Iraq: The Real Lesson for Americans

[Kaj]

There's one important point most everyone has missed regarding Iraq...

Even with 21st century technology, the US military can't subdue a population that refuses to be subdued.

And the lesson?

There's always hope for revolution if we as a people would rise up. Tyranny can only prevail if we accept it. I'm going to Google how to build my own IEDs now... just in case.

[bobman0330]

The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd. Fewer than 4000 coalition troops have been killed over more than 4 years. That's fewer than a thousand troops per year, out of an occupying force of more than 100,000. Contrast to Vietnam, where more than 50,000 were killed in a 4-year period.

The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents. In fact, if they kill enough innocent Iraqis, they'll probably win. So the real lesson here is not that a determined populace can defeat an armed aggressor. It's that extremist groups using cell phones and the internet to coordinate and armed with relatively modern weaponry can beat the hell out of unarmed civilians living in clay buildings. So take those IEDs and head down to the local elementary school, should be a real soft target.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd. Fewer than 4000 coalition troops have been killed over more than 4 years. That's fewer than a thousand troops per year, out of an occupying force of more than 100,000. Contrast to Vietnam, where more than 50,000 were killed in a 4-year period.

The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents. In fact, if they kill enough innocent Iraqis, they'll probably win. So the real lesson here is not that a determined populace can defeat an armed aggressor. It's that extremist groups using cell phones and the internet to coordinate and armed with relatively modern weaponry can beat the hell out of unarmed civilians living in clay buildings. So take those IEDs and head down to the local elementary school, should be a real soft target.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to defeat the aggressor on the battlefield, just defeat the aggressor's ability to achieve their goals. Which is still a defeat.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd. Fewer than 4000 coalition troops have been killed over more than 4 years. That's fewer than a thousand troops per year, out of an occupying force of more than 100,000. Contrast to Vietnam, where more than 50,000 were killed in a 4-year period.

The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents. In fact, if they kill enough innocent Iraqis, they'll probably win. So the real lesson here is not that a determined populace can defeat an armed aggressor. It's that extremist groups using cell phones and the internet to coordinate and armed with relatively modern weaponry can beat the hell out of unarmed civilians living in clay buildings. So take those IEDs and head down to the local elementary school, should be a real soft target.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to defeat the aggressor on the battlefield, just defeat the aggressor's ability to achieve their goals. Which is still a defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too true, too true. Have you chosen a motto for your freeing people to death project? If not, allow me to suggest, "Sic semper tyrannis et civilianis." If you know the Latin for "defenseless women and children," maybe you could work that in somehow too.

[Farfenugen]

[ QUOTE ]

Even with 21st century technology, the US military can't subdue a population that refuses to be subdued.



[/ QUOTE ]

Technology doesn't mean jack unless you are willing to use it full effect. The real lesson is that you shouldn't engage in a counter insurgency unless you are willing to either A) be ultra kind to the populace and give as much ground as ideologically possible to keep them happy or B) crush them utterly with military might and give no quarter to anyone who stands in the path of a united central government.

This middle of the road BS just doesn't work. You take flack from one side if you kill innocents and flack from the other for not getting all the bad guys. Either blow the [censored] out of them or make nice.

Edit: And honestly I think blowing the [censored] out of everyone in our path wins that argument. I'm not a warmanger in the slightest but if you do go to war you give the enemy no quarter. It was a really stupid decision to go in and try to pussyfoot our way around the locals. Either go in all the way or don't go in at all.

I much favor not going in at all but now that we have blow everyone up or get the hell out. Our military isn't built for peacekeeping missions.

I have the displeasure of knowing several military men and they are violent, angry, ignorant people when they get out of training. If we want our military to be a peacekeeping force we need to drastically change the way men are trained to handle a hostile populace.

[pokerpunchout]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even with 21st century technology, the US military can't subdue a population that refuses to be subdued.



[/ QUOTE ]

Technology doesn't mean jack unless you are willing to use it full effect. The real lesson is that you shouldn't engage in a counter insurgency unless you are willing to either A) be ultra kind to the populace and give as much ground as ideologically possible to keep them happy or B) crush them utterly with military might and give no quarter to anyone who stands in the path of a united central government.

This middle of the road BS just doesn't work. You take flack from one side if you kill innocents and flack from the other for not getting all the bad guys. Either blow the [censored] out of them or make nice.

Edit: And honestly I think blowing the [censored] out of everyone in our path wins that argument. I'm not a warmanger in the slightest but if you do go to war you give the enemy no quarter. It was a really stupid decision to go in and try to pussyfoot our way around the locals. Either go in all the way or don't go in at all.

I much favor not going in at all but now that we have blow everyone up or get the hell out. Our military isn't built for peacekeeping missions.

I have the displeasure of knowing several military men and they are violent, angry, ignorant people when they get out of training. If we want our military to be a peacekeeping force we need to drastically change the way men are trained to handle a hostile populace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you here. We should not enter into a conflict unless we are prepared to win. War is simple (1) you kill people (2) take ground (3) repeat until finished.

We should decide if we want to go about solving this problem using education, diplomacy, police actions ect, or do we want to use military force? If we can't bring hell to the enemy then we should try solving this by other means.


If a country or the military are not prepared to do this another tool should be used such as diplomacy.

[pokerpunchout]

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd. Fewer than 4000 coalition troops have been killed over more than 4 years. That's fewer than a thousand troops per year, out of an occupying force of more than 100,000. Contrast to Vietnam, where more than 50,000 were killed in a 4-year period.

The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents. In fact, if they kill enough innocent Iraqis, they'll probably win. So the real lesson here is not that a determined populace can defeat an armed aggressor. It's that extremist groups using cell phones and the internet to coordinate and armed with relatively modern weaponry can beat the hell out of unarmed civilians living in clay buildings. So take those IEDs and head down to the local elementary school, should be a real soft target.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the reasons so few troops have died when compared to Vietnam and other conflicts has to do with advances in medical technology. Wounds that were 100% lethal in the Vietnam era are now very survivable.

Another reason has to do with troop levels (and frankly the piss poor planing of the military and the administration). If you compare our small (current 120,000 troops, less than 1 million total for Iraq conflict) to the numbers in Vietnam (+500,000 in 1968 8.7 million total) and the WWII (16.1 million total U.S. troop force from Dec 1941 to Dec 1946), it is easy to see why the number of casualties have not been as high as previous wars. It may also be one of the reasons that we are bogged down and having our a$$es handed to us.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
And honestly I think blowing the [censored] out of everyone in our path wins that argument. I'm not a warmanger in the slightest but if you do go to war you give the enemy no quarter. It was a really stupid decision to go in and try to pussyfoot our way around the locals. Either go in all the way or don't go in at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are you suggesting we should have done differently? I guarantee that the actual locals in Iraq would disagree with the statement that we've been "pussyfooting" around them.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd. Fewer than 4000 coalition troops have been killed over more than 4 years. That's fewer than a thousand troops per year, out of an occupying force of more than 100,000. Contrast to Vietnam, where more than 50,000 were killed in a 4-year period.

The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents. In fact, if they kill enough innocent Iraqis, they'll probably win. So the real lesson here is not that a determined populace can defeat an armed aggressor. It's that extremist groups using cell phones and the internet to coordinate and armed with relatively modern weaponry can beat the hell out of unarmed civilians living in clay buildings. So take those IEDs and head down to the local elementary school, should be a real soft target.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to defeat the aggressor on the battlefield, just defeat the aggressor's ability to achieve their goals. Which is still a defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too true, too true. Have you chosen a motto for your freeing people to death project? If not, allow me to suggest, "Sic semper tyrannis et civilianis." If you know the Latin for "defenseless women and children," maybe you could work that in somehow too.

[/ QUOTE ]

When American bombers drop 2000 lb bombs into neighborhoods to kill a single man or group of men, they aren't defenseless women and children just collateral damage, right?

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
There's one important point most everyone has missed regarding Iraq...

Even with 21st century technology, the US military can't subdue a population that refuses to be subdued.

And the lesson?

There's always hope for revolution if we as a people would rise up. Tyranny can only prevail if we accept it. I'm going to Google how to build my own IEDs now... just in case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Pentagon had a plan in place for invading Iraq long before Bush got his wish. 300k+ troops would be required.
Bush disregarded the plan and Powell's advice and went with Rumsfeld's decision, who had the generals under his thumb.
Powell was Sec of State at the time.

Things would be so much different if we had sent in 300k from the get go. Even better if we never invaded.