Why the US military can't beat Terrorist, in iraq or elsewhere.

In the late 1700s a gang of terrorist went to war with the strongest nation of its time. The nations was the English Empire and the terrorist were what we now call Americans.

The British army marches in formation using battle field tactics created for putting down armies who marched openly to the field of battle. But the colonist used (crude) camoflage and would shoot and run. The highly trained and equipped army was defeated using ambushes, hiding in civilian populations, and guerila/terrorist tactics.

It worked then, and its working now.

Despite the US quickly defeating the army of Sadam, the insurgents are now exacting a huge loss on US forces. Why? Beacause the US military is made to defeat militaries, no guerillas. While US soldiers march around in heavy armored vehicles and body armor they stand out as much as the british red coats of the US revolution. Meanwhile thier oponents blend in with the civilian population so that even if targeted and killed by US forces they generate civilian casualties and sympathy.

The US military is NOT the dominant force in the iraq war any longer.

While the US is attempting to become better suited for urban warfare, they lose the ability to claim military superiority. Airstrikes, tanks, armor piercing rounds, cluster bombs, and long range missiles are all useless in urban combat.

Its down to a guy with a gun versus a guy with a gun. And one of them is hiding and blending in, while the other is standing around looking like an obvious target.

Well all I can say is that it easier for arabs to blend in with arabs then americans to blend in with arabs.

Hm...I'm not sure what your definition of "beating" is...

If you go by towns controlled...well, hm, US military wins there

Death ratio? I think its 12:1 Iraqis:Americans or somewhere along those lines

Um...what else are you going by?

Originally posted by Cutwolf
Hm...I'm not sure what your definition of "beating" is...

I define it as ending the war with your goals met.

Isn't that the point?

The goal of the war in Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein's regime.

Done.

The war on terror is something much broader and harder to define - there isn't really set goals and checkpoints to accomplish.

And you say they're exacting huge losses on US forces - relative to what? Have we (the US) become so powerful that a war with 600 dead = huge number? Relative to all the other wars ever fought, 600 dead = huge success.

The goal of the war in Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein's regime.

posted by Cutwolf

I thought the goal was to rid Saddam of WMD's, which were not found.

You're right, those aren't huge losses. Not as far as war goes. However, they are mostly losses to guys with minimal weapons and organization. They are huge losses for the relative difference in technology and resources.

If we defeated Sadam's military, and that was a goal, why are we still fighting? A secondary goal was iraqi stability and democracy. At this point the US is going to throw together a halfassed democracy, and leave the place as unstable as ever. Or spend the next 20 years huting down every last guy who can put his hands on a gun.

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Quest]

Illegal Aliens(Hispanics) is the key to blend in with the arabs.

Illegal Aliens(Hispanics) is the key to blend in with the arabs.

HAHAHAHAHA classic....

I don't think you understand what we are really doing over there. Of course we could win this conflict if we wanted. Do you doubt that if we wanted to kill every insurgent in Iraq, we could? There is a very good reason that we don't. The Iraqi insurgents know full well that they cannot beat us in a military conflict. That is not what they are trying to do. They are trying to make us either flinch from the horror of war, or show ourselves as hypocrites and wipe them out, inflicting a lot of collateral damage in full view of the world.

Like I've said in a different thread, we represent Western Culture in this conflict. We make a lot of noise about how we value human life and don't want to hurt innocents. They will do what they can to pull us back down into barbarism. We are trying to show by example that the values of Western culture are superior to the values of their system, and that we believe in our system strongly enough to allow a certain number of our troops to die in order to avoid killing innocents and slaughtering a whole population. We are trying to show that we value our beliefs more than our lives and that is why our servicemen will continue to die over there.

Surely you understand how important death and sacrifice are to these people by now. Their measure of strength of belief is determined by if you are willing to die for what you believe.

We should have just nuked the entire the middle east and turned it into a parking lot, then take their oil. What do any of the middle easter countries have to offer to the world?

"We make a lot of noise about how we value human life and don't want to hurt innocents."

sorry I couldn't resist, does 8000-10,000 Iraqi Civilian deaths show how we value human life? Those numbers don't include the thousands of fighters on the Iraqi side, the soldiers of the Coalition or the thousands injured on both sides.

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by worldwatcher]

Well, we could nuke them yes, but that will only show that our technology is better. We are trying to show that our political system is better and that our way of doing things is better than theirs.

If we nuke them, we show ourselves to be what they have accused us of all along. We would prove them right and give them justification for opposing us.

"We are trying to show that we value our beliefs more than our lives and that is why our servicemen will continue to die over there. "


I believe this could be said for either side. But shouldn't we consider the fact that we are not in the land of "our beliefs" when we are over there?

very good intitial point Quest. something to think about.

are we succeding in demonstration our 'western ethic' to the iraqies?? i have know idea because all the news reports is ; uprising here, uprising there, car bomb here, u.s. kia there. we are being lead to believe that all the u.s. is doing is fighting. no reconstruction, all iraqies hate us, nobody wants us there, no iraqies helping us, no iraqies care about helping themselves and forming a better iraq. is this true?? and if it isn't, why are we being lead to belive this. you have to dig deep to find out how the war has helped areas of iraq...........

Originally posted by worldwatcher
We make a lot of noise about how we value human life and don't want to hurt innocents.

sorry I couldn't resist, does 8000-10,000 Iraqi Civilian deaths show how we value human life? Those numbers don't include the thousands of fighters on the Iraqi side, the soldiers of the Coalition or the thousands injured on both sides.

Yes, we do make a lot of noise about how we value human life and don't want to hurt innocents. The fact that there aren't more casualties shows that we do really believe it too. We could just sit back and bomb these people from the air for years. We don't have to take casualties. But no, we're in there with them, face to face, trying to effect change on a human level which is the only place change can really happen.

The War on Terror isn't just a war on the terrorists. It is a political war. It is also a war on the Countries that nurture the ideaology behind this religious terrorism. I believe it is a war on radical Islam, because we know eventually Islam will have to go to war with us. If you don't see the necessity for this, then I don't think you are looking at the bigger geopolitical picture for the next 30 years.

I thought the goal was to rid Saddam of WMD's, which were not found.

No, the goal was for a "regime" change BECAUSE Saddam may have had WMDs. We got the regime change, which was the goal.

Originally posted by Freedom Fighter
We should have just nuked the entire the middle east and turned it into a parking lot.

Im getting tired of this bu11$hit, cliche, redneck line. And what is this we crap? Go back to your video games dude.

Freedom Fighter eh? Better start fighting your Patriot Act quick-smart.

No! No! No nukes! Listen to the songs ("Whats going on?") and protests!

ONLY LOVE CAN CONQUER HATE!


LETS THROW THE TERRORISTS A TEA PARTY! HOORAY!

You can destroy terrorism but you have to break the geneva conventions in the process. The damn thing is great for civilized combatents but your dealing with savages and extremists. In order to properly deal with terrorism we must use coersion, torture, and the wholesale destruction of homes, neighborhoods, and mosques. If there is a rally when a terrorist dies, bomb it. If you demoralize and brutalize an enemy sufficiently you will break its spirit. If you bury dead terrorists in pigs blood facing down away from Mecca you remove the will to die for Islam. You can beat terrorism, you just have to have the cajones to do it.