes to end the resistance, no? The answer to all our problems is obvious as the nose on your face. There just aren't enough people dead.

What? I didn't say anything about killing anyone. WTH are you talking about?

a) killing more people will not solve the problem
b) we have to figure out a way how to get those 'lost' Iraqi soliders/generals from the former party back on our side, only then will we have a fighting chance.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I have said this so many times before. The reason we are losing Iraq is because we disbanded the Iraqi army.

We disbanded it?

I wasn't even aware that we had caputured it. I read how they fled and "disbanded" themselves.

Fern

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: sandorski
It has nothing to do with "stomach". Guerilla Warfare is just a superior tactic against overwhelming force. The West's Military is simply too built around the concept of Armies clashing with Armies on a battlefield. Guerrila Armies don't work that way.

No it's not superior you're just ignorant like our current leadership is. There have been Guerilla warfare since begining of time but it was delt with immediatly and decidingly by exploiting psychology of family responsibility. Read ?Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" He talks about how insurgencies were delt with from Alexander times to civil war all the up to Philippine and Japanese. Whole villages and towns were layed waste which would clue in the next town who dared harm a single hair on occupiers head. Again it's tha stomach thing getting in the way and why we will never successfully occupy ever again until we learn how to fight coventionally again. Pretty good agrument for not waring in the first place if you ask me.

Incidently the Mujahideen still fights conventionally. Whole families are eliminated if they think one member is cooperating with Americans. Kinda puts the damper on knarks.

Even genocide won't necessarily win against a determined enemy. Look at Africa. There are dozens of examples of brutal butchery to control a nation and it never really works. It doesn't work because the enemy has a stomach to continue fighting. Some don't.

In Europe, Hungarians kept the Muslim armies pinned for almost three centuries because they refused to quit despite attempts at wiping out the entire nation and quite literally leveling the whole country to the ground. It didn't work out well for the Muslims in the end.

There are countless examples of where this doesn't work. So please don't try and paint this as the one true alternative for winning the war.

What would I have done?

Assuming that it was for a good reason, which it wasn't, then I would have put at a bare minimum 1,000,000+ troops on the ground. More if need be. Priority in securing ammo dumps with Paratroops and Spec Ops. Heavily monitoring borders with everything I had to throw at it. Having an overwhelming presence in every single city, town, village, farm house and out house. All civilian roles done only be professionals with decades of experience to teach Iraqi's who will take over. Basic public works ran by Iraqis including the Police and Military. Leaving Police and Military disarmed until screened. Concentrating on Police first. Leaving NeoCon politics out of the country.

The list goes on and on....

Pretty much everything they didn't do.

 

[palehorse]

ya know, it IS possible to fight more fiercely without being inhumane.

alot more troops, more patrols, slightly less restrictive ROE's, strict enforcement of a curfew, etc.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ya know, it IS possible to fight more fiercely without being inhumane.

alot more troops, more patrols, slightly less restrictive ROE's, strict enforcement of a curfew, etc.

Yea they seem to think it's all or nothing. The strawman of unaluterated genocide or handing out candy and acting like mother thersea. I think many did'nt read artile:

We would not kill the handful of men who needed killing. Now they've converted tens of thousands to their cult of violence.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Zebo
You destroy your enemy as quickly and brutally as possible and avoid a long protracted conflict and even more deaths and instability.

You mean like Russia did in Chechnya?

Except Russia actually won in Chechnya with it's big stick big carrot approach.

 

[Horus]

And you leave the country HATING you for your methods. Are you fvcking stupid? This is the worst possible idea you could possibly have for Iraq.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: techs
Does ANYONE here remember our goal is to create a free and workable democracy in Iraq? If we are brutal to the population then that is impossible. All it does is make the U.S. the focus of anger of all Iraqis.

Exactly.