The question that I have here is why a superpower would only deploy a few thousand troops to take over to another country. It seems like suicide for the soldiers and no political gain and a sure loss for the leaders. It seems to be repeated over and over. The most recent example I have is that of Afghanistan. The Soviets fought the Afghans for years without winning even though they obviously could have done it if they deployed even a relatively small portion of their resources. Another obvious example is Vietnam. Deploying troops in small numbers over several years is a recipe for disaster. All you have to do is devote the full forces of the country in a small period of time to win decisively. Another example is sending a small force of ex-pat Cubans in the Bay of Pigs to die. It was basically a guaranteed loss and a sin against basic decency.
On the other hand, you have the current administration that decides that Afghanistan is a threat and takes it over in less than a week. The other example is Iraq. We took it over in less than a month because we devoted all resources to it. I am not debating whether this is right or wrong (I supported the war in Afghanistan just because the Taliban was evil and supported terrorists but the war in Iraq was a sham to the American people).
My basic argument is that if you decide to do it, you better do it decisively or you are prolonging a war and killing civilian and military personell on their side and ours. My stance is, if you want to do it, you better do it and use the full force of the US military. Otherwise, innocent civilians and soldiers on both sides are going to be killed without any gain.
You do realize that we had over half a million troops in Vietnam, right? And we dropped more bombs than in WWII? That’s not a small deployment.
Look at Iraq. We have 150000 troops there and we still can’t pacify the country.
The problem is that unless you want to exterminate the population, it’s very dificult to fight an enemy that blends into the civilian population. It’s not a problem that throwing more tanks and bombers at will solve.
You also realize that Afghanistan did not fall in a week. OEF began Oct 7, 2001, and Khandahar, the last Taliban stronghold, didn’t fall until December 7.
You also realize that the initial Soviet invasion of Afghanistan included 30,000 troops, and was eventually raised to over 100,000 until the 15,000 dead Russian soldiers caused the Kremlin to reconsider. You’ll note that the United States has basically done much better in Afghanistan with far fewer troops (not to totally discount the serious challenges ahead of us, of course).
I think you’re offering a false dichotomy. Massive force or a tiny force are not the only alternatives. The “full force of the US military” would include nuclear weapons. Is that what you’re advocating? No, you use as much force as necessary to overcome the adversary but not so much that you destroy the civilian population. That is, if you assume that your goal is to tople the regime while leaving the country largely intact.
Because the collateral damage to bricks, mortar, civilians and infrastructure is too extreme.
Because it is immoral and provides negative propaganda.
Because the only country that has employed such tactics in modern times (the US) has not the political nor ethical nous or imperative to make it palatable to the rest of the world.
Face it, there is now only one super power and that country operates in a moral and ethical vacuum in world politics. Yet, and ever hopefully for all time, world opinion prevents even worse atrocities than those currently being perpetuated by the US.
The reason why we haven’t been effective in Iraq is because the people we are fighting in Iraq are not afraid of us. To their credit, they are not intimidated by our troops and all of our military posturing.
People are always calling terrorists and insurgents “cowards” but this is far from the truth; a man motivated by religious hatred or desperate glory is a fearsome and fearless enemy indeed.
After the mutilated, burned bodies of contractors were paraded through the streets of Fallujah and ultimately hung from a bridge while nearly the whole town watched in attendance, the appropriate response would have been to drop daisycutters on every hovel within 10 miles of the scene. This is how to win with the people we are fighting: only fear can destroy an enemy as determined as the ones we are fighting in the Middle East right now.
Remember, the Iraqi people hated Saddam Hussein and his soldiers, but you didn’t see Saddam’s soldiers being plucked up by insurgents and beheaded, or dragged around, or burned alive, or lured into deathtraps by way of trickery. They hated Saddam and they were terrified of him and his troops. Our troops must instill the same kind of fear; simply fighting back is NOT sufficient, we need to show them that they are not dealing with old friends here.
Actually, it does. You will note that the last war we unequivocally won, WW2, was marked with flattened cities and the liberal use of firepower wherever and whenever. When those 1000+ bomber raids went up, it’s not like they were targetting this building or that. They hit whole blocks and cities, and coupled with a vigorous ground campaign, it worked.
Note to those who read my above post: I did not support the war in Iraq, it was ridiculous, there are no WMDs there and there is no reason why we should still be there at all.
But if we insist on keeping troops there they must not be allowed to die due to stupid policies.
Frankly, I couldn’t think of a more appropriate city to be wiped off the map than Fallujah. Watch video footage (and there is plenty) of the assaults; Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good depiction of the scene.
If a whole town in Germany cheered and celebrated while the mutilated bodies of American servicemen were desecrated, it would be worthy of a few B-17 payloads, in my opinion.
[Looks at location]
Hmm, I’m sure I could find a few tools in Bloomington, IN, who cheered at Iraqis being killed. Ought I to call for it to be wiped off the map?
Frankly, I think we’re fucked if we even start to think in terms of “wiping cities off the map”. Wasn’t that what Saddam used to do to the Kurds, come to think of it ?
I’ve seen plenty of that footage. War sucks. We should have thought of that going in. If we allowed ourselves to forget how horrible war is, well, shame on us.
Now, how many women and children did you see in that mob ? Elderly ? Babies ? These people would die in your Daisy Cutter attack, too.
Practically speaking, plenty of German cities were bombed to rubble in WWII. Still, the German ground forces had to be fought back. Lashing out in anger may feel good for a while, but it’s not productive.
I take it we agree that the purpose of war is establishing some sort of tenable peace afterwards ? The more atrocities we commit, the harder that’s going to be.
Can’t you see there’s a difference between some tools in Bloomington, Indiana (of which there are more than a few) wishing ill on others, and literally hundreds of people pouring out into the streets cheering, chanting, screaming and celebrating while the bodies of noncombatant American civilians are defiled as an act of spite?
Surely you can see the difference.
In any case war is war, and that was most certainly an act of war deserving of retaliation.
I’m not suggesting destroying anything for no reason.
Let’s massacre the whole civilian population in reprisals. Totally fucked. Completely morally bankrupt. We have another promising candidate for the german waffen SS, the south-american death squads, or a job as genocide planner in Rwanda.
Yes. Let’s act like Saddam Hussein did. That’s obviously the way to go. Crashing civilian planes on buildings can work too to show that “they aren’t dealing with old friends”.
I can’t bear that. I can’t even understand how someone could advocate masacring the civilian population with a straight face. Supporting torture on arbitrarily arrested people (which only harms a very limited subset of the population), by comparison is a pleastantry and hate speech is a total joke.
Abject. Beyond pale. Utterly despicable.
Then , you’re equally supporting what was done in the example of Oradour/Glane mentionned above. It should give you some clue about the kind of people you’re siding with.
Because “winning the war”, which has many different contextually-dependent meanings, is only the start, not the end, as the OP and most of the replies seem to imply. What are the goals of invading this country? What is the long-term plan following the end of “major combat operations”? Do you want to actually form friendships and create a stable ally, or just kick their asses and get some retribution for something? Which acts of destruction further those goals and which impede them?
Unfortunately, PAULFITZROY is right. We should either withdraw, and keep a token force to show support for the Iraqi government, or else brutally crush the opposition.
Thereis no “middle path”. Bush and Blair should have thought better before the invasion, but this is what we are faced with now.
The only other possibility: negotiate seperately with each of the major factions (Kurd, Sunni, Shia) and break the country up into 3 countries. This will guarantee purpetual war in Iraq, and perhaps the ensuing chaos will at least incapacitate the terrorists.
But “the opposition” you talk about brutally crushing are the Iraqi people themselves. Remember? The very same people you supposedly invaded in order to liberate them from the brutality of Saddam’s regime? Blowing the shit out of them is not going to make them stop fighting you, in fact excessive force and continued brutality will only serve to inflame the situation further and help recruit more Insurgents to the cause. We’re not talking about WWII here, this situation is infinitely stickier.
WE INVADED THEIR COUNTRY. WHAT THE F DO YOU EXPECT?*
Seriously, some people… look, because you CAN throw billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of soldiers at a problem doesn’t mean you will solve the problem. Most of the time, you’ll just create more problems. Much more important than sending an overwhelming force is your policy once that force is in place.