Posted on 04/23/2006 6:43:41 PM PDT by Btrp113Cav
RAMADI, Iraq (AP) -- Weapons locked, loaded and ready, a U.S. Marine platoon runs through this troubled Iraqi city's war-wrecked streets, hurling yellow, gray and violet smoke grenades to shroud their path.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
this entire town is a rat nest hell hole full of terrorist and their supporters... why havent we called in the b-52's to completely destroy this city and make an example out of it? I just dont get it. We would rather risk more and more American lives than fight a war.
Begrudgingly, the American government gives Saddam some respect at times like this.
You gotta respect a guy who, like Tito in Yugoslavia, could keep a lid on towns like this, keeping rival factions in line.
Of course, like Tito, he killed a lot of people doing it, but the dead don't make good rebels, do they?
When history is written, the Bush administration will be termed "clueless" and "unprepared" in its attempts to keep the peace after the invasion. It was true that we needed far fewer troops to win the war, but those extra 300,000 troops would've been useful in the aftermath.
I agree with you in part. Ramadi was a hotbed of terrorists when I was there but there are still a lot of innocent people living in that city. To raze it would be very bad for us politically. As a soldier, I still believe in the "kill them all and let God sort them out" but politics still have to take a part in this.
Yeah, we could claim the B-52 accidentally released a bomb. Works for me.
Where do you think those extra 300,000 were gonna come from? As it was, nearly half the fighting force was reserves and national guard units.
By 1995, it was physically impossible for us to do Desert Storm again.
The fact is, few troops convinced the Shia that they needed to take their own steps.
If we had been able to lock down the country completely, the Shia would have thought that the US doing all the security work was Allah's will. In addition the US casualties would have been much higher. Alas, the scum have been able to kill non-combatants, rather than our soldiers, but that has also discredited the Al Queda brand among the Sunnis. The Sunni brand of terrorist focuses on the Shia, and spurs the Shia to protect themselves.
If we did it all, and there was no risk to the Shia, how would you convince the Shia to join the new security forces? How would you convince them that the New Iraqi security forces should be substituted for a highly successful US security force? Why would the Shia increase their risk, to save the US money?
It is a tough thing, and you can fail by having too much, and being too successful with no way out. The current administration is doing an admirable job of seeking the balance between too many with no way out and too few with no hope for the future.
From the 400,000 man strong Iraqi Army that Bremer disbanded even though Abazaid had already signed on to a plan to reconstitute the Iraqi Army and retrain it bringing in more Sunnis and Kurds.
Bremer stuck a knife in the back of our military and the president with that decision.
Are you serious? Wow!
Abazaid created the plan to keep the Iraqi Army and retrain it and Bush signed off on it, Bremer stabbed the president in the back.
Your post made waaaaay too much sense.
I'm thinking that when the Iraqi army takes full security responsibility in Anbar, Ramadi will be pacified in the time-honored Middle East fashion, if you know what I mean.
Another drive by FReeper.
Can't take the chance of hitting a mosque, that haven of peace!/s
I wouldn't find humor at a serious military situation, BUT...
I saw one of the CNN teenybopper reporterettes broadcasting from Ramadi today.
She was in a building with the US troops and the film was showing them
gathering ammo and weapons, strolling out to respond to the daily incoming
fire from the insurgents.
The footage showed the soldiers STROLLING to the exits with rifles in hand,
spotting and shooting at potential sources of enemy fire, and then coming
back inside to laugh it up a bit after the days shooting was done.
HOWEVER, the reporterette reported the proceedings with such breathlessness
that for a moment it sounded like it was Tet all over again and our
guys were about to be overrun.
Talk about the intersection of faked high drama and "reporting".
And CNN wonders how FOX News grabs so many viewers...
The Indirect Approach: Separate the Fish From The Water
The other approach to defeating an insurgency is a function fo a better understanding of Mao and a change in the preception of the nature of revolutionary warfare. While continuing to attack the armed elements of the insurgency, the indirect approach recognizes the it is essential to attack the support of the people for the insurgents. The approach is well described in the following passage from Frank Kitson's "Low Intensity Operations" which plays on Mao's description of a revolutionary army as relying on the people for support "like fish swimming in the water of the population."
In attempting to counter subversion it is necessary to take account of three separate elements. The first two constitute the target proper, that is to say the Party or Front and its cells and committees on one hand, and the armed groups who are supporting them and being supported by them by them on the other. They may be said to constitute the the head and body of the fish. The third element is the population and this represents the waterin which they are designed to live, and the same can be said of the subversive orginizations. If the fish has got to be destroyed it can be attacked directly by rod and net, providing it is in the sort of position which gives these methods a chance of success. But if the rod and net cannot succeed by themselves it may necessary to do something to the water which will force the fish into a position where it can be caught. Conceivably it might be necessary to kill the fish by polluting the water, but this is unlikely to be the desirable course of action.
Learning to eat soup with a knife
Counterinsurgency lessons from Mayaya and Vietnam
Lieutenant Colonel John A. Nagl
Page 28
Until you understand the nature of the enemy, the nature of the war and the way we are fighting it you'll find yoursellf saying "I just dont get it".
Not really. Those 300,000 troops would have offered more of a target and hence more of an opportunity for armchair jackoffs to detail how they could have done so much better.
I don't know if impossible, but tough.
Clintoon cut out, what, 2 entire Army Divisions?
I left during Clintoon largely because I just could not fill out another darn bit of paperwork (some reason to leave -- I was literally being driven insane by forms. Shoot at me instead, and I'd have stayed.)
I was not remotely finished with a new 8 year commitment (pilot) --- and was basically handed a gold watch and given a medal for taking my training, my college money, and going home, despite being one of a very small handful of combat-experienced pilots.
They were slashing and cutting the entire military. Cutting back on flight time, cutting back on rounds fired in training, etc.
Anyone who wanted to go, could go.
As an aside, I sometimes feel like a loser having left, but I just couldn't take the peacetime B.S.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.