Into Afghanistan.
Turn over security of Iraq to the Iraqi’s, but stay close and able to lend aid if and as needed.
Crush the recent upstart in Taliban activity.
Deal a huge blow to the heroin trade.
Provide a serious ready and credible threat to Iran (as the troops would not be dug in and committed as they are now).
There was a huge article in TIME about how terrible Afghanistan is getting, and how the Taliban is restarted and in power every but Kabul.
But Iraq was sooo dangerous…
Being conservative, I would have to agree. I think we should leave guerilla units in iraw to beat the insurgence at their own game.
you mean american guerillas vs iraqi guerillas? Has that ever been done before?
[quote]blck1jack wrote:
I think we should leave guerilla units in iraw to beat the insurgence at their own game.[/quote]
Now that’s an awesome concept. Leave behind groups that speak the language and can fit in to the community…
As well as guerilla action they could call in strikes and/or be fed intelligence and surveilance information while staying invisible.
They’ll have to be backed up by air support and they’ll need tanks stationed nearby.
[quote]semper_fi wrote:
They’ll have to be backed up by air support and they’ll need tanks stationed nearby.[/quote]
It’s painful that strategic re-deployment will happen—yet for elections we have to play the stay the course game.
Our leadership has a callous disregard for our troops forcing them(esp. military leadership) to spend most of their time on resource management rather than providing real security…all for the sake of winning elections and with huge support from cowards on this board like Headhunter and Jeffr etc…sickening.
If the president wanted what he said he does, then Rummy would be fired and alot more troops would be headed over right now in addition to huge funds allocated to the Iraqi police/military…i.e. no more hand me down AK’s and vietnam era flak jackets and boatloads of equipment.
Unfortunately until leadership comes in familiar with tactics and a better strategy comes in willing to work with the military instead of firmly against it comes in…we’ll continue this drip,drip of deaths and horrible injuries along with this steady state of civil war.
[quote]semper_fi wrote:
They’ll have to be backed up by air support and they’ll need tanks stationed nearby.[/quote]
If you redeployed into independent Kurdistan (huge friends of ours) you’d have just that ability—literally right over the horizon to strike targets and provide support in anbar etc. The key is getting shia militias out of policing these Sunni areas. Let the Sunni’s deal with the other sunni’s with our help.
Without our presence there, foreign fighters would be less motivated to be there, and local sunni’s would tire of al qaeda’s(foreign) presence.
[quote]100meters wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
They’ll have to be backed up by air support and they’ll need tanks stationed nearby.
If you redeployed into independent Kurdistan (huge friends of ours) you’d have just that ability—literally right over the horizon to strike targets and provide support in anbar etc. The key is getting shia militias out of policing these Sunni areas. Let the Sunni’s deal with the other sunni’s with our help.
Without our presence there, foreign fighters would be less motivated to be there, and local sunni’s would tire of al qaeda’s(foreign) presence.[/quote]
Not sure I believe that. There’s still the civil war to contend with, and the fact that Wahhabists hate Shiite apostates even more than they do the U.S.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Into Afghanistan.
[/quote]
It does need more attention.
I would like to see this but I don’t think it is possible to help out in Iraq unless we are in the middle of it.
Agreed.
I don’t think this is possible. It really is the only way much of the country makes a living. Fighting the Taliban and the drug warlords is unrealistic.
[quote]
I think they feel the threat now rather strongly hence their current saber rattling.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
100meters wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
They’ll have to be backed up by air support and they’ll need tanks stationed nearby.
If you redeployed into independent Kurdistan (huge friends of ours) you’d have just that ability—literally right over the horizon to strike targets and provide support in anbar etc. The key is getting shia militias out of policing these Sunni areas. Let the Sunni’s deal with the other sunni’s with our help.
Without our presence there, foreign fighters would be less motivated to be there, and local sunni’s would tire of al qaeda’s(foreign) presence.
Not sure I believe that. There’s still the civil war to contend with, and the fact that Wahhabists hate Shiite apostates even more than they do the U.S.[/quote]
There’s civil war if we are there or not. If the country was just allowed to divide, wahhabists would be amongst all the other sunnis and apart from the shia who already police themselves quite well in the south…The problem is getting the sunni to police themselves.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Into Afghanistan.
That will happen at some point. Afganistan is too far away in my opinion. Guam was a silly idea. The Iraq countryside is probably where we will wind up. Deploying to the Kurdish territories would infuriate the Turks who are the largest collection of moderate, secular Muslims in the world.
Coalition forces have. The Taliban have withdrew to the south and stick to the rural areas. Local tribes are hostile to them. They control no strategic ground and must constantly move.
The government does not want to use chemicals to spray the poppies. They have recently changed this policy. Look for production to dorp when the new program is implimented. Until the chemical spraying is implimented it will not drop production.
The troops are garrisoned in Iraq and patrol from the garrison. Same as they would in Afganistan. We haven’t dug in anywhere since Korea in the sens of having a front. The credible threat to Iran is a naval blockade and precision attacks on economic and military infrastructure.
For example if they threaten to shut down the strait we blockade imports and exports. It will hurt short term but Iran cannot be ignored forever.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The troops are garrisoned in Iraq and patrol from the garrison. Same as they would in Afganistan. We haven’t dug in anywhere since Korea in the sens of having a front. The credible threat to Iran is a naval blockade and precision attacks on economic and military infrastructure. [/quote]
Hedo, since Afghanistan is currently being handled by other forces, the new forces coming in could simply choose a place to locate… instead of being needed to keep the peace in major cities, for example.
Perhaps the majority of forces could sit on the Iran border, with some units being rotated into action in parts of Afghanistan.
Whether or not you wish to call them dug in in Iraq, the situation could certainly be different in Afghanistan. They are “busy” in Iraq, whereas in Afghanistan, they could more easily hold themself “at ready”.
Also, if they were outside of major city centers, it would be much harder for insurgents or enemy combatants to get within close proximity and offer combat. There would be no visible populace for them to hide within. It is the in-city efforts, peace keeping and policing that is putting them at risk.
[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
The troops are garrisoned in Iraq and patrol from the garrison. Same as they would in Afganistan. We haven’t dug in anywhere since Korea in the sens of having a front. The credible threat to Iran is a naval blockade and precision attacks on economic and military infrastructure.
Hedo, since Afghanistan is currently being handled by other forces, the new forces coming in could simply choose a place to locate… instead of being needed to keep the peace in major cities, for example.
Perhaps the majority of forces could sit on the Iran border, with some units being rotated into action in parts of Afghanistan.
Whether or not you wish to call them dug in in Iraq, the situation could certainly be different in Afghanistan. They are “busy” in Iraq, whereas in Afghanistan, they could more easily hold themself “at ready”.
Also, if they were outside of major city centers, it would be much harder for insurgents or enemy combatants to get within close proximity and offer combat. There would be no visible populace for them to hide within. It is the in-city efforts, peace keeping and policing that is putting them at risk.[/quote]
We’ll see. I certainly see them being moved around but I think the moves will be in country. Responses from Afganistan would be too far.
[quote]hedo wrote:
We’ll see. I certainly see them being moved around but I think the moves will be in country. Responses from Afganistan would be too far.
[/quote]
Well, yes, I do see what you are saying by the way.
If they are still needed for more than air support, then some will have to remain in-country.
Stratetic Redeployment? That’s just new-speak voor retreat isn’t it?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
I don’t think this is possible. It really is the only way much of the country makes a living. Fighting the Taliban and the drug warlords is unrealistic.
[/quote]
That is a great point.
[quote]semper_fi wrote:
you mean american guerillas vs iraqi guerillas? Has that ever been done before?[/quote]
Yup, although not by us. Read a couple of the books by Frank Kitson, British soldier who served in Kenya and Northern Ireland, on “counter-gangs.”
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
you mean american guerillas vs iraqi guerillas? Has that ever been done before?
Yup, although not by us. Read a couple of the books by Frank Kitson, British soldier who served in Kenya and Northern Ireland, on “counter-gangs.”[/quote]
You mean deathsquats. How did that work out for the UK?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
you mean american guerillas vs iraqi guerillas? Has that ever been done before?
Yup, although not by us. Read a couple of the books by Frank Kitson, British soldier who served in Kenya and Northern Ireland, on “counter-gangs.”
You mean deathsquats. How did that work out for the UK?[/quote]
You don’t know what you’re talking about. They were dirty little wars, as most of those kind are. And Britain won both of them.