War In Iraq worst-handled war ever

Goodness gracious. With all our superior military might, we can't even defeat an inferior foe?

Mr government needs to understand something very clearly. When it comes to war, either you go all-out or you don't go at all. There is no in-between. If we want to win in Iraq, the U.S. needs to:

- Deploy as many troops necessary

- Disregard civilian casualties

- Give "Weapons Free, Engage at Will" ROEs to our troops

- Deploy superior firepower in all instances

Lolly-gagging and playing politics gets troops killed. It's either fight or get killed. We're getting killed. The U.S. needs to come down hard on Iraq and show who's in charge: us. If that means we have to rip apart the entire country or annihilate the entire population, so be it. If that means we're gonna win the war, let's move.

And I don't want to hear about "morals" and rules of war anymore. Those are things that result in losses. War is not a moral thing, so as long as we're at it, we might as well get as dirty as necessary.

And I better not discover this attitude is anti-American.

No, not that your anti-American, nope, not at all.
Just have no clue to American History or the wars the US has been in.
You call Iraq the worst-handled war, yet no where in your commentary, have you mentioned Vietnam, which bluntly put, was America's worst handled war....thus far.

Have a good one.





seekerof

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Seekerof]

I agree with Seekerof. Vietnam, worst handled war ever (thus far).

I would suggest EVERYONE read MajorCee's posts in the linked thread. This is not a poorly planned war, its brilliant! Of course not everythings perfect but....

It explains so much in my opinion. I wish I had some way aboves left.

MajorCee

The fact that he claims the war in Iraq is "the worst-handled war ever" makes his statement even more incorrect. His title doesn't limit this to American-involved wars. So either he knows absolutely nothing about history, or he misspoke. Either way, he's still wrong!

The war against Iraq was one of the most successful and effective military campaigns ever conducted. The post-war occupation is another story. There's a difference between the two.

Now if you want to look at the worst-handled wars ever, I can think of a few off the top of my head: The Six Day War (from the Arab's side of handling it), The Soviet invasion of Aghanistan, Vietnam (obviously), Italy's involvement in WWII, Hitler's micromanaging of WWII, and so on. And this is just some of the 20th century's worst-handled wars.

While I agree for the most part with the original poster's sentiment that we need to change our strategy in Iraq and stop being so politically correct, I simply disagree with his opinion that it's the worst-handled war ever.

"Mr government needs to understand something very clearly. When it comes to war, either you go all-out or you don't go at all. There is no in-between. If we want to win in Iraq, the U.S. needs to:.. ".

Is that not past JCS Chairman and SoState Powell's thoughts. Seems to me he hated War. But if Ordered to do it you go ALL the way with everything you have.

Suppose what the US War machine mabe didn't consider was the after math of the initial conquer?

Dallas

Considering we were in Vietnam for oh around 20 years, I think we are right on track for worst ever especially in light of the pre-war debacle and misrepresentations that justified this war. Hey but let's look at some recent examples of how this war is beign handled in it's first two years after 'mission accomplished'...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...news.independent.co.uk...
www.theage.com.au...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.latimes.com...
news.baou.com...
Proof Positive of Torture Being Ordered...
www.truthout.org...
www.latimes.com...
www.turkishpress.com...
www.newstatesman.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.truthout.org...
www.truthout.org...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.thenation.com...
query.nytimes.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.cbsnews.com...
query.nytimes.com...


This Article was altered, here's a screen shot of the original story though...



A few more that vanished from their original sites compeltely...

www.latimes.com...
www.nytimes.com...
www.truthout.org...
www.truthout.org...
www.truthout.org...
www.truthout.org...
www.truthout.org...
www.truthout.org...
www.truthout.org...

Shall I go on, you can understand a simple ratio seekerof, 20 years in Vietnam as opposed to a little over two now in Iraq, and this is a mere snippet of our preformance 'Over There'. Ah but you right wingers cringe at the very hint of the comparisons to Vietnam, brings back bad memories of people not buying the Lies and Protesting.

The problem is we won the war and achieved our objective. We removed Saddam and we made sure Iraq does not have WMD (thats another debate entirely). The problem is we won and just have not left like we should have.

The Americans dieing today are dieng for an entirely different cause than that cause which was used to justify the war.

We are now "Fighting for Iraq's Freedom" like our ofrefathers faught for our's. many Iraq's don't want Freedom.

I think a lot of Americans even her soldiers do not think American blood should be paving the way for Iraq Freedom like our ancestors did for ours.

Personaly my view is we should leave with Saddam in hand and let the Iraq's die for their own country and freedom if thats what they want to fight for.

Then we should refocus those billions of our dollars on border securtity and a more robust screening process for those entering our country for what ever reasons they enter.

I think those billions should be spent scaaning our cargo holds on ships entering our ports (this would also create AMERICAN jobs. I feel no further obligations to Iraq. We have sured our freedom and if another government forms over there that is hostile and a threat to American then we just remove it as well then go home again..

Leave Iraq then remove Iranian goverment of duty then leave Iran (not that we need to go there just blow up nuclear and military infrastructure as long as they are a threat). If no threat then just come home and stay here.

I think let Iraq decide for themselves and fight there own Civil war. Why do more Americans need to die for it?

Never will we be able to protect America from terrorists by some suedo means of keeping a war going "over there". The terrorists that will try terror in the US are not so stupid as to just do it in Iraq and leave the states alone and I think our government believes that.

My vote is to bring our men along with Saddam home and to heck with Saving face at the cost of more American blood.

Just make America secure and forget the "Face saving".

My 2 cents

X

There are several Threads like this floating around at the moment, its the whole nuke em all mentality. That in itself needs to stop, the whole killing civilians thing is sick. How would you like it if some soldier from another country shot up your family? Oh it would only be collateral damage so thats ok. Guess you wouldn't mind.

This war has been both poorly and well planned both at the same time.

21 days people, 21 days and Iraq folded. 21 days to occupy Iraq (a country the size of France. That is very impressive) I don't think we have seen anything like that ever in the history of war (Iran/Syria take note). Still if your country spends more on weapons than the rest of the world put together and takes on a thrid world country you would surely expect something like that to happen.

The whole idea that you need more troops is flawed. It is totally wrong. At first you were fighting a war against conventional troops and your American army thrashed them in 21 days. That was very well planned and very well executed.

The bit that wasn't planned for was winning the peace and I don't think more troops would help here. Hindsight is a great thing but the Iraqi army should never have been disbanded. It should have been retrained. What you now have in Iraq is an insurgency. That is a policing operation. You can't use tanks against people who hide amongst civilians. The only way the Americans can win in Iraq is if the new Iraqi army can fight the insurgents. You need native soldiers backing up a strong government becuase Iraq is the kind of place that needs strong decisive centralised government.

sweatmonicaIdo, the idea that US troops should disregard civilian casualties make you as bad as the insurgents. The minute American troops stop looking where they shoot, you are gonna loose the hearts and minds of the people, then the US will really be in the sh1t.

Im British. We tried heavy handed tactics in Ireland. It didn't work. You wanna defeat the terrorists, you need the local population on your side. Blowing up houses and then handing out sweets to kids isn't hearts and minds. You give Iraqis jobs, security, ammenities and an education and a good army and you will be onto a winner. If the US suceeds in making Iraq a good place to be, i.e. a working democracy in the middle of the middle east then the terrorists will have lost a major battle. If you fail then god help us all.

You need to decide. Do you want the US to liberate and rebuild Iraq or would you prefer the US to liberate it to pieces, kill em all so to speak? If so nice one Hitler. This is counter insurgency not war and you don't win insurgencys that way.

There have been several wars that have been fought by the U.S. that were managed much worse than the one we are currently engaged in over in the sand pit. We have never had the vast tech. resources to draw on as we do now. Our own Civil War would have been a peice of cake so to say if we had the tech. we have today. I would also bet that in the near future our technology will surpass what we have now and allow us to kill more efficiently.

Has anyone even read this?

Originally posted by edsinger
I would suggest EVERYONE read MajorCee's posts in the linked thread. This is not a poorly planned war, its brilliant! Of course not everythings perfect but....

MajorCee

It truly is an interesting read, I would like to know how one on the Left can answer his ideas?

I think he has a pretty damn good handle on the whole big picture!

Definately Vietnam. We were basically an occupation force for 10 years instead of taking the offensive and trying to win the war. We pretty much lost all of those men for nothing.

Originally posted by edsinger
Has anyone even read this?

Originally posted by edsinger
I would suggest EVERYONE read MajorCee's posts in the linked thread. This is not a poorly planned war, its brilliant! Of course not everythings perfect but....

MajorCee

It truly is an interesting read, I would like to know how one on the Left can answer his ideas?

I think he has a pretty damn good handle on the whole big picture!

Wow, that was a good read, though it took a while to read it all. I agree on most points of his, especially with the message Iraq has sent to other countries. Funny, I haven't seen him post anywhere...Was he a one time poster or something?

Anyway, Sweatmonica has proven he knows little of the military many many times before, though oddly, I find myself agreeing with him in one respect - we should take the gloves off.

The statement that the Iraq war is even in the same league as Vietnam is laughable.

Mod Edit: ***SNIP***

To learn why this was edited, read this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fair Warning.


Now back to your regularly scheduled topic...

[edit on 19-8-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Wow, that was a good read, though it took a while to read it all. I agree on most points of his, especially with the message Iraq has sent to other countries. Funny, I haven't seen him post anywhere...Was he a one time poster or something?

Anyway, Sweatmonica has proven he knows little of the military many many times before, though oddly, I find myself agreeing with him in one respect - we should take the gloves off.

The statement that the Iraq war is even in the same league as Vietnam is laughable.

AMM, I truly enjoy the fact that no matter what, I can expect your reply to anything, supportive or contrary, to be exactly how I picture it.

Back on topic, my ultimate point (which ALL of you missed) is that we need to fight this war differently, Unlike many of you, I want to WIN this war. I am so sick of hearing about a new U.S. military body count, I am sick of seeing the Cindy Sheehans pulling off dangerous and pointless protests (which will end in death). And I am especially getting tired of the "we're building schools in Iraq" garbage. Building schools? Is a single school for Iraqi children worth that much for the lives of our soldiers? I don't think so. I want to see our soldiers drop the hammers and pick up their rifles, get some more troops and armor on their side, air support, and tear apart anything that gets in their way. War is not to be taken lightly and we need to start seeing that our government agrees with that notion.

Again, I don't care if you think I'm wrong in that the Iraq War is the most mishandled war in history. You can choke on that notion for all I care. My point is we aren't doing what needs to be done. War is war and if you don't go to war with war, you're not gonna win.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo


AMM, I truly enjoy the fact that no matter what, I can expect your reply to anything, supportive or contrary, to be exactly how I picture it.

Glad I could oblige

Back on topic, my ultimate point (which ALL of you missed) is that we need to fight this war differently, Unlike many of you, I want to WIN this war. I am so sick of hearing about a new U.S. military body count, I am sick of seeing the Cindy Sheehans pulling off dangerous and pointless protests (which will end in death). And I am especially getting tired of the "we're building schools in Iraq" garbage. Building schools? Is a single school for Iraqi children worth that much for the lives of our soldiers? I don't think so. I want to see our soldiers drop the hammers and pick up their rifles, get some more troops and armor on their side, air support, and tear apart anything that gets in their way. War is not to be taken lightly and we need to start seeing that our government agrees with that notion.

Again, I don't care if you think I'm wrong in that the Iraq War is the most mishandled war in history. You can choke on that notion for all I care. My point is we aren't doing what needs to be done. War is war and if you don't go to war with war, you're not gonna win.

I agree. The problem is that war is an extreme of politics, and with politics you ALWAYS have to play by some set of rules. If we truely were to do as you say, that is, put say half a million troops in there, lock down the boarders, and start going house to house, the US would take unbearable political heat.

I mean look at it now - you have about 40% of this country that thinks this war is certifiably wrong. They don't WANT to win. They WANT the US to lose, they want the US to LEAVE. It's sad but it's true. And the politicians have to deal with that 40% of people. The generals in turn have to deal with the politicians.

That is of course to say nothing of the bitching and moaning we get from the surrender monkeys and the like. Then you have Iraq it's self. Those ARE people there, and it is THEIR country. We walk a fine line between trying to help them and trying to take care of buisness. We have to both show improvement in their countries infrastructure/way of life, and improvement in their security. These things don't go hand in hand.

The problem is that the US, and the world in general is not facing a threat on the same level as Germany in WWII. At worst, Iraq would have gotten the bomb, and a few nukes would have gone off in our cities, and people who don't support the war will say it was unavoidable. What we need is all the pissy anti-war people shut the hell up so there are no distractions, and let our people do what we need to.

Two worst handled wars ever come at the expense of initiation by a Democrat. Truman in North Korea who did not realize the value in striking the Chinese before they began to mobilize and hit what little was left of NK soldiers and Johnson in Vietnam who thought small incraments of bombing were more suitable, Nixon was no better because neither realized the potential that laid within bombing the Ho Chi Mihn trail. Had this been achieved it would have been 'a whole new ball game' so to speak.

We are not deploying superior fire power - if the war against the insurgents is what the US seeks, then we would be in Syria as of now stoping the flow of weapons, supplies, and insurgents, same with Iran. We would basse in close proximity to the borders and wage war from there and allow the Iraqi security forces to pick off what little gets by coalition troops. We are being soft on these insurgents when compared to what we could realy be doing.

US is concerned now with training Iraqi security forces to deal with the problem and waiting for a drafted and ratified constitution and what appears to be a stable democracy set in place so that we may leave.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Frosty]

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I mean look at it now - you have about 40% of this country that thinks this war is certifiably wrong. They don't WANT to win. They WANT the US to lose, they want the US to LEAVE. It's sad but it's true. And the politicians have to deal with that 40% of people. The generals in turn have to deal with the politicians.

I'd be real careful about making such a statement. It's not that the Americans want to lose the war, it's more that they don't know what it means to win or lose a war. They don't know the consequences of winning or losing, and they don't get the smaller picture of what it means to simply throw in the towel, so to speak, and leave Iraq.

Basically, Americans don't have a grasp on what war is, nor do they understand the concept of what exactly war does. You can blame that on our government and the media.

Honestly, I just wish Americans would understand America is not a democracy, it's a federal republic, and we can do anything we want, but we can't sway the president's opinion. If he says we go to war, we go to war. No nation has gone to war because the people say so. Get behind it, win the damn war, and we'll kick him out of office then and start over. But nothing gets in the way of winning the war. That's the way I see it.

I would say that the occupation of Iraq is the problem or the "worst handeled occupation." I dont even know if I could say that given the fanasty land the Bush admin is living in. There were no problems with the invasion although defeating a thrid rate military power is nothing special.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by xpert11]

The problem with this war is, nobody wants to admit why they are there.

We all (please take note that it is NOT only the US that is fighting over there) need to re-evaluate our reasons.

Primary reason one: To remove/destroy WMDs – goal achieved (there weren’t any there in the first place, but that isn’t for this thread)

Primary reason two: to remove saddam – goal achieved

Primary reason three: there isn’t one

Every one is just “wingin’ it” there is no grand plan because nobody expected the level of resistance there is.

I for one am for the 'all or nothing' argument but a more heavy handed tactic will simply not work. The Nazi occupation in Poland needed wholesale execution of the WWII equivalent of the “insurgents”. It achieved nothing apart for millions of deaths.

I don’t know what the answer is to this situation, but a more clearly defined our objectives, the more effective our strategy will be.