Posted on 03/24/2003 12:01:01 PM PST by apeman81
I personally cannot believe the restraint being shown by our forces in this war to free the Iraqi people. I am not referring to the Shock and Awe bombing campaign, but rather the direct engagements with enemy ground forces.
We all watched as marines engaged a force of some 120 troops in and around a building along the path to Baghdad. Instead of enveloping them in overwhelming firepower, from the air and ground, the battle was almost timid. The majority of the battle was the slow, measured attack from a pair of M1 tanks. Short machine gun bursts punctuated by the very occasional firing of the main gun. As if the engagement were designed to give the enemy every chance to withdraw or surrender.
Personally, I’m an old fashioned kind of guy. I would take care of such pockets by massive aerial and or artillery barrage and a guns blazing mop-up. I would repeat this with every opposing force encountered. As far as the entrenched, massive Republican Guard units, B-52 carpet bombing is a good way to break the back of such resistance. In fact, the new MOAB sounds like a pretty good “softening-up” tool. Hit them hard and long from a distance, and clean up the leftovers with overwhelming force.
Now I’m not saying I’m right. I’m just pointing out another method that could be employed. A method that puts primacy on the protection of our troops over those of the enemy. Why? Because I feel it important to highlight the extraordinary effort being made to minimize enemy casualties.
This may be an attempt to conduct a “civilized” war. War, in my opinion, not only cannot be civilized, but further should not be. The idea of a surgical war, with minimum casualties and damage belies the seriousness of the conditions that lead to war.
In this case, the Dictator of Iraq has committed any number of atrocities against his people, as well as the people in surrounding nations. His record of torture, murder, and horror are documented and well known. His support for terror is fact. We all know about his monetary compensation plan for homicide bombers. That puts him clearly in the group that our President created post 911 that commits or supports terrorism anywhere in the world. Thus, taking him out is righteous.
So don’t play with him, destroy him. We never intentionally target civilians, but we can’t ignore important targets simply because this creep puts them in civilian areas. That his people should die in this engagement is upon his head for putting the targets where he has, not on us for taking out the targets. When was the last time American forces put targets in the middle of non-combatants? We don’t. Neither should he.
War is not clean. War is not antiseptic. War is, and should be, hell. If war is hell, then perhaps the people most affected by this hell will be less inclined to support the people who got them into it. How many Iraqis would stay near such targets if we were to take them out anyway? How many would stay in the city itself?
When you dilute the price of war, you only encourage it.
I hope our leadership agrees.
You do realize that would mean killing about 5 million Iraqi civilians?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.