Short-sighted Pentagon Policy (1040 hits)
Category: Politics -> IraqRating: 1.17 on 22 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by jumpinjellyfish (View user info) at 2004-10-21 09:22:39 EDT
Why are we are using tactical air strikes against targets inside of Iraq, a country that we already occupy? U.S. military officials have said that the air strikes are being aimed at suspected meeting places of operatives of Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted man in Iraq. I think the whole concept of these strikes is an enormous military blunder.
As a former G.I., I know that the air strikes are being used in lieu of assault by ground troops in an attempt to destroy Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi while keeping American casualties low. But the people in the Pentagon who developed this policy aren't showing much intelligence in the matter. While it's true that American deaths are averted, so essential in this election year, we're not killing the guy we want to kill and many innocent Iraqi civilians are being killed as a by-product.
To me this whole concept of acceptable "collateral damage" (read: the death of many innocent people while trying to kill the people you want to kill) is indefensible for 2 reasons:
First, if we really think Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi is hiding in a restaurant or a house, shouldn't we go there and try to capture or kill him from up close instead of shooting at him from a distance? How will we know if we got him otherwise?
Second, we supposedly came to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. How do we expect them to view us as liberators if we are so willing to throw their lives away? The truth is, we will never win over the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people if we keep arbitrarily killing their children. This tactical air strike policy is making a huge number of Iraqis our enemies, and if the average Iraqi civilian becomes our enemy then the "liberation" will truly become an "occupation" and we will lose.
The direct correlation between the mistakes we're making in Iraq and the mistakes we made in Vietnam is horrifying. If we don't start making better decisions then, as George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
I hope that isn't our legacy.
User Reviews
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2005-10-06 17:15:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Clockwork Orange prize!
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2005-06-25 06:51:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
We all now know how this is working out.
Same O Same O
Just like SE A
Submitted by IamNotTheWorldTradeCenter (user info) at 2004-10-29 12:03:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I thought 'the terrorists' were the ones who didn't value civilian lives and murdered the innocent to achieve their objectives. I guess the difference is that we're rich and white and they're not. DAMN I wish that oil was somewhere else.
www.fromthewilderness.com
Submitted by kai070169 (user info) at 2004-10-29 11:02:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Why are we are using tactical air strikes against targets inside of Iraq, a country that we already occupy?"
Maybe "occupy" is the wrong word?
Why is the US in Iraq at all? This post is retarded and based on the flawed premise that the US has a right to even be there. Ex GI? That explains a lot. Makes it impossible to post objectively, and confirms that you have no ability to consider these matters without prejudice.
40,000 dead Iraqis since occupation. 1000 dead Americans. You guys are doing a SHITTY job over there, and the terrorists America has created are consistently kicking your ass. Fuck your speculation, why not devote some effort formulating a plan to get the fuck out of there?
Normally I wouldn't even respond to your posts, they are so lame, but you dragged my name through the mud so I thought I'd check out my attacker. Meh. Nothing new here.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-10-21 19:13:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by dohnuts (user info) at 2004-10-21 13:28:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by X at 2004-10-21 11:22:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The reason for air strikes are for one to have less US casulties (like you said) but it does not give any time for people to get away. So moving in troops would be more effective in the sense they wouldn't be able to esacpe but it is also ineffective because the people we are trying to get would be gone once we got there.
And we aren't "throwing their lives away"... air strikes aren't meant to kill of civilians but it is very hard to have an air strike without outside casulties.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-10-21 10:34:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What do you know godchicken, safe in your little cosy hippy appartment in san francisco!
HIPPY!
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2004-10-21 10:23:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I get what you're trying to say, but I don't entirely agree.
Strategic policy vs Tactical policy. The air strikes are a tactical policy being chosen by commanders in the region.
Pentagon says "kill that guy" commanders in the area choose how to do it most effectively.
That strategic decision to do the Fallujah Brigade changed the tactical options available.
That, and politicians provide a check and balance against the military. Mindsets are different, you know? Tend to get tunnel vision and just frag anyone that pops up as potential hostile.
Submitted by jumpinjellyfish (user info) at 2004-10-21 10:23:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2004-10-21 10:14:44 (#)
Ranking: -2
I hate pictures of corpses, especially when I am looking for comedy. Why do people show this? It's not like I'm going to storm the White House and usurp the president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're looking for comedy don't click on a post entitled "Short-sighted Pentagon Policy".
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2004-10-21 10:14:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I hate pictures of corpses, especially when I am looking for comedy. Why do people show this? It's not like I'm going to storm the White House and usurp the president.
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2004-10-21 10:06:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think you just proved the point I was trying to make...politicians should have no control over tactical situations...that was our downfall in Vietnam.
======================================================
They don't have control over the tactical situation. Plans were moving ahead. The politicians cut a deal with former Saddam loyalists and put together the Fallujah Brigade.They yoked back the Marines, and these guys got equipped and paid by the US to pacify the city. As soon as they went in, they integrated with the insurgents.
We.got.fucked.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:57:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Baghdad *hospital.*
Submitted by jumpinjellyfish (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:57:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:49:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
Politicians, thats why.
We were going to do it back in March. Got told to pull back. We actually had control of 1/3 of the city at that point.
Now we're going to have to do it, and they've had months to dig in and build traps and bombs. Look at how much trouble Sadr City in Baghdad was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you just proved the point I was trying to make...politicians should have no control over tactical situations...that was our downfall in Vietnam.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:56:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fallujah is only being spared because of the election, right?
Once thats past the powers will be far more willing to take casualties cracking down on insurgents.
Zarqawi is massively over-hyped. Many of the stories surrounding him are bullshit. Credible sources question his influence, and the alliance of his organisation (Monotheism and Holy War) with Al Qaeda.
There is doubt over the story that he lost a leg to amputation while being treated in a Baghdad story. Some even question whether he is still alive. He is a bogeyman.
Everyone should see pictures like that above before they claim to support wars and occupations. Too many Americans don't care about the Iraqi dead, and many posters here applaud the murder of Iraqis.
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:49:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It seems to me that the wisest course of action would be to do exactly what you say we cannot do. We have superior ground and air forces...we can easily surround the city...allow free passage out to women and children, and then strike against the insurgent forces that would be left in the city. Why is this so impossible?
=====================================
Politicians, thats why.
We were going to do it back in March. Got told to pull back. We actually had control of 1/3 of the city at that point.
Now we're going to have to do it, and they've had months to dig in and build traps and bombs. Look at how much trouble Sadr City in Baghdad was.
Submitted by jumpinjellyfish (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:46:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:39:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
The problem here being WE CANNOT GO INTO THE CITY OF FALLUJAH.
We cannot drive down the streets, we cannot go within city limits. That would provoke an all out attack by insurgent forces inside the city. A patrol would be massacred. We cannot just run down the street and surround the building.
Therefore, without instigating a fight in which we would have to assault the entire city, along with surrounding it so that no one could escape, a -fairly- accurate air strike is the only acceptable option.
You need to examine the situation more, before blasting the policy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that the wisest course of action would be to do exactly what you say we cannot do. We have superior ground and air forces...we can easily surround the city...allow free passage out to women and children, and then strike against the insurgent forces that would be left in the city. Why is this so impossible?
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:39:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The problem here being WE CANNOT GO INTO THE CITY OF FALLUJAH.
We cannot drive down the streets, we cannot go within city limits. That would provoke an all out attack by insurgent forces inside the city. A patrol would be massacred. We cannot just run down the street and surround the building.
Therefore, without instigating a fight in which we would have to assault the entire city, along with surrounding it so that no one could escape, a -fairly- accurate air strike is the only acceptable option.
You need to examine the situation more, before blasting the policy.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:36:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I have a photo-journalist friend who just came back from Iraq. He said he hopes he never takes another picture like the one you've attached again, and that most people who haven't been over there can't comprehend how common those photo ops are.
Of all the things that he knew would probably stay with him and haunt him--the headless and limbless bodies, the dead American soldiers, the dead insurgents, the dead terrorists--he said the child and infant corpses were going to torment him the most, and probably for the rest of his life.
This world can be so fucked up.
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:30:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Evilness.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:25:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by I_Have_a_Kristen_Fetish (user info) at 2004-10-21 09:23:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Camwhore: http://www.ubersite.com/m/49195