Originally posted by AKIron
My son and I were discussing Iraq. He can't understand why we don't just level the city and be done with it. I told him that besides the political aspect it makes sense to encourage the insurgents to congregate at a central battlefield. Makes identifying the enemy much easier and as they commit more and more of their forces to this area we will eventually be able to unleash our full military might against more of them.
Opinions?
AkIron,
Was thinking more about this. The problem certinly isn't confined to just Falluja and although the troops on the ground are doing an excellent and very tough job. One has to wonder whether they really are too few in numbers (by about 100,000) to shut the militas down.
Unfortunate that the Iraqi Army was disbanded but in heindsight eveything is 20/20 as we well know.
What's needed is to shut down the boarders, and stop the militas from coming in from other countries. Which of course would require alot more troops. It would be great if other countries would pick up the ball and run but unfortunetly Bush's decsion to go into Iraq in the first place wasn't a very popular one outside of the US so lack of support is hardly unexpected.
I think from the begining the number of troops required to secure the country was well under what's needed. And unfortunetly probably attributed to alot more casulties and wounded then necessary.
Sieging Falluja isn't going to help a great deal other then to annoy the local population as the militas seem to be spread all over Iraq.
One thing about the boarders is that they are generally away from built up areas so the military can use all it's might.
It is good however to see that the US military appears to be adapting all the time. To tactics and strategy. With security in Iraq then they really might start to win the "hearts and minds" of the population and in turn, turn them against the militas.
Anyway, not really an answer just my opinion.
...-Gixer
