You dont get it do you.
There isnt a bullet or weapon that smart that you can pick and chose down to that degree.
The "military" targets are mixed with civilians. Even conventional forces usually have thier bases and barracks close to or within populated areas.
Hell most of the housing around milittary bases grew up thier to cater for the families of troops on the bases.
In those parts of the worlds families live and work within many bases and barracks, like camp followers of old.
Do you have an army, navy or airbase near you? Are some of your neighbours service families? Do you have a defence industries plant, industrial plant,
rail or airport hub, civil or military communications centre, or port nearby? Is the powerplant that provides your lights also generating power for
the local base or a defence industry? Is there a government office that doubles as a command centre or a VIP bunker in an emergency or wartime. Do you
still have community air raid shelters that are capable of doubling as command bunkers in war time?
These are all valid targets in wartime, because by destroying them you reduce the opponents ability to inflict casualties on you.
In an insurgency like this it is worse. Your neighbours house could be an insurgent leaders home or command bunker. your shop or school could become
thier ammo dump, your hospital or local hotel or any of a thousand buildings and houses thier barracks or strongpoints, the local radio or TV station
could start be used to broadcast clear or coded instructions to the fighters around the city, when all other communications are disrupted (even the
They will have set up cottage industries in some cellars and buildings where they make and maintain small arms, ammo, and improvised weapons. And when
a decision is taken to clean out insurgents like that they take to putting you between them and the regular forces as a defence, and they are going to
fight street to street and house to house, sometimes slipping back in, and as you say to increase the hatred and search for supporters.....not
everybody in that town is going to be an insurgent or planning Jihad....a few are going to be pissed off people angry.
Bushes re-election campaign has hamstrung the Commanders for two years. Twice they have hammered insurgents in Falluja. Twice they have been called
off because Bush was nervous politically about hurting his chances. The insurgents leaders have created the myth about how they have forced the
coalition out, and been allowed to plan , recruit and prepare for this day. They have used it as a relatively safe base to hit out from.
Bush committed you to a war for the wrong reasons but even if his reasons had been right you would still probably be stuck with this insurgency. It
doesnt matter if 1% or 10% of the Iraqi population hs joined in this insurgency.The majority of them want no part of it other than to be allowed to
get on with life.
If as some people would like to suggest that the mass of Iraq is up in arms against the coalition, why has two thirds of the population of Falluja
fled the fighting? Why havent 20 plus million Iraqis risen up with the result that their deserts and streets are scattered with the bones and debris
of the whole coalition? Other populations have done it in history. Really, if the majority of Iraqis are so on the insurgents side why not?
Because most of them dont give a # beyond wanting it over
The military commander has limited choices....he can sit back and let that go on and do nothing. It might stop the flow of civilian casualties but
more of your boys will come home in body bags, and the insurgency will get stronger at the sight of the inaction and lack of resolve.....and that will
end with the terrorists following your troops all the way home to your doorstep again.
They can continue to stage raids and counter strikes that will go on for years and get nowhere and keep fueling the hatred death toll.
Or they can go in in force and hard and that means a lot of casualties in a comparatively short time, and repeat the process in half a dozen towns
throughout Iraq. Then you might get some more Peace.
You can't pick out targets at random even if you try in this sort of war. The Israelis switched (mostly) to using intell when they had it and
singleton air launched rockets to take out the leadership of terrorist groups like Hammas, because snatch or kill raids by thier SF needed to be
supported by large cordon forces to protect them, and it became unacceptable for the numbers of casualties on both sides for that to remain the norm,
especially when the targets were slipping away in the confusion.
The leaders of Hammas directing the terror attacks there live and work and move amongst the highly populated urban areas there. They are not going to
move in the open where they dont have thier screen of innocent victims to parade afterwards.
So civilians are still going to get killed but if you have to compare them to the figures from several days of pitched battles and the rocket attacks
do you think thier going down. I didnt ask what do you prefer because that is a stupid question. Ever notice that the ratio between Palestinian dead
and Israelis is dropping. It isn't because the Palestinian terrorists are any more successful, its because Israelis are getting "smarter" in thier
Iraqs on a scale far worse to the Palestine-Israel area beleive it or not, and there is no more time for finese.
Wev'e asked the insurgent LEADERS and IDOLS what they wanted a long time ago and followed through right up until now and thier answers have been ugly
frightening unreasonable and uncompromising, like thier tactics. I think the best anyone has gotten off is paying a ransom for a hostage and what have
they bought with that....more bomb belts and bullets to kill with.
So yeah, I bite my bottom lip, thump the wall and sometimes have a cry when I see a picture of a baby blown up or a young girl with her legs shredded
and I dont care who did or didnt do it because we are all responsible for it on all sides. But I cannot honestly state anything the oppenents of
the/all war will work in the the real world situation, or that we will not just be making the whole situation worse by running, and handing money and
aid to the Extremist Leaders of the insurgents to compensate them (because that is who the money will go to....because only that sort of pro terror
government will survive us pulling out). Like sure lets promote the benefits and spread of terrorism everybody.
Or is it we dont care if Iraqis decends into civil war and kill each other, as long as we dont have to know about it or be involved in the death toll.
I beleive that was tried with Afghanistan too after the Soviet pull out and look how that came back and bit us on the arse. Wasnt that one of the
reasons Bin Laden turned on the West and formed AQ? Because we got what our governments wanted and then threw them away to kill each other off?
We have to deal with the here and now. Not bitch about what could have been done 1...10...100....1000 years ago to avoid it.
Sorry for the long tirrade. Genuine heart felt but simplistic question that I thought needed at least one genuine heartfelt COMPLICATED answer.
I'll go to bed wishing for a magic bullet to solve it.