Posted: 11/30/2006 8:54:24 AM EDT
|
I keep hearing over and over again, that if we fought this war the way that we fought WWII and WWI then the enemy wouldn't stand a chance. I think that there is something that is not being taken into consideration about WWs I and II... US casualties during WWI were 117,00 killed and 204,000 wounded. The US was only in WWI for one year. The entire war ran 4 years. US casualties during WWII were 291,557 killed and 670,846 wounded. The US was only in WWII for three years. The entire war ran 6 years. US casualties in Iraq so far are 2885 killed and 46,137 wounded (including all manner of non-combat related illness and injuries). I personally think that Iraqis are going to have to come to the conclusion that working together to rebuild their society is better than killing each other, and that they don't want radical islamic terrorists hiding among them. The will of the people is the core of guerilla wars, and it is not something that a military can impose. I also realize that there are going to be terrible consequences to withdrawing from Iraq, but I think that we are coming to the point where we are just spinning our wheels and a pullout is inevitable now anyways. I really feel bad for the GIs who die or are wounded between now and the coming retreat. Their bravery will be undiminished, but their sacrifice will be for nothing. |
|
People who want us to fight as we did in World War II don't understand how World War II was fought. Leapfrogging in the Pacific and "Bypass pockets of resistance and capture big targets" in Europe lends itself to resistance efforts. How do you fight against a resistance using "bypass resistance" as a strategy? |
You're assuming that the people wanting us to fight the same way understand what "resistance" means or for that matter what leapfrogging means. I hear this all the time from people (sheeple) we just need to do this or we just need to do that. Fact remains the only way to stop any future civil war in the ME is by turning it into glass. This is not an option. Because of our weak handedness in the region, no matter what we do now, it will bite us in the ass and the Dems will have won because someone was afraid to make a hard decision. |
That is very true. One of the challenges with any guerilla war is eliminating the factors that motivate people to side with the guerillas. In Iraq that is complicated not only by religious convictions but also by centuries of ethnic hatreds. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that Iraq is unwinnable. However, I am not convinced that sending in hundreds of thousands of troops and waging a war of attrition without regard for civilian casualties like we did in the previous World Wars is the solution. I once heard a fighter pilot from Vietnam say that in Vietnam the biggest problem that they had was with the surviving victims of collatoral damage siding with the enemy. He said that 'if you dropped a bomb and killed a guy's water buffalo then you just made an enemy sympathizer and if you dropped a bomb and killed a guy's family you just made a VC'. Wiping out villages is not the way to win hearts and minds, and in a guerilla war that is what you have to do. If the people are against your cause then they will fight you, but if the people support your cause then they will help you. We are not Nazi Germany and our goal is not to go in and dictate our terms to the Iraqis at gun point. I am convinced that this problem will only be solved when the Iraqi people decide that they want peace instead of war. Right now, our presence is good because we are keeping pressure on the terrorists and we are preventing them from establishing bases of operations for conducting attacks against us. But as for preventing a civil war and ending violence...well that doesn't seem to be working out so well. Unfortuantely the whole mess is further complicated by the fact that if we withdrawl before the nation is stabilized then the terrorists will move in, establish bases of operations, sway more people to their side, plan attacks against the United States and probably eventually succeed. ETA - Then again, I've never been there. |
|
The key thing to remember is how WWII was won. We let loose a weapon so devastating and deadly that the enemy lost the will to fight realizing the impact any further aggression would have on the innocent populous. We have better weapons now that allow for more surgical/precision strikes. Low yield nukes and hydrogen bombs are in our arsenal and should be used. Give the muslim world an ultimatum. Get your terrorist problem under control or we will let loose the fires of hell. Sadr City would be first. Then if necessary, Mecca. Holy city or not, we shouldn't hold back the dogs of war. Let em loose and bring our boys home. |