Armchair Generals in the power.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Real life war is not the same thing. Airpower helps to defeat an enemy, but it rarely causes genocide on its own, unless of course your going to use nuclear weapons.

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you're efficient in your use of napalm...just saying...

[Veho Nex]

Napalm has been banned by the UN I believe, as... what was it... Inhumane.

I haven't read as much into this war as past wars, and for me warfare is not something it should be, a game. A simple matter of chess, and redleg considering you have been in combat please take no offense to that statement. I have heard of the horrors from as far back as Vietnam from uncles and family friends.

Now I want to point out here what attrition warfare is: (not the best website but good for a quick def.)

Attrition warfare is a military tactic in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down its enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and material. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such resources.[1] The Vietnam War is typically used as the primary example of a war of attrition: American strategy was to wear down the enemy until it lost its "will to fight."

Nex, what is this war about? How would you judge it to be a win? Feel free to be as specific or as vague as you like. Also, what is the highest level of command for the war?

This war about... Iraqi freedom, The war on terror, The war for black gold, I dont know. To me it's a stupid decision that wasn't thought through. How to win, thats something I can't help with, I don't know enough about our current military in Iraq. But If we were to go ahead and forget our pride for a bit just pull out and let other countries handle it for now. I don't know about east coast US but in Ca we have our own war going on with southern gangs moving in and northern gangs getting stronger.(This is just one small town and my neighborhood went from peaceful to a stabbing a week in only a couple months)

But a true answer to win this war we need to purge Iraq with a serious push of troops. Send more men over there and push through every section of every city confiscating weapons and hazardous material. Once a city is clean get a guard on it and allow it to build up its own police force to protect itself then move to the next city. It will take a while and might be deadly but it will end the war for sure. After we pull out each city will have it's own police and military forces for defense and we can leave knowing we have done something instead of sit outside the cities and go in occasionally on routine patrols.

As for you RedLeg, field arty huh? Sounds fun what was the biggest bang for you buck when it comes to arty.

[Pannonian]

This war about... Iraqi freedom, The war on terror, The war for black gold, I dont know. To me it's a stupid decision that wasn't thought through. How to win, thats something I can't help with, I don't know enough about our current military in Iraq. But If we were to go ahead and forget our pride for a bit just pull out and let other countries handle it for now. I don't know about east coast US but in Ca we have our own war going on with southern gangs moving in and northern gangs getting stronger.(This is just one small town and my neighborhood went from peaceful to a stabbing a week in only a couple months)

But a true answer to win this war we need to purge Iraq with a serious push of troops. Send more men over there and push through every section of every city confiscating weapons and hazardous material. Once a city is clean get a guard on it and allow it to build up its own police force to protect itself then move to the next city. It will take a while and might be deadly but it will end the war for sure. After we pull out each city will have it's own police and military forces for defense and we can leave knowing we have done something instead of sit outside the cities and go in occasionally on routine patrols.

Your're still describing processes instead of aims. What are you trying to achieve by doing the above? Go up another level or two.

For example, could you describe what the British were trying to do in Northern Ireland? Now apply the same level of analysis to Iraq,

[Redleg]

I haven't read as much into this war as past wars, and for me warfare is not something it should be, a game. A simple matter of chess, and redleg considering you have been in combat please take no offense to that statement. I have heard of the horrors from as far back as Vietnam from uncles and family friends.

Again as I stated before - War in real life is no game - its a matter of life and death, and its an ugly business.

Now I want to point out here what attrition warfare is: (not the best website but good for a quick def.)

Again point out where in Iraq we are attempting only to wear down the enemies will to fight?
As stated before we are also attempting to re-build Iraq into a democracy. You can disagree with the purpose of the war, you can even state we should not be there in the first place, but calling it a war of attrition requires you to actually show where it meets the definition that you have provided.

This war about... Iraqi freedom, The war on terror, The war for black gold, I dont know. To me it's a stupid decision that wasn't thought through. How to win, thats something I can't help with, I don't know enough about our current military in Iraq. But If we were to go ahead and forget our pride for a bit just pull out and let other countries handle it for now. I don't know about east coast US but in Ca we have our own war going on with southern gangs moving in and northern gangs getting stronger.(This is just one small town and my neighborhood went from peaceful to a stabbing a week in only a couple months)

Again you have made a comment about your personal opinion on the war, nothing wrong with that at all. However you avoid demonstrating where it meets the definition of a war of attrition. I will give you a slight hint - every war entails a requirement to destroy the enemies will to fight. However to meet the requirement for a war of attrition - one must solely focus on destroying the enemy's resources, primarily its men. So can you point out operations in Iraq that focus solely on destroying the enemy fighters?

But a true answer to win this war we need to purge Iraq with a serious push of troops. Send more men over there and push through every section of every city confiscating weapons and hazardous material. Once a city is clean get a guard on it and allow it to build up its own police force to protect itself then move to the next city. It will take a while and might be deadly but it will end the war for sure. After we pull out each city will have it's own police and military forces for defense and we can leave knowing we have done something instead of sit outside the cities and go in occasionally on routine patrols.

Read into what General Petruis is attempting to do and wants to accomplish. He is not doing something as drastic as you state, but the purpose of patrols and the current troop surge is roughly similiar to this. Again there is a general in Iraq that finally has the ability to force the adminstration to allow him to do what is required to hopefully turn the situation around so that we can at least begin to gain some ground in Iraq. Ground being meeting the objectives to turn everything back over to the Iraqi people.

As for you RedLeg, field arty huh? Sounds fun what was the biggest bang for you buck when it comes to arty.

8" howitzer's firing direct fire.

[Pannonian]

Redleg, would the term decolonisation be an accurate description of what you're trying to do in Iraq?

[Redleg]

Redleg, would the term decolonisation be an accurate description of what you're trying to do in Iraq?

Not really sure. I would more call it an attempt at nation building, coupled with a few other types of operations involved with the warfighting aspect of what is going on.

I do see similiarities between the two concepts, but I lean more toward the nation building concept as being the more accurate. I guess the answer would lie in where does one place the violence that is going on in Iraq into the equation.

This was written in 2002, and applies to both Afganstan and Iraq in my opinion.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/ksgpress/..._building.html

But then this is the reason I don't see Iraq as a war of attrition when one only looks at Iraq. Now if I we wanted to pursue the war of attrition arguement - it would be better served as an arguement concerning the War on Terror as the current adminstration is pursueing that concept. Even then there is areas within that label (War on Terror) that steers one away from calling it a war of attrition. But the general persecution of the war on terror might be seen as soley a war of attrition since it is dealing with attempting to remove all resources from the non national groups that pursue terror as a means.

But I await clear cut arguements concerning that particlur thesis on the war on terror.

[Pannonian]

The thing is though, the important aspects of what you're trying to do - build a nation that stands up for itself, is friendly to you, is at peace with itself, etc. - are just what decolonisation was trying to achieve. There are various models of that process, and the US itself has had varying experiences of doing so - with success in the Philippines, where you gradually wound down over around half a century, and with failure in Vietnam, where the state you left quickly collapsed under pressure. I think the success or otherwise of Iraq can be measured in similar ways. There are factors complicating this, but if one looks at Iraq as a decolonisation exercise, it would at least make things clearer on the political level.

Thinking about it, Malaya may be an example you'll want to look at, as it combined warfighting with nation-building and working alongside a government that was at least nominally independent. However, in that case, the sides were clearly defined, and thus easily dealt with conceptually. Iraq is much, much more complex politically, which makes it even more of a puzzle why there was any desire to immerse oneself in it in the first place.

[Redleg]

The thing is though, the important aspects of what you're trying to do - build a nation that stands up for itself, is friendly to you, is at peace with itself, etc. - are just what decolonisation was trying to achieve. There are various models of that process, and the US itself has had varying experiences of doing so - with success in the Philippines, where you gradually wound down over around half a century, and with failure in Vietnam, where the state you left quickly collapsed under pressure. I think the success or otherwise of Iraq can be measured in similar ways. There are factors complicating this, but if one looks at Iraq as a decolonisation exercise, it would at least make things clearer on the political level.

Your forgetting that Nation Building does the same thing as decolonization, both are very similiar in nature but there are differences. Philippines was an attempt at decolonization, since it was previousily a colony of the United States. Vietnam was an attempt at several things, Nation Building being one of them also, because it was not a colony of the United States. South Korea, Japan, and Germany are all exambles of Nation Building. Japan and Germany were nation building based upon occupation of the enemy nation. THe difference is that Japan and Germany were utterly defeated by a total war before the occupation. Iraq was defeated but not in the same scope as either Japan or Germany.

Then your discounting the continued rebellions in the Phillipines that are ongoing to this day in the southern islands.

Your focused on what you believe to be correct, but you haven't demonstrated where decolonization is the correct answer nor have you demonstrated an accurate parrell.

Thinking about it, Malaya may be an example you'll want to look at, as it combined warfighting with nation-building and working alongside a government that was at least nominally independent. However, in that case, the sides were clearly defined, and thus easily dealt with conceptually. Iraq is much, much more complex politically, which makes it even more of a puzzle why there was any desire to immerse oneself in it in the first place.

Malaya does indeed fit into both concepts of decolonization - old british empire colony - and one of nation-building. As for going into Iraq the puzzle is rather easy to figure out. It was spelled out very clearly beginning back in 1991. You can say it was the wrong course of action to pursue based upon the political complexities of that nation, the three deverse groups have been fighting for awhile even under the aspect of being a single nation state. But to claim why there was any desire in the first place is a poor position to take.

What should of happened is a complete and utter destruction of Saddam back in 1991, against the wishes of the United Nations and the collation, or when the upraisings happened in 1992. Instead the United States abandoned some worthwhile allies that might have prevented some of the events that are happening in the world today. But then hind sight is always 20/20