[I respectfully disagree.]
At least you're being respectful, which is what FR is all about.
[In fact, you can make the argument that the more troops you spread around the countryside, the more they are vulnerable to sneaky enemies.]
How 'bout this to illustrate my point: In times of unrest here in the US, or what's taking place today in france and mexico, how is the problem being solved? By sending in fewer police? By sending in the same amount of police? Or by sending in massive amounts of police?
The answer is, massive amounts of police are used to crush disorder.
When Fallujah was awash with terrorists and insurgents, what did we do? Did we send in a platoon or Marines? Or did we send in thousands? We sent in thousands, crushed the insurgency, and still today Fallujah is relatively passive.
[We could change our policy to a more bloodthirsty one of killing more indiscriminately and widely, firing back without caring about collateral damage, massacring whole cities where there are higher levels of troublemaking. But it didn't work for the Russians in Chechnya.]
Yeah, I've actually thought about this a lot- about changing the philosophy to be more violent, more aggressive, etc. You're correct that it didn't work for the Russians in Chechnya. However, it has worked other places. It even worked in Iraq, for Saddam.
Still, I am not yet able to say increasing our level of violence is the correct solution. And given the troop level back in 2003 and today, I'm not sure there is an easy solution. However, I do think that if you want to put down an insurgency, the more troops, the better.
[When you have terrorists willing to kill random targets, there is really no way to prevent a certain number of deaths.]
We can make it more difficult for the terrorists to operate by having more troops on the ground. Having troop presence 24/7 in neighborhoods would give us many more options, including more intel and control of that neighborhood. For instance, it'd be hard to have a bomb making factory in a mechanic's garage with US soldiers walking a beat up and down the street all day long. It'd be harder to transport bombs into Baghdad if all routes entering the city were manned by roadblocks. It'd be harder for the Chechen with red hair and green eyes to walk the streets of Ramallah if he had to pass by Americans on every block.
Think about the examples in your neighborhood. If you want to rob a bank, will you rob the one with the 3 armed security guards inside, the police station next door, and the roadblocks at the end of each street?
Cicero, thanks for the respectful debate!
I don't disagree with your argument that we should have given our troops wider lattitude to deal with certain problem makers. Almost everyone here in the forum agrees that Sadr City is a problem that should have been taken care of long since, but it was not because of political constraints.
But I don't think more troops are needed to solve such problems, merely permission to act, or changes in the rules of engagement.
...............The answer is, massive amounts of police are used to crush disorder. .................
Ahh yes! But the difference is that domestic police are not allowed to use their weapons, unless and until the identified perp is in their sight.
Our great military, weaponed to the hilt, are being forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs as we might risk killing a family member of a vicious terrorist.
If the enemy is willing to suit up their children and wifes in bomb belts, the whole G-Damned territory is hostile, and our guys should be able to take out the trash.
Remember the phrase, "If you harbor terrorists, you will be treated like a terrorist" That should apply to Sadr slum, as well as a country.
These cockroaches harbor terrorists; stop picking around of edges of their nest, and just eliminate the threat.
FWIW - I talked recently with some guys recently back from Iraq. They argued we had plenty of troops, but deployed wrong. We have lots of folks in a few large bases for force protection, but only a handful going out of the wire on patrol.
They argued we should have significantly fewer troops, with a higher number going out of the wire - that this would result in more casualties, but a better chance of winning.
What do y'all think?