How does the conduct of the Iraq war compare to other wars in US history?
American citizen and taxpayer asked:
More specifically: mistakes occur in every war. Strategic and tactical ones. Have there been more the the usual number in Iraq, less, or about the same? I’m hoping for some military experts to enlighten us all – I myself am not one. thanks.
Bryon Vanderstappen
More specifically: mistakes occur in every war. Strategic and tactical ones. Have there been more the the usual number in Iraq, less, or about the same? I’m hoping for some military experts to enlighten us all – I myself am not one. thanks.
Bryon Vanderstappen
Tags: Iraq War, Military Experts
think on this
you have an army that is against you
so you drop bombs and split them up.
this creates insurgents with many pockets of the enemy
these people hide in residential areas…..
but if we hadnt dropped bombs and encouraged their army to come out, provoking them, it would have been a short war…
Just like in Vietnam, the U.S. made a strategic mistake by not winning the hearts and minds of the people. Cooperation from the general masses is key to winning any war and their support of your cause. You see it somewhat now with Sunni militia on the same page as the U.S. military and we are seeing better results. Vietnam was partially lost because we did not know why we were fighting, other than the ‘fight communism’ the government was telling us. But the Vietnam people did not know trust the GI’s and our leadership.
The actual war was conducted very well and very quick. The mistakes were the typical friendly fire episodes, but they were far less than other wars.
The main mistakes have been made during the post war period – where the troops are used as a police force. Being nice to a local population is ok, but trying to be nice to hostiles never works.
there is no comparison,this is an attempt to push demoracyon to a people that have lived one way for thousands of years,how can bush think that they are going to change just because we say so
i don’t think is a whole lot different from Vietnam except the media is so involved in this one that it makes it difficult to get the whole story…and also there are just some things that the military are not allowed to disclose…
Well in Vietnam, targeting was reviewed by the Office of the President, so you had non-military personnel making military decisions (at the tactical level). Often by the time decisions were made, the intended targets were no longer relevant. Another problem during Vietnam was not sending over the number of troops orginally requested by the military until 4 years into the war.
During WWII, lots of soldiers were killed by “friendly fire”. For example, the submarine that John McCain’s father commanded was fired on by U.S. planes during the Invasion of North Africa and LT General McNair (a three star general) was killed by friendly fire.
Lots of mistakes were made during WWII and the Civil War and hundreds of thousands of civilians were purposely targeted by the U.S. strategic bombing campaigns (more died in the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden than died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki). During the civil war Sherman targetted Southern Cities (burned Atlanta to the ground), but the “center of gravity” for the South was not their civilians or cities, it was their army. Strategic bombing and burning down cities often has the effect of strengthing a population’s resolve.
As for the current war, it is very small scale, decisions are made at the Area Combatant Commander Level (CENTCOM) and it is a priority to limit civilian casualties (although that is sometimes difficult since the enemy operates within the civilian population, something that is expressly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions).
And regarding mistakes in general during wars, Clausewitz came up with the term “Fog of War” in the early 1800s (in his book, “The Art of War”). He recognized that the level of mistakes increases with the intensity of the war.
Another complicating factor is that this war is a new kind of war. Rumsfeld was actually brought on board to remake the military to be able to respond to wars of this type, unfortunately, he was not able to implement the changes in time. For example, during the Cold War, certain units that are necessary for this type of war (MPs, Public Affairs, etc) were mostly in the reserves and Guard (the idea being that they would be needed AFTER major warfare in Europe, so the bulk of the active component was made up of “heavy” units designed for high intensity warfare). That’s why we have all those Guard and Reserve units on active duty. In the future, there should be more of these units in the Active components.
It’s an entirely different kind of war than those in the past.
We are not fighting a country or an army representing a country. This is not a conventional war in that sense. Conventional rules of engagement do not apply… and need to be reevaluated.
We are not fighting over a disputed piece of real estate. That is, one army doesn’t line up on one side of the field, and the other army on the other, and they duke it out until one army gets tired or dies. There is no “front line.” That concept of warfare is also not applicable.
In previous wars, while we disagreed with the enemy, perhaps hated what he stood for, we still respected each other to some extent as soldiers. I’m thinking of the Christmas in WWII when US soldiers were in the trenches on one side of the disputed property, and the Germans on the other. One GI pulled out a harmonica and began to play a Christmas carol. Some of the other GIs began to sing… and then so did some of the Germans. Pretty soon, everybody was singing Christmas songs… together. This was not the case in Korea or Vietnam… and it’s not the case in the Middle East.
In previous wars, since we were fighting armies representing countries, both sides had hopes of a military victory. The enemy we’re now fighting cannot hope for a military victory… unless we capitulate… leave before we win.
In past wars, both sides were fighting to stay alive (exception… to some extent, the Kamikazes). Not so in the Middle East. Our enemy now doesn’t seem to care if he lives or dies. It’s difficult to fight one who has nothing to lose.
In past wars we had a draft. Our elected officials are so scared about losing their cushy jobs with all the under-the-table perks, that they won’t reinstate it. Draft every able-bodied person between the ages of 18 and 24 and put them in uniform. Train them and put 5 million of them on the ground in Iraq. No enlistment bonuses. No guarantees of job or duty station. No choice of service… unless the enlist before drafted. Ok, a few military folks balk at the draft. They fear the reliability of somebody who “doesn’t want to be there.” I would question the reliability of some spoiled brat who’s there only for the benefits… what happens if the enemy offers a better package?
But I think the main problem in this war is the inclusion of the press. In WWII, the media coverage was controlled by the government. In Korea, the media were allowed freer access. They interviewed soldiers, they shot scenes of the war. Back then it was all film. It took days to be processed. Any tactical information it contained was dated. But Korea is still a problem.
In Vietnam we had the buggers slogging through the rice paddies, and reporting whatever they felt like. Back then, while transmission was faster than in Korea, any tactical information was broadcast within a day or so. Vietnam is still a thorn in our side.
In the Middle East we have moron reporters drawing battle plans in the sand for the “folks back home.” Transmission is almost “real time.” The enemy knows our plans before we get a chance to execute them. We have moronic media providing aid and comfort to the enemy under the guise of “freedom of the press.”
Since the press has no idea what it’s reporting, and since its goal is to sell advertising rather than represent the truth, it prints what sells. And the people watch a half-hour news program consisting of 20 minutes of drug ads, a couple of other ads, and a few 1-minute clips about the news, and think they have a grip on what’s going on.
Finally, I don’t know if anybody knew of the insurgents in Iraq. For decades they were forced into hiding or submission by Hussein. They were just like the rest of the population. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, all the rest were scared down to their socks by Hussein. People now whine, “No WMD.” Those countries just mentioned, along with Turkey, Israel, and even southern parts of Russia, were afraid he had them. Whether he had them or not, apparently most of the countries in the area felt there was a real threat. So did the insurgents. So, if anybody had a clue the insurgents existed, they were probably not considered a serious threat. They were cowed by Hussein, certainly they wouldn’t try anything against a power that was able to topple Hussein.
But, with Hussein out of the way, these critters scurried out of the woodwork like so many cockroaches. In hindsight, their position is understandable. But that’s hindsight. In fact, there seemed to be no indication of their existence prior to the fall of Hussein. Now they want to pick up where Hussein left off. He reigned by terror… look at their tactics.
When the enemy engages us they lose upwards of 20 to 1… in a prolonged battle, it’s more than 50 to 1. That’s why he knows he can’t win a military victory. But if he can sow the seeds of terror and convince the world that it’s our fault he has a prayer of attaining power.
It’s like a criminal holding a gun to his hostage’s head and saying, “If you come a step closer, I’ll kill this hostage, and it will be your fault.” The correct response is, “The only reason you’re still breathing is because the person you’re holding is alive. If you want to keep breathing, you’ll let him go. I’m coming to get you. If the hostage dies, so do you… and both deaths will be your fault.” Unfortunately, most of the people in the world seem to buy the criminal’s line.
If the US and its allies aren’t allowed a military victory, the terrorists will claim one.
If popular opinion is weighed in making military decisions, the US and the allies won’t be allowed a military victory.
The tactical errors are not on the part of the military. They’re on the parts of an ignorant population and a government elected by them who try to micromanage something about which they have absolutely no knowledge or understanding.
Does the military make mistakes? Sure… everybody does. But compared to blunders forced upon them by ignorant popular opinion, and a venal government, it’s like comparing a scratch to a severed artery… and the results will be similar.
There is no secret as to why the last actual war we can say we actually won was WW2. And I am not talking about dropping the bomb in Japan, I am actually talking about the war in Europe. The bottom line is that in Europe, we went in, went from point A to point B, accomplished what needed to be done, THEN rebuilt. Ever since then we have tried to limit casualties on the front end, this has allowed us to win many battles, but lose the overall war.
Until we are willing to commit our troops to battle, send them in to go from Point A to Point B, THEN reorganize and rebuild, we should bring em home and never commit them again!
That is all