[cboy]

I'm just sort of thinking out loud here so all comments are welcome.

Over the past weeks/months one troubling aspect of the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism has kept rising to the surface. The huge disparity between it's financial cost to us, and the financial cost to the opposition. While we spend billions, the opposition appears to spend hundreds, perhaps even thousands of dollars. Whatever the exact figures, I doubt anyone would argue strongly that the opposition forces are putting hundreds of billions into the battle annually.

This obviously raises the question of strategy and tactics. Are we fighting terrorism in the most efficient and effective way possible.

One of the problems I foresee is U.S. resolve. As the drain on our economy mounts over the years, will taxpayers continue to support the heavy financial burden of the war effort, especially when they see an enemy that handcuffs our billion dollar military around the world with a few well placed pipe bombs?

A further problem is the matter of "progress". While Pres. Bush made it clear from the beginning that this will be a long haul, are people truly capable of sustaining that long haul mentality. It appears our military is already straining under the burden...not enough troops to sustain the effort, troops called upon to extend their duty time, national guard being put into battle, recruitment numbers falling rapidly, etc. A draft appears to be a non-starter. And taxpayers may be unwilling to up the anti to support increasing the size of the military - or even continuing the war effort at it's present levels. Can our current expenditures for war go on indefinitely and have no effect on our economic position in the world economy?

So the question is, are there better ways to be waging this battle?

[Silentlion_69]

I think bush is trying to impress his daddy. That and I think he's mad at them for trying to kill his daddy too.

[coldknock]

I always thought that this kind of fighting was what the "Secial Operations" folks were trained to do. Green Berets, Seals and such, the mean and nasty fellas that get trained to do mean and nasty things to mean and nasty enemies, all in the name of god and country and then keep quiet about it.

Larry

[cboy]

Originally Posted by coldknock

I always thought that this kind of fighting was what the "Secial Operations" folks were trained to do.

Interesting. That's somewhat the way the opposition seems to be waging this war - they just have self appointed special forces rather than officially recognized troops with a nice sounding name. And it does seem far less expensive.

[OneMoreTime]

That is what the Military calls it..The objective of the main force is to overwhelm and destroy any resistance to their objectives and by so doing win their objectives..

The mission of the Guerilla is to "cut up" and harass the main force until they are weak and no longer have the ability to carry on with their mission..Now if the Guerilla force can make it so hard and difficult for the main force to proceed and this can be done by "breaking the will" of the main force the Guerilla wins..

War is not necessarily about inflicting the maximum amount of damage on the enemy..it is more about being strong enough and persistent enough that your enemy gives in and seeks a cessation of hostilities..

See the history of the Indian wars in this country..finally the US government gave it up and sought the treaties in order to gain a peace and have access to the Western lands..

We saw this same sort of thing in Vietnam..The political costs.financial costs..and the beating down of the will of the American people to carry on the war caused the final pullout...

I believe we will see the same sort of thing in Iraq as the American Government has already stated terms of a pullout and will do so when those terms are met..Basically the formation of some sort of stable Goverment in Iraq..with some ability to protect itself..

It may be instructive to read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon..There are some analogies to the present condition of the American people and the US Government..Could call it lessons learned if you will..

Just another 2 cenatavos

OMT

[Lonestar]

They do not fight with any rules. They do not care if they take out their own.

I still say we should airdrop in about 7 to 10 million people with their luggage. Then airdrop in mobile homes right behind them and build trailer parks...there is no way they could cope.

[wizzonial]

Originally Posted by Lonestar

I still say we should airdrop in about 7 to 10 million people with their luggage. Then airdrop in mobile homes right behind them and build trailer parks...there is no way they could cope.

SOLD!! and we can just call it WELFARE REFORM! ,lol.

Well I think before we can truly be an affective fighting force again our next target needs to be the ACLU! Military prisoners of war should have NO RIGHT to the civilian courts.

In a time of declared WAR This should be left to the militaries discretion alone and if they believe some person would be better off dead in a ditch somewhere then SO BE IT! What is this bull **** about what’s not fair in war, I say get over it, shoot the bast**** and lets get back to busyness. if your on the battle field then it’s simple YOUR DEAD!

We should have left ALL the reporters at home from the start and just swept the fields clean, Because the bottom line is this WAR IS HELL, and there’s no nice way around it once it gets started! but if done right it can be over relatively fast minimizing overall civilian casualties but leaving no proven enemies alive to fight another day.

If you cant handle the heat then get out of the kitchen!!!


Rick.

[RCastle]

Originally Posted by wizzonial

SOLD!! and we can just call it WELFARE REFORM! ,lol.

Well I think before we can truly be an affective fighting force again our next target needs to be the ACLU! Military prisoners of war should have NO RIGHT to the civilian courts.

In a time of declared WAR This should be left to the militaries discretion alone and if they believe some person would be better off dead in a ditch somewhere then SO BE IT! What is this bull **** about what�s not fair in war, I say get over it, shoot the bast**** and lets get back to busyness. if your on the battle field then it�s simple YOUR DEAD!

We should have left ALL the reporters at home from the start and just swept the fields clean, Because the bottom line is this WAR IS HELL, and there�s no nice way around it once it gets started! but if done right it can be over relatively fast minimizing overall civilian casualties but leaving no proven enemies alive to fight another day.

If you cant handle the heat then get out of the kitchen!!!


Rick.

That is the way I was thinking in a nutshell.Although I have zero military training,and I do not know the military way.These men and women are fighting for our country,and trying to appease the UCLA,and the media.To a certain extent the media does have a right to report,however they do not have the right to show footage that jeopardizes the US fighting forces all in the name of ratings as they do.They could not care less whether the bodies coming home are their fellow Americans,to them all they are is a story.They love things coming to light such as Abu-Gharab (however you spell that damn place),or Guantanamo Bay stories.Not because a suspected Al-Quaida member or an insurgent fighter had his poor feelings hurt and because he was humiliated,but because it is a story that will have people tuning in for more and that all makes their bottom line fatter.The media should not be protected by our men and women while they are there either.If your story means that much to you,and you sympathize with the downtrodden so,then you are on your own.We are already stretched thin without pulling detail for a bunch of liberal media crybabies.

[Lonestar]

What I find ironic is that here we are trying to liberate them and train them to take care of themselves (for the oil of course) and they are murdering our troops, desecrating our flag and demanding we get out of their country.

If we were to start burning the Iraqi flag, murdering Muslims and demanding they all got out of our country the entire world would flip out.

I say let them destroy themselves...they don't need our help.

[cboy]

Originally Posted by wizzonial

...if your on the battle field then it�s simple YOUR DEAD! [snip]
but if done right it can be over relatively fast minimizing overall civilian casualties but leaving no proven enemies alive to fight another day.

Under normal conditions of war, this would be the conventional wisdom. But in Iraq, almost no one was "on the battle field" once the U.S. troops began their push across the country. And when the enemy disappears from the battle field...the battlefield disappears as well, or more accurately, every THING and every BODY becomes the battle field. This, by necessity, includes the innocent bystander as well as those who support the U.S. occupation. So how do you weed out the good from the bad?

This then leads into your second point, "...leaving no PROVEN enemies alive to fight another day." Sounds easy, but when the enemy is not on the battle field and not in uniform, and not even carrying a weapon...how do you prove they are the enemy? Or do you just take out everyone, friend and foe alike?

(Wizzonial, I'm not arguing with your points, just thinking out loud about how one applies these tactics in this particular war.)

[cboy]

Originally Posted by RCastle

To a certain extent the media does have a right to report,however they do not have the right to show footage that jeopardizes the US fighting forces all in the name of ratings as they do. [snip] The media should not be protected by our men and women while they are there either.If your story means that much to you,and you sympathize with the downtrodden so,then you are on your own.We are already stretched thin without pulling detail for a bunch of liberal media crybabies.

Just to clarify this point a bit. The media never asked to be protected by U.S. troops. The entire concept of embedding and protecting the press corp within the military ranks was conceived and implemented by the Bush administration and the military hierarchy...NOT by the "crybaby" press corp. This "embedding" process began well before the actual occupation and was at the invitation of the administration. The process included training of the press at military bases, using military funds, and under total military control. The administration went out of its way to enable the press to send home all that footage you see generating ratings on the nightly news. The only restriction, as I understand, was that the press not reveal actual locations they were reporting from. And to my knowledge the only violation of that restriction came from Geraldo Rivera in a report broadcast on Fox News.

But RCastle's point does raise an important question. Tactically, was the administration's decision to embed and protect the press a wise option?

[Beenaway2long]

I am not sure if this is a political post, so I will only offer a quick thought here....(still keeping my promise to myself)


During Desert Storm, our troops were compromised as a result of the media. The thrust of the operation was lessened as a result.

Was it deemed that if the reporters were imbedded, that the reports could be "censored" for content as to not compromise the troops, yet allow free speech?

[Mighty Mouse S-10]

I guess I must have been sick the day that the people of Iraq asked us to come save them from Saddam and bring their country democracy. Remember we invaded them over the nonexistent WMD's. If the tables were turned and they were occupying us, we would be burning their flag and using guerrilla tactics to combat them.
WIZZONIAL; " If your on the battlefield then it's simple YOUR DEAD"
Kill the women and children just because they're there. So if another country was invading the U.S. this would be sound stratigy for them also? If there is an elementry school in the path, kill'em all.After all genocide is the only way to insure no resistance. The whole country is the "battlefield", so where would it be safe to be an innocent bystander????????

Dave

[cboy]

Originally Posted by Beenaway2long

I am not sure if this is a political post, [snip]
Was it deemed that if the reporters were imbedded, that the reports could be "censored" for content as to not compromise the troops, yet allow free speech?

Nah, we'll just officially declare this is a 'non-political' zone...which means you can jump in all you want Beenaway.

I have wondered as well about the real reason(s) for embedding the press corp. To the best of my knowledge (but still open to new data) the purpose was not to censor the reports or film footage. And I think Geraldo's well publicized violation of the rule regarding the revelation of an outfits specific location backs up that contention. If the reports were being monitored and/or censored, they would have simply cut out that segment where he made known their location. Also, I think some of the liberal press would have raised a rather loud objection if footage or reports were censored. I heard none of that.

[ChevelleSS_LS6]

Originally Posted by Lonestar

They do not fight with any rules. They do not care if they take out their own.

I still say we should airdrop in about 7 to 10 million people with their luggage. Then airdrop in mobile homes right behind them and build trailer parks...there is no way they could cope.

hey, we have illegal immigrants all over here with fake documents, why dont we just ship them over to Iraq, send a bunch of welfare people who would rather have foodstamps than a job, and as said send over some mobile homes. Then they could be oil workers.