Interesting thought.....

[PhillyKev 0]

I was watching a show about Vietnam on the History channel. A military historian/retired marine colonel was giving the reasons he believed Vietnam was such a catastrophe for us. The main reasons were...

- Primarily draftees with less training and discipline than volunteer, full time forces.

- Opposition were native guerilla forces that blended in with the civilian population.

So in Iraq we are relying heavily on called up reserves, which I would think are not quite as well trained (or at least current in training) or disciplined as full time volunteers. And facing the same type of opposition.

Obviously there are other differences, but assuming the Iraqi elections do not go off as planned, and there is a massive wave of insurgent attacks...how do we win the war in Iraq?

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

...how do we win the war in Iraq?

Um, we don't. Does anyone think we will? Whatever happens, and even if we call it a 'win', we won't. Not really.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

...how do we win the war in Iraq?

Um, we don't. Does anyone think we will? Whatever happens, and even if we call it a 'win', we won't. Not really.

The correct way of going about it is to declare victory, give everyone a medal, and pull out.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

I'm not trying to start a bash the policy of war in Iraq thread. I'm looking for people to give actual thoughts on what could possibly be an effective strategy. Simple occupation and training of Iraqi troops is not going to do it. The administration says we'll be there "as long as it takes". What I want to know is, as long as it takes to do what? What is victory? Doesn't anyone wonder what criteria we would consider "job complete" and start bringing people home?

[fatflying 0]

The question is why are we STILL fighting a war in Iraq?
or afhganastan for that matter.

WE ARE A SUPER POWER. Wish the government would get off it's ass and just fucking handle there business. I think we're just dickin around over there.

Go in there wup um down, let um know who we are so they all get the message, and the next guy who wants to step up gets pummeled without hesitation.
NOT ONE AMERICAN SHOULD'VE DIED IN THAT COUNTRY. GET OUR PEOPLE HOME WHERE THEY BELONG. USA.USA.USA.USA.USA.USA,USA.USA.USA.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I'm not trying to start a bash the policy of war in Iraq thread. I'm looking for people to give actual thoughts on what could possibly be an effective strategy. Simple occupation and training of Iraqi troops is not going to do it. The administration says we'll be there "as long as it takes". What I want to know is, as long as it takes to do what? What is victory? Doesn't anyone wonder what criteria we would consider "job complete" and start bringing people home?

One difference I would point out is that the Iraqi Govt. supports the US being there and is helping to put down the resistance. We are also not fighting a country with blatant support from China.

[PhillyKev 0]

Like I said, there are differences. But we did have the support of the South Vietnamese gov't. That didn't help much, even within South Vietnam. And the support of China may have been a factor in large scale battles, but what effect did it have on indigenous guerilla forces, which were a major contributing factor to our loss?

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

I'm not trying to start a bash the policy of war in Iraq thread. I'm looking for people to give actual thoughts on what could possibly be an effective strategy. Simple occupation and training of Iraqi troops is not going to do it. The administration says we'll be there "as long as it takes". What I want to know is, as long as it takes to do what? What is victory? Doesn't anyone wonder what criteria we would consider "job complete" and start bringing people home?

One difference I would point out is that the Iraqi Govt. supports the US being there and is helping to put down the resistance. We are also not fighting a country with blatant support from China.

The South Vietnamese govt. supported the US being there, etc., and the "insurgents" have strong but covert support from a number of nations, apparently not all Arab. Are they fighting fair? No, they are fighting smart, the only way they can possibly fight a superpower.

The simple fact is that Rumsfeld and his cronies totally underestimated the problems that would accrue from the ill considered invasion.
Remember his statement about how long it would take?
Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Remember "They will welcome us with flowers"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The simple fact is that Rumsfeld and his cronies totally underestimated the problems that would accrue from the ill considered invasion.

I agree with this, but again, I didn't start this thread for another point the finger game. I'm trying to have an actual intelligent discussion about solutions. What's done is done. What do we do now?

[fatflying 0]

O.K. we run a flee flicker pattern. seriously!
There watching the ball right now, time to hand it off a few times get um all confused, and have those stealth bombers drop a couple hundred hell marries on um. the casualties of war thing will factor inn. And that will suck for the innocent, but do they really care about us. first we level faluga level it flat to the ground, pick off the insergants from afar. and after that spank um three four cities at a time.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

I was watching a show about Vietnam on the History channel. A military historian/retired marine colonel was giving the reasons he believed Vietnam was such a catastrophe for us. The main reasons were...

- Primarily draftees with less training and discipline than volunteer, full time forces.

- Opposition were native guerilla forces that blended in with the civilian population.

So in Iraq we are relying heavily on called up reserves, which I would think are not quite as well trained (or at least current in training) or disciplined as full time volunteers. And facing the same type of opposition.

Obviously there are other differences, but assuming the Iraqi elections do not go off as planned, and there is a massive wave of insurgent attacks...how do we win the war in Iraq?

WE stay the course....
There are differences though.
One major difference is the terrain. Thankfully most of Iraq is quite desolate with few places to hide.

The americans however are doing a lot better in Urban warfare than we anticipated and the insurgence anticipated.
Falluga(AP?) I think was a lot more successful than we thought it would be.

It will not be easy, but we did lean from the mistakes of Nam, and training has been modified for that very reason.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,404]

>One difference I would point out is that the Iraqi Govt. supports the
>US being there and is helping to put down the resistance.

South Vietnam supported us as well.

The similarities are getting more and more eerie. We have begun using the term "Iraqification" to describe how we will be able to start bringing troops home - basically start training Iraqis to fight and gradually bring our troops home as the Iraqi forces build up. From a Nixon speech in 1969:

"The Vietnamization plan was launched following Secretary Laird's visit to Vietnam in March. Under the plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces. After 5 years of Americans going into Vietnam, we are finally bringing men home. By December 15, over 60,000 men will have been withdrawn from South Vietnam including 20 percent of all of our combat forces. The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result they have been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops."

That didn't work so well.

[PhillyKev 0]

RE: Falluja....

Quote

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. Marines were conducting painstaking weapons searches in the Iraqi city of Falluja on Monday when they spotted a man with an AK-47 rifle on a nearby rooftop.


Reuters Photo



Armed only with a light weapon, he could never stand up to what they were about to unleash. But he was enough to distract Marines from a task that is key to stabilizing Falluja after a U.S.-led offensive crushed rebels controlling the Sunni Muslim city.


The angle of the rooftop could not quite accommodate the trajectory of a shoulder-launched Javelin missile so Marines fired the more direct, wire-guided TOW missile after a debate.


Then they fired hefty .50 caliber machinegun rounds at the rooftop, blew up a door and stormed a living room. It was an impressive display of firepower but they raided the wrong house.


When they finally made it to the pulverized rooftop with smoke still rising from the machinegun bullet holes, the man with one rifle they were seeking had escaped.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20041122/ts_nm/iraq_falluja_searches_dc

And I'm not sure what the terrain has to do with it. When the enemy just needs to walk down the street and look like a civilian. The terrain in Vietnam hampered us from going after the NVA troops. But the guerillas weren't hiding in trees, they were hiding in villages.

Quote

WE stay the course....

What is the course? Seriously? What are our goals? What are we working toward besides "a free, democratic and safe Iraq"? Because that is NOT going to happen. We might point it in that direction, but a foreign occupying force cannot make that come about. So what is our course? What goals do we have, and what trigger points do we have that will allow us to begin a withdrawal? Or at least tell me, what should the be, in your mind?

[pleifer 0]

Quote

Quote

...how do we win the war in Iraq?

Um, we don't. Does anyone think we will? Whatever happens, and even if we call it a 'win', we won't. Not really.

Wars are not won. It is a competition of who can lose the least

_________________________________________
The Angel of Duh has spoke

[storm1977 0]

The goals are to weed out as many of the insurgency as possible, allow elections to happen, and develop a stronger military for the iraqi government, so at some point in the future, they will not NEED US military support.

As far as the Fulluja article you posted. I can put 5 or 6 on here from news agencies which even you would say are reliable :-) that back up my story.

BTW- Dennis MIll had 2 Spec Ops on the other night who were in Falluja. Their tactics.... they grew beards dressed as civilians, and looked the part. The walked the streets gathering intel and finding enemy houses and radiod the info back to US forces. A tactic that worked incredibly well in their opinion.
Look at the casualty numbers in Falluja on both sides and tell me we lost or are loosing the battle.

We are now screening residents of the city and letting them back in to some areas.
It is now a shitload cleaner than it was 2-3 weeks ago. We have put many insurgents on the run and we will continue to hunt for them.
The game isn't over, but we are doing a lot better at urban warfare than we anticipated. The BBC did an excellent piece on it last night.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The goals are to weed out as many of the insurgency as possible, allow elections to happen, and develop a stronger military for the iraqi government, so at some point in the future, they will not NEED US military support.

How do we know that is even possible? What's to say the insurgency won't grow? How do we develop a stronger military if no one is willing to fight their countrymen?

And I'm not saying we're not kicking ass in terms of our major offensives, including urban combat. But is that enough? If one guy with a rifle, can hold up an entire group of marines, they open up with massive firepower, and the guy just slips away, that's a problem. It only takes a few guys like that to screw up operations all over the city.

I agree, that those goals you stated are ideal. But why does anyone believe they are obtainable? What evidence do we have that is what the Iraqi's as a whole want? Because if they don't all want that, it will never come to pass.

Hell, what if they elect a hard line Islamic Fundamentalist as their new leader? Do we continue to help them suppress the population and develop their military? Do we pull out?

[jdhill 0]

Quote

The main reasons were...

- Primarily draftees with less training and discipline than volunteer, full time forces.

- Opposition were native guerilla forces that blended in with the civilian population.

It sems he missed much more substantial issues... mostly political... The US did not loose the war because of US military shortcomings or defeat...

The bigger issues:

-We supported a corrupt government that was opposed by most of the people, communist or not.

-The military was not allowed to fight the war, restictions on bombing, entering Cambodia and Laos, etc.

-Not following through on counterinsurgency strategies implemented early in the conflict, but instead approaching the conflict as a conventional one.

-Individual troop rotation vs. Unit rotations

Quote

assuming the Iraqi elections do not go off as planned, and there is a massive wave of insurgent attack

I think that assumption is premature. There may be areas where the election has problems, sure, and some car bombings too... but I think the elections will be held and will have a high level of participation.

Quote

how do we win the war in Iraq?

Hearts and Minds...The insurgents and or terrorists can only blend it the population lets them. And it that doesn't work... door to door, house to house. Even with successful elections, it will take some of both.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

The goals are to weed out as many of the insurgency as possible, allow elections to happen, and develop a stronger military for the iraqi government, so at some point in the future, they will not NEED US military support.

How do we know that is even possible? What's to say the insurgency won't grow? How do we develop a stronger military if no one is willing to fight their countrymen?

PK, we don't. But if we keep our faith in the Iraqi people and show them we do want to help, and show them that we will do what it takes, they should begin to believe we are for real.

The Iraqi police have been a dissapointment. That is an understatement. However, the military is showing promise. If we can get the military force to be a success over the next year or two, then we have solved one very major issue.
And that is a good step in the right direction!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The bigger issues:

-We supported a corupt government that was oppposed by most of the people, communist or not.

Like we do in most of the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. In fact, that is the source of most animosity by middle eastern muslims toward the US. Because we support corrupt monarchies that oppress them.

Quote

-The military was not allowed to fight the war, restictions on bombing, entering Cambodia and Laos, etc.

Because the goal was to liberate the Vietnamese people, not wipe them out. Same thing with Iraq.

Quote

-Not following through on counterinsurgency strategies implimented early in the conflict, but inbstead approaching the conflict as a conventional one.

I'll give you that one. Our ability to fight guerilla forces is much better as a result of our experience in Vietnam.

Quote

-Individual troop rotation vs. Unit rotations

That's true, too, and goes to the point of poorly trained and disciplined soldiers. But with I believe 60% of reserves currently deployed, how long can we go on without increasing rotations?

I hope you're right about the elections, but like i said...what if we don't like who they elected? Do we support him no matter what and help him build his forces? And as far as hearts and minds, while our individual troops are mostly good people who are trying that, that was also something we tried to do in Vietnam. But when you have to blow up a city block, or a village, to get to the one or two guerillas there, it doesn't matter how many wells you help them dig. They're not going to be happy. The longer we are there, the LESS hearts and minds we have on our side.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

how do we win the war in Iraq?

The same way we could have won in Vietnam - by changing the Rules of Engagement. Of course, the ROE would have to be something that would likely violate the Rules of War of Geneva COnvention.

I think Kallend had a good point - declare victory and pull out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-The military was not allowed to fight the war, restictions on bombing, entering Cambodia and Laos, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Because the goal was to liberate the Vietnamese people, not wipe them out. Same thing with Iraq.

That's not what the military wanted to do in Vietnam, and not what they want to do in Iraq...

In Vietnam, the military wanted to go after the supply routes and sanctuaries, but were not allowed to... Other segments wanted to organize locals to resist the insurgency... this turned into the Hamlet Program, which was forced relocation and a general failure.

Quote

Like we do in most of the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. In fact, that is the source of most animosity by middle eastern muslims toward the US. Because we support corrupt monarchies that oppress them.

We have friendly relations with many governments in the Mid East, but I don't think I can point to one that we prop up... I could see where some might argue we prop up the Israeli government, but I think that is a stretch if you look at it objectively.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[PhillyKev 0]

Well, we are the top arms supplier to the Saudi gov't and they are one of our biggest customers. That is perceived as propping them up. And perception is what matters.

You're right, the military didn't want to free the Vietnamese people from Communist oppression. But that is the political goal that the military was being used for. Same thing now. I don't think the pentagon would put peace keeping, infrastructure rebuilding and foreign military training at the top of their wish list of things to do. But that is what they are being used for. We have a great military that can kick anyone's ass in a major battle. But that's not what we're trying to accomplish in Iraq. We're trying to nation build, and with the exception of Germany and Japan, after millions of dead, unconditional surrender by their recognized gov'ts and world wide support and contributions to the effort, that has never been successful.

[jdhill 0]

I was refering to the "wipe them out" part as not being the military's goals... The military does not want to be nation builders, but know it is part and parcel of many of their missions... There is an entire branch of the Army who's mission is reconstruction / civic action type activities, Civil Affairs. Army Engineers have units trained in infastructure rebuilding... One of the core missions of the Special Forces is esentially nation building, just on a small scale.

The Army even has a name for it... Stability and Support Operations, SASO... which used to be Operations Other Than War, OOTWA, , which used to be Low intesity Conflict, LIC, which used to be Counter-insurgency Operations, COIN... they Army has always resisted doing it, but have always known they would have to do it, and have trained for it.

As for selling weapons to the Saudi's... when was the last time they used an M1, or an F15 on their own population? I've seen them use small arms against extremists, but those were German made, so where is the outrage against Europe?... Iraq had weapons from Russia and France... again where was the outrage against Europe? Syria, Iran, yada, yada, yada...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[PhillyKev 0]

Like I said, it's the perception. Doesn't matter what the reality is of who sold what where or how it was used. What matters is the perception. And the longer we are in Iraq, the more that goes against us.

[rfaberh 0]

"how do we win the war in Iraq?"

I can´t say how US will win this war, but I sure hope that something good will come out of it.
I think that the military and the US needs to have a different strategy and show the iraqi people (and the rest of the world) that this is not about winning a war, but about helping people to obtain peace and rebuild their country. Unfortunately many of the Iraqis people believe that US can do no good, and therefore many of them is fighting for what they believe in.
I do not like the background for this war, neither the way it has been done. If it contains this way then it will take years to rebuild the country and it will be diffucult to obtain faith from the Iraqis people.