Originally posted by searching_for_truth
But first, we need to know the real cause of the insurgency in Iraq.
Is this really a religious one? just plain terrorism? Or the people are just defending their land from "foreign agrression"?
It is a mix, years of opression against a religious group (shi'a) and an ethnic group (kurdish). Saddam was a dam holding these two groups in check
by means of repressive of security forces. Break the dam? Water goes loose on the lowlands.
Kurds have done a good job in their province, why? The repression against them was so strong, there are few "outsiders" in their land. So no
Rest of the country...doesn't look quite as well, dividing the country now seems a more realistic plan, since the sunni and shi'a have no visible
end to their war in the horizon.
Plain terrorism? No, not plain by any means, it gets more sophisticated by the minute, my previous post stands. They hit tanks and helos harder, the
US cassualty and wounded list grows by the day, not to even mention the unlisted contractor deaths
People are joining extremist groups by the day, why? Getting attacked by other groups and the US military, doesn't really leave them much choice.
This should be the most important of all. Once we know the real problem, then we maybe can apply the real solution.
What is the main objective in Iraq?
Oil over people. Should be pretty obvious by now.
Let's look again in the past wars as example.
World War 2 - How many countries that were invaded and occupied by the US that had insurgency problem after occupation? Was there any?
None, no insurgency problems, since the US fixed the countries up and left, ASAP, keeping influence, but not the countries under formal occupation.
Excellent tactic, see how well it worked out.
Do keep in mind, the countries occupied where all ready solid countries with history binding them together, Iraq is very much unlike this.
Vietnam War, I can say that Vietnam war is a bit confusing. So many things to consider:
1.Was there any formal declaration of war?
2.There was a frontline between the north & south (DMZ) yet you have rampant insurgency in the whole south.
3.Various important aerial targets which can really cause decisive tactical victory were never allowed to be bombed. Like the supply route from
4.Why the US never lauched a full scale invasion of North Vietnam?
5.In the eyes of the many, the war is simply an ideology war. Yet if you look closely, a lot of north vietnamese & VC don't even care about politics.
They were just simply defending their land from "foreign invasion"
1. Yes Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
2. Guerilla movements where fed from NVA going through the DMZ, US was incapable of securing the DMZ at any time.
3. Cambodia was a very important supply route, bombed, barely made any difference.Operation
and Operation Freedom Deal
4. Same reason China was never touched, getting the Chinese involved openly was a gamble with nukes, a gamble the US would never play unless
absolutely forced to.
5. Fighting with the "gloves off" (extensive usage of napalm, artillery and airpower in civilian zones) only fed the guerilla movement, not end it.
Making his mistake in Iraq would be even more disastrous.
The immidiate task should be (taken from above as the military part)
1.Credible territorial security,
2.The destruction of the enemy's underground government
3.The maintenance of lines of communication important to economic and military activity.
1. Beyond credibilty, the US cannot keep their own forces safe, obviously, it can do much less for the civilian population, large areas of the country
are controlled by guerilla gangsters, kidnapping and assisanting cooperators as they see fit.
Separating people by ethnicity and religion is the only viable solution, and that is a maybe.
2. Destroy a snake with no head...how? Every blow dealt against the movement spawns a new head.
Cut the snake from its feeding source, disgruntled civilians, would be the only way. People have many reasons to be disgruntled, thinking the US is
winning their hearts and minds as it did back in Europe 50 years ago, is not realistic.
3. The media itself is under attack, reporters getting picked up, killed or both.
I do not disagree with your ideas, but I don't see them as a realistic option. They are all cute ideas, but far from being within the US capability.
The US needs to win over the people they are trying to "liberate" or "rule" (depending on your political views). This should be their main goal
and silver bullet strategy, not thinking on "taking the gloves off" (Remember Vietnam?)
But again, Iraq imaybe different. There is this religious thing involved. There is a tie with an international terorrist organization. And there are
just simple nationalists who reject foreign agression.
On this, you are very right. Iraq is a different beast, it has absolutely no national cohesion, and trying to force Saddam's dream (having all this
ethnic and religious differences live under the same roof) Won't work. There is simply too much hatred running already.
Combine all of these variables, then we may able to create grand new strategy for the military action. (I just don't know yet)
Well, on this part, is the only part where I can't either come up with a final word. I can only come up with ideas to improve the situation.
1. Improve living situation for civilians (aka, stop feeding the guerilla snake)
2. Indoctrination coupled with the above (people living a lot better, will believe it beats living hiding in the desert).
3. Secure Iran border, air tight (main source of weaponry)
4. Secure Syria border (main source of crazy ideas)
5. Reduce the tone on religious education. (aka, pick some moderate people to teach the kids, against Osama wannabe's on their local mosque)
6. Punish military abuse (People knowing people that kill recklessly are punished, improve the overall US view)
Final.- US has to think about the people it doesn't think about, Civilians. Peace