This is not good.
bigger, invisible road side bombs
They are now tunneling and placing huge bombs under roads.
How the hell does the US Army defeat the insurgents without sending in 500,000 soldiers to keep the streets clear?
:smack:
I looked that that thread title and read it as IUDs and how hard it will be to “win” in Iraq.
That would be completely different.
Even if we sent in 1 million troops, we couldn’t guarantee that all roads would be clear all the time. It just can’t be done.
Even if it could, the whole thing about guerilla fighting is that they can change tactics pretty quickly to exploit the next weakness they discover. That’s what guerilla is all about, after all.
Well in South Armagh in Northern Ireland roadside bombs and ambushes were so common and so hard to deal with that the British Army effectively lost control of the roads and had to travel by helicopter.
Thats probably not an option in Iraq where MANPAD’s and heavy weapons are more common than bottles of coke.
That have not even been able to secure the road from the airport to Baghdad in three years.
I don’t fault our troops.
It doesn’t; even with 500,000 troops it doesn’t. Saddam, with his ironclad police state and vast intelligence network, could not put a stop to various acts of terrorism under his rule. The notion that US soldiers (who, in theory, are not using the same brutal techniques as Saddam and who certainly have poorer intelligence) can put down an insurgency in the same circumstances is hopelessly naive. But then hopeless naivete ain’t exactly new when it comes to Iraq policy.
That was not measured up front. (rose colored glasses) Tunneling under the highways and setting up your next charge is reminiscient of “Lawrence of Arabia” and smashing the railways. Those are the stories told at bedtime in Arabia. Hey, that goes on here in our backyard. The boys in Canada who were lucky enough to dig a tunnel right into a living room in Washington. They apparently went under a state highway. You just can’t deny that evolutionary process.
We need to focus on bringing the military home. (nothing more) A friend made it home the other day, three weeks break, then back to “the box” he calls it. August in the desert is around 130 degrees at midnite local time. He looks completely exhausted. I hope my friend makes it home in December…
A military victory is obviously impossible by itself… so no “winning”. Its by political or economic means that any “victory” could be achieved and I’m not seeing many results either.
It can’t.
As has been said the British Army couldn’t do it in Northern Ireland. They had the advantages of proximity, same launguage, troops which could be easily re-supplied / reinforced, successful infiltration of the terrorist group/s and more, but even with all that for 30 years the IRA kept hitting them.
Iraq is very different to NI granted but the US will not gain control. They and their allies including the Iraqi police and army are going to be hit by terrorists for the next few decades at least or until the inevitable civil war kicks off.
Well they could always split Iraq into various ethnic nations (ie, Kurdistan and the other ethnic areas) instead of trying to uphold the arbitrary boarders created a century ago. That would do wonders towards allowing these nations to create a national identity and to reduce ethnic infighting.
Sadly though, the politics of the region make this impossible. Especially with Turkey being so ridiculously paranoid about even the thought of a truely independent Kurdistan.
Just like Vietnam, the enemy picks the time its want to engage, then they just disappear.
I guess the only point in staying right now is to train the Iraqi army…fast and then get the hell out.
Of course, this all goes back to why in the hell did we go there in the first place and why didnt Bush & company expect thus (I expected it, and what the hell do I know?).