• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraqi Sunnis Trained by U.S. Return to al Qaeda

The fact that you're even asking that question sort of proves my point about the effectiveness of our troops in a guerrilla warfare situation.

As for your question, I'll let the man who raised it settle it.
 
The fact that you're even asking that question sort of proves my point about the effectiveness of our troops in a guerrilla warfare situation.

As for your question, I'll let the man who raised it settle it.

Tell us how they could have done better. From a tactical perspective, that is.
 
How the hell should I know? The sum total of my comments on the subject is based upon what should be plain as day to everyone, based on the results of the conflict thus far:

Our troops aren't stupid, they're well-trained, and with the exception of the bigots they're professional as hell -- but they still suck at fighting a guerrilla war.

I'm no military genius, I'm just commenting on the obvious things that so many of refuse to admit.
 
Iraq has been very expensive in terms of lives and doolars for very little gain. If Iraq became paridise on earth, it would have still been too expensive. What many call success in iraq was always related to the awakineing and deopendent upon them continuing to play nice. If at any point they choose to go back to fighting, we're screwed. And gains will be lost.

While I know some see devastating the country more than we have as a viable option, I'm glad even Bush didn't see that as a proper course. We should not be in the business of such destruction. When defending ourselfs requires such horrible actuions, we might want to consider if we're worhty of surviving (BTW, our survivial was never dependent on this ill conceived invasion).

And no, for those who asked, our "surge" in Afgahnistan is even less likely to be successful. It too was wrong headed.
 
How the hell should I know? The sum total of my comments on the subject is based upon what should be plain as day to everyone, based on the results of the conflict thus far

What are the results thus far and what are you using as a barometer?

Our troops aren't stupid, they're well-trained, and with the exception of the bigots they're professional as hell -- but they still suck at fighting a guerrilla war.

Again, what standard are you using to gauge whether, or not, our soldiers suck at fighting an unconventional enemy?

I'm no military genius, I'm just commenting on the obvious things that so many of refuse to admit.

Military genius, or not, your credibility rests on your ability to support your comments. especially when you insult the itelligence of other posters.
 
FoxNews.com - Report: Sunni Allies in Iraq Quit to Rejoin Al Qaeda

Will be interesting to see how the Government handles the defection.
As they were trained by Western Soldiers, no doubt many will have working knowledge of how they operate.

To be fair, this is kind of unavoidable. The U.S. had to train them in order to help with the new order in Iraq. Naturally some of them will defect to the enemy and that can't be helped. I don't think it's really a failure.
 
What are the results thus far and what are you using as a barometer?

I already made it clear I think they suck, and the OP for this thread and our propensity for creating militants faster than we can defeat them on the battlefield are pretty good measures of how much. :lol:

Military genius, or not, your credibility rests on your ability to support your comments. especially when you insult the itelligence of other posters.

You're lecturing me on credibility? Really? I've watched you hang onto the losing end of an argument for dear life just because you didn't want to be wrong. I'll at least admit when I made a mistake.

That's a much better measure of credibility than what will no doubt be your subjective evaluation of my ability so support my comments.
 
Last edited:
I already made it clear I think they suck, and the OP for this thread and our propensity for creating militants faster than we can defeat them on the battlefield are pretty good measures of how much. :lol:



You're lecturing me on credibility? Really? I've watched you hang onto the losing end of an argument for dear life just because you didn't want to be wrong. I'll at least admit when I made a mistake.

That's a much better measure of credibility than what will no doubt be your subjective evaluation of my ability so support my comments.

So, they, "suck", just because you said it? Be careful, all those troop lovin' Liberals are going to smoke your ass over that comment.

You dog me for being, as you say, on the losing end of every argument, yet you have ZERO evidence to support your contention that American soldiers, "suck". Redress isn't going to be too happy with your performance, here.
 
I read this:

So, they, "suck", just because you said it? Be careful, all those troop lovin' Liberals are going to smoke your ass over that comment.

You dog me for being, as you say, on the losing end of every argument, yet you have ZERO evidence to support your contention that American soldiers, "suck". Redress isn't going to be too happy with your performance, here.

but all I see is this:

wil-wheaton-hulk-WIDE.jpg

\
HULK SMASH!

:lol:

Seriously, though, look at it this way -- I'm sure you'd be willing to stipulate that our military is the best-equipped, the best-trained and so forth, right?

So how come a bunch of rag-tags with improvised explosives and no uniforms have, as a loosely-allied entity, stood up to us for the last several years and kept us from claiming anything close to a decisive victory?

We suck at guerrilla warfare.

Personally, I think we should bring Switzerland in to consult. They're pretty good at that sort of thing, and they've got lots of mountains for us to practice in without fear of being sniped.

Yes, I'm being serious.
 
What you see as "sucking at guerrilla warfare", many see as "political interference" not allowing the military to fight in a way as a situation may dictate.
 
Seriously, though, look at it this way -- I'm sure you'd be willing to stipulate that our military is the best-equipped, the best-trained and so forth, right?

Of course. Their performance exhibits that to be a fact.

So how come a bunch of rag-tags with improvised explosives and no uniforms have, as a loosely-allied entity, stood up to us for the last several years and kept us from claiming anything close to a decisive victory?

Because we are unable to engage tens, or even hundreds of thousands of the enemy at one time. In past wars--pre-Vietnam--the start to finish time was shorter; not only did we hit the enemy with the maximum amount of violence, but we were able to project that level of violence upon thousands of the enemy, at once.

In Iraq, we engaged a dozen--plus or minus--of the enemy, at any given time. That being the case, it's obviously going to take longer to subdue the enemy's will/ability to wage war. You're confusing results with a time frame. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we had killed 100,000 insurgents in the first six months, the war in Iraq would have already been decided. However, that's not the case. It took us 6 years to kill 100,000 insurgents. We killed 100,000 insurgents and the insurgents killed less than 4,000 Coalition troops. That's a 25:1 kill ratio, in favor of the coalition. 25 insurgent KIA to 1 Coalition KIA. That can only indicate that the insurgents suck donkey balls at waging unconventional warfare. Not us! The insurgents have launched approximately 80,000 IED's and all told scored under 4,000 KIA's. That's not exactly a huge sign of success.

So, again, how are you guaging the suck factor of American troops, when engaging assymetrical forces?





Personally, I think we should bring Switzerland in to consult. They're pretty good at that sort of thing, and they've got lots of mountains for us to practice in without fear of being sniped.

Yes, I'm being serious.

That has to be the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. The Swiss are good at what, exactly? Guerilla warfare? The Swiss army hasn't been in a war in centuries--literally!
 
We suck at guerrilla warfare.

Thats not true at all, in fact, the United States Military is the pre-eminent anti-insurgency group in the world. Ever since Vietname, we've been developing protocol, and tactics for dealing with guerilla fighters, and we're pretty freaking good at it. The problem is military strength can only control an insurgency, it can't wipe it out. Our soliders have kicked insurgent ass, but a final solution to this type of problem is a political solution, and in such a religiously polarized environment, it takes generations to fight the ignorance that is the source of this insurgency.

There really is no doubt that we could defeat Al Qaeda eventually but it wouldn't be worth it to stay and completely eradicate them, because it'd **** us up pretty bad too, in terms of losses, politics, and economics. Same scenario in Afghanistan, but it isn't as far along as Iraq is.

Our middle of the road approach is going to stabilize Iraq for some time, maybe a few years, but we need to tackle Iran, who is causing a sh**load of problems for us throughout the Middle East.
 
Thats not true at all, in fact, the United States Military is the pre-eminent anti-insurgency group in the world. Ever since Vietname, we've been developing protocol, and tactics for dealing with guerilla fighters, and we're pretty freaking good at it. The problem is military strength can only control an insurgency, it can't wipe it out. Our soliders have kicked insurgent ass, but a final solution to this type of problem is a political solution, and in such a religiously polarized environment, it takes generations to fight the ignorance that is the source of this insurgency.

There really is no doubt that we could defeat Al Qaeda eventually but it wouldn't be worth it to stay and completely eradicate them, because it'd **** us up pretty bad too, in terms of losses, politics, and economics. Same scenario in Afghanistan, but it isn't as far along as Iraq is.

Our middle of the road approach is going to stabilize Iraq for some time, maybe a few years, but we need to tackle Iran, who is causing a sh**load of problems for us throughout the Middle East.

It's been proven that that's not going to work.
 
But why do you think we suck at fighting against guerillas?
 
How, you say? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, perhaps? Has a, "political solution", worked in any of those wars?

Political as in keep the military in the country, while developing infrastructure.

Vietnam can't be politically compared to Iraq and Afghanistan because we were fighting a political enemy-communists. Right now, we're fighting something far more dangerous, but at the same time more combatable, religious fanatics. With our current case, over a long period of time, you can almost wipe out the fanatics in an area just by educating the populace, and waiting for the prejudices to die out over time.
 
Political as in keep the military in the country, while developing infrastructure.

Vietnam can't be politically compared to Iraq and Afghanistan because we were fighting a political enemy-communists. Right now, we're fighting something far more dangerous, but at the same time more combatable, religious fanatics. With our current case, over a long period of time, you can almost wipe out the fanatics in an area just by educating the populace, and waiting for the prejudices to die out over time.

No matter how you define the enemy, a political solution isn't the answer. Wars are won on the battlefield, not the political arena.
 
What you see as "sucking at guerrilla warfare", many see as "political interference" not allowing the military to fight in a way as a situation may dictate.

Okay, so then I guess you can tell us in what way the military could fight, if political interference was removed, that would improve the situation.
 
Okay, so then I guess you can tell us in what way the military could fight, if political interference was removed, that would improve the situation.

LOL...you're dodging the meat the conversation...big time!

But, I'll answer your grade school query and say that, a lack of political interferance would allow our military to execute an extreme amount of violence upon the enemy, thereby destroying the enemy's will/ability to wage war, more quickly.

IOW, if there were fewer Libbo politicos worrying about what rules we were breaking and more of them worrying about how many of the enemy we were killing and how fast we were killing them, everyone would be alot better off.
 
Last edited:
Because we are unable to engage tens, or even hundreds of thousands of the enemy at one time. In past wars--pre-Vietnam--the start to finish time was shorter; not only did we hit the enemy with the maximum amount of violence, but we were able to project that level of violence upon thousands of the enemy, at once.

In Iraq, we engaged a dozen--plus or minus--of the enemy, at any given time. That being the case, it's obviously going to take longer to subdue the enemy's will/ability to wage war. You're confusing results with a time frame. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we had killed 100,000 insurgents in the first six months, the war in Iraq would have already been decided. However, that's not the case. It took us 6 years to kill 100,000 insurgents. We killed 100,000 insurgents and the insurgents killed less than 4,000 Coalition troops. That's a 25:1 kill ratio, in favor of the coalition. 25 insurgent KIA to 1 Coalition KIA. That can only indicate that the insurgents suck donkey balls at waging unconventional warfare. Not us! The insurgents have launched approximately 80,000 IED's and all told scored under 4,000 KIA's. That's not exactly a huge sign of success.

So, again, how are you guaging the suck factor of American troops, when engaging assymetrical forces?

You essentially said we're having a hard time because this enemy isn't fighting like our enemies of the past.

In other words, you just said we're having a hard time fighting a guerrilla war.

:lol:

Oh, brother.

That has to be the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. The Swiss are good at what, exactly? Guerilla warfare? The Swiss army hasn't been in a war in centuries--literally!

Okay, so you know absolutely nothing about the Swiss military. That's cool. I just happen to have a special interest in what happens in Switzerland is all.
 
No matter how you define the enemy, a political solution isn't the answer. Wars are won on the battlefield, not the political arena.

Thats just not true at all. Its false enough that I won't give you the precedent against that in history. And when you're fighting an insurgency, it automatically becomes a political question, a question of willpower, and a question as to the intents of (in Iraq and Afghanistan's case) established governments.

Furthermore, as I've stated before, an insurgency is sustained by ignorance, and until you start fighting that ignorance, you're only addressing the symptoms, not the source.
 
Thats not true at all, in fact, the United States Military is the pre-eminent anti-insurgency group in the world. Ever since Vietname, we've been developing protocol, and tactics for dealing with guerilla fighters, and we're pretty freaking good at it. The problem is military strength can only control an insurgency, it can't wipe it out. Our soliders have kicked insurgent ass, but a final solution to this type of problem is a political solution, and in such a religiously polarized environment, it takes generations to fight the ignorance that is the source of this insurgency.

You essentially did what I just caught apdst doing.

:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom