It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Best Military Strategy for Iraq?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I posted a link earlier but since most people here don't like to read long articles let me give you some of the key points of that article.

The insurgents are waging an information war. They know that even if the US/Iraqi forces can protect 95% of the population at any one time all they have to do is hit that 5% and it makes the news. That erodes support and makes the situation appear un-winable. In the past, US forces have operated in a neighborhood driving out insurgents but have then returned to the 'green zone'. Once they're gone the insurgents come back and threaten/kill the locals. This sceanrio does nothing to cultivate trust and security for the Iraqi people.

If we leave Iraq, there will be significant consequences. The 'West', especially the US will be seen as having been defeated. This will embolden and ligitimize the islamofacist movement. The Shia will consolidate their powerbase in Iraq, very likely establishing an extremely well-financed 'world headquarters' for islamofacism. In addition, there will almost certainly be ethnic cleansing of Sunnis and Kurds at the hands of the Shia. Hundreds of thousands of women and children will be slaughtered. Regular, good people. Contrary to what some posters here would have you believe the vast majority of Iraqis are not terrorists nor are they teaching hate or raising terrorists. Grow up you ignorant, simplistic dolts.

I've never supported the war and have certainly never supported the clowns that started it. But we did and we now have a moral obligation to clean-up the mess we made. Otherwise we are going to responsible for a cataclysm far worse than the war itself.

We need to effect disaggregation - preventing various insurgent groups from joining and cooperating with other groups or nation supporters. Make them appear as the disenfranchised bandits they are as opposed to some more lofty organization. Destroy their myths. The Sunnis need to be taken into the fold. They need to understand fully that if we leave they will most certainly be slaughtered. They have a significant incentive to help us. We also need to make it clear to any nation (e.g., Iran and Syria) that they will not enjoy any benefit from our departure.

Again, please read the article, it's well worth the time. I hate the war. I hate what it's doing to Iraq, to the region and the damage (economically and socially) to the US. But we have a responsibility to stabilize that country. We just need people running the effort that know what they're doing and Bush & Co. are clearly not them.




posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Yea you spent all that time posting and bottom line was you blame everything on bush. Your opinion on the war and how it is run is your opinion but i have not heard one person in this country come up with any better ideas. All we hear is bush this and bush that but put that aside and who else has had a good idea honestly? Do you understand our rules of engagement in Iraq? They are by far the worst mistake of the entire war. Our troops are so limited in what they can and cant do its crazy, I dont think things would have gotten this bad if we let the troops take the gloves off.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Authority as Commander-in-Chief on the battlefield


Source: Wikipedia

President Bush, whether he likes it or not, whatever happens, it will be his call. He is calling the shots. And he is responsible.



The Constitution of the United States gives the title to the President of the United States, who "shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"



As Commander-in-Chief, the U.S. President outranks any military officer and so has the inherent right to assume command on the battlefield.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
UncleSam, Searching laid it out for you. I don't care what your personal politics are, Bush decided to start this war. He did it using erroneous/falsified intelligence and with clearly flawed planning. Even he says so... now. So can it. Bush made his bed. He says he takes full responsibility for it so let him. No bashing here just the facts. The buck stops at his desk. Always has. We created a far worse situation than was in-place before the war and now we have to fix it as best we can or pay the price for a very, very long time. I'm not one of those "bleeding-heart-blame-eveything-on-Bush-cut-and-run-Democrats" that your ilk love to dredge up every time Bush soils himself. We never, ever should have invaded Iraq but we're there now and need to repair the damage before it's too late. There are vast numbers of military experts in the government. Maybe we ought to let them take a shot at it, eh?

Let's imagine you found yourself in the hospital and the Chief of Surgery told you that you were gravely ill and needed agressive treatment or you'd die --- despite the fact that a large number of other doctors disagreed. You wake up several days later and find you've lost your left arm, right leg, part of your liver and a lung and your condition is worsening by the day. The Chief of Surgery tells you that he was wrong about your condition and takes full responsibility for the error in judgement but NOW he's figured out what the problem actually is and just needs to perform a few more surgeries. You gonna let him?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
the us must have fairly extensive satalite coverage of irag, plus various reconnaissance aircraft such as the u2, global hawk etc. so surely, they must have some idea (or be able to work out reasonably easily) the area where the bad guys are hiding out whether that is a mountain cave or a village/town. so maintain the same strategy as they currently are with 1 difference. when an area with a number of bad guys is located, have a group of special forces soldiers go and take them out, supported by the appropriate support, artillery, apaches, spookys whatever.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Quote from Primary-Post:

This thread is not to applause the war, to support political point of views, to argue whether the war is right or wrong etc. The purpose is solely to get the opinions of ATS members on what might be the best and effective military strategy that can be applied in Iraq war.


Please keep on task.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Thanks for the reminder Iblis


Ok. So let me show you some Military strategies that were used in the past war.

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"?

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?

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?

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 China.
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"

In Vietnam there was this this thing called "Pacification"

"Pacification is the military, political, economic, and social process of establishing or reestablishing local government responsive to and involving the participation of the people. It includes the provision of sustained, credible territorial security, the destruction of the enemy's underground government, the assertion or re-assertion of political control and involvement of the people in government, and the initiation of economic and social activity capable of self-sustenance and expansion. the economic element of pacification includes the opening of roads and waterways, and the maintenance of lines of communication important to economic and military activity."

Since this thread is dedicated to military strategy, we will stick to the military area.

After the grand invasion of Iraq, the war did not stop there. It was just actually the beginning of a new warfare.

If the military will be part of a grand strategy such as similar to "pacification",

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.

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.

Combine all of these variables, then we may able to create grand new strategy for the military action. (I just don't know yet) There were several good suggestions in this thread though that we can use and finally to come up to an opinion as the "Best Military Strategy for Iraq."



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

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 infighting there.

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 China.
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 Menu 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



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Eliminate who ever is supplying them with weapons

[edit on 20-6-2007 by IspyU]



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   
ctrl + f "shock and awe"



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   
The best military strategy for Iraq? - withdraw.

Why? Because the US is trying to fight a superpower war on a non-superpower battleground, and all thats going to happen is what happened in Vietnam, and what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan.

The use of overwhelming firepower and technology is great for rolling countries over - as we've seen - but what its not good at is fighting on the ground, down and dirty, picking out individual targets and getting rid of them.

Its a lesson that no one seems to have learned. It goes back all the way through history.

The Nazi's tried to wipe out the resistance movement in WW2 - they failed.

The Russians tried to wipe out the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan - they failed.

The US tried to take on the Vietnamese on their own turf - they failed.

The British initially tried to take on the IRA militarily - they failed.

And now the US is trying to take on insurgents in Iraq and the Taleban in Afghanistan - guess whats going to happen?

Your fighting fire with flammable objects. Its not going to work, and heres why

People want what they like. They don't want your version of it. People fight for ideals and land. Try and change those ideals and occupy that land and there will always be a problem. Try and ignore people who make up a percentage of the populace and you will create resentment. In such passionate subjects resentment can very soon turn to violence.

Maybe the Iraqi people didn't want Saddam Hussein in power - fair enough. It was their call when to remove him, not anyone elses. It might have taken them a while but they would have done it eventually. What they didn't need was a load of people from 4000 miles away to come do it for them, blow up huge chunks of the country in the process and then tell them how they should run their country, install a puppet government and then not go away.

Someone above asked why the countries the US occupied in WW2 had no insurgencies. Comparing Iraq with WW2 is like comparing coal and ice-cream. In WW2 you were liberators against a common identifiable enemy, acting on the request of the governments of the countries that were invaded. (and even then there were minor insurgencies from political factions such as the communists).

In Iraq - and this seems to be difficult for people to comprehend - the US is the invader. Its not a liberator.

The best strategy would be to get the hell out of the way and let them sort out the mess you created. Eventually they'll get sick of killing each other and start talking.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Searching_for_truth, you often quote the Viet Nam War as an example. For me, that is the wrong example. Without starting another pathetic USA Is Best squabble, the US got it's collectove asses kicked.

There are many parallels between what is happening in Iraq today and what happened to the Montagnard tribes, the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai tribes, as well as the Lao Lum and the Mung Tribes.

All were part of the CIDG programme and were trained by the Green Berets with the CIA doing the funding and equipping.

When these people served their purposes, they were dropped like hot potatoes, especially when the US started to withdraw. This was, in no way Vietnamization. The US let these people down.

The current uprising in Iraq has echoes that started in Viet Nam. America has not learnt from the hard fought lessons of that conflicht!

1. Win the Hearts and Minds of the populace. Get them to trust US forces.
2.Hand over to Iraqi forces or the militia ASAP.
3. Disarm the local police and disband all units. They are not to be trusted.
4. Rebuild their country, FAST! then...............
5. Get the hell out of DODGE - asap!



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   
IMO if there ever is a handover and eventual withdrawal of Coalition Forces, the 'Triangle' will ignite in major bloodshed. Whatever the final outcome I feel that Iraq is going to be worse off in the future than it was under Saddam's Reign. But I just don't see any positive outcome to this Conflict. It has become one of those Strategic situations where bad decisions and planning in the beginning will make for a high price to pay in the future. But who am I to judge
.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by Silent-Night]




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join