I respectfully disagree. All the troops in the world couldn't stop terrorists from sneaking around and killing innocent civilians, or occasionally bombing a convoy.
In fact, you can make the argument that the more troops you spread around the countryside, the more they are vulnerable to sneaky enemies.
And what would be the use of more troops? 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.
When you have terrorists willing to kill random targets, there is really no way to prevent a certain number of deaths. Most of the deaths in Iraq are of that kind: random acts of cruelty and cowardice, which our press refuses to report properly.
[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!