posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 09:12 PM
I just posted in another thread this exact thing. From a military strategy perspective, a war of this nature, or of any nature for the most part,
cannot be won from the air alone. It is just not practical, and military history supports this conclusion. I am a firm believer that if any nation is
to get involved in a conflict, let them pull out all the stops to win it as quickly as possible. Obviously it will be easier for the US to maintain
some semblance of order in Iraq, where they have more control from the ground, at the moment those boots on the ground being US-trained Iraqi
The US cannot focus on either Iraq or Syria if they hope to make headway, as doing so leaves the enemy forces somewhere to escape the pressure, rather
they must focus on both simultaneously. Anyway, to get to the point, we can speculate with conspiracy theories, but whether they are true or not does
not change what I said above. It is just common sense where strategy is concerned. Both viewpoints make sense, meaning that if the US is legitimately
fighting this terrorist group, as it has been reported to us, then boots on the ground is the obvious next step. And if there is some conspiracy to
embroil us in another war or whatever, then boots on the ground also make sense.
But something that needs to be understood is that a war of this nature cannot be won with military forces alone. The true way to beat an insurgency is
through the people. You have to provide them LONG TERM security. After what happened when the US pulled out of Iraq, I can guarantee you that many
Iraqi's have lost faith, and as such they are not going to be as willing to cooperate, depending on how things play out. They will simply be
preparing for their own survival, preparing for when the US leaves. The US must create a better government and military in Iraq, and must ensure that
they are truly self-sufficient and able to deal with conflicts before cutting them loose. Rebuilding and revamping and making the Iraqis
self-sufficient is the only real strategy that makes any sense.
The entire "hearts and minds" strategy was meant to serve a similar purpose, although this was not carried out properly. Soldiers should not be
tasked with such measures anyway. They are not trained for that for the most part. Of course I would be lying if I said it was all this simple. But
that is the gist of it anyway. If anyone wants a true understanding of the military perspective, and what it takes to beat an insurgency, the first
source of education they should seek are treatises on guerilla warfare or unconventional warfare so as to understand the tactics and strategies
employed, such as "On Guerilla Warfare" by Mao Zedong, "Guerilla Warfare" by Che Guevara, and the many books written by analysts rather than
fighters, which are also most instructive. Understanding how unconventional forces operate allows one to see that conventional means are often not
enough to defeat them, even when the conventional force possesses far superior equipment as well as a numerical advantage.