The first thing to do is determine who the enemy really is. Was it Saddam in Iraq? If that is the case why is there still violence there now that Saddam and the troops have been removed? The same is true of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I suspect a large part of the problem is a reluctance to actually name the enemy and, in the war, designated borders are of less concern than traditional wars. In fact traditional wars are no longer feasible in the modern age. In fact in this ongoing 'hearts and minds' war the Muslim terrorists seem to be faring better than Americans.
Iraq was a problem for the region, but also a bulwark under Saddam to check Iran. Now Iraq is a virtual colony of Iran. We stepped in and changed a vey big dynamic
(i.e.)Shi'a rule and very close ties as evidenced by al -Sadr's ability to cross the Iraq/Iraw border, and be influential voice of the then new al_Malaki gov't.
al-Sadr warned that any SOFA agreement signed with the US would put US troops under Iraqi law - we had to leave, no residuals ( and I was for getting out)
, but when we did leave we left Iraq fractured.
AQIR became AQIS/AQIL -and came back from Syria battle hardened. Since they are Sunni jihadists they now want to use Anwar and SW Syria to establish their own rogue caliphate.
This is the same area we used the "Awakening" to COMBAT AQ during our Iraq war!
Iraq wasn't an enemy state -we sent weapons during the Iraq/Iran war to Iraq. We just messed it up by disbanding the Iraqi army as part of our invasion 'strategy'.
There was no reason to invade Iraq, and when we did so, we destabilized a dictatorial regime - much like Libya -that had a ton of human rights abuses.
But all we should do is work on sanctions etc. like we were doing before the invasion. Now Iraq is a mess, and we back to sending weapons to al-Malaki, whom is clinging to power by shutting Sunni's out of his gov't.
No, because it depends on the war and it's likelihood of spreading. That idea has been around for a long while, and often leads to even bigger wars.
if you look at the recent history of Libya. Iraq, and Afghanistan they are all civil wars. Yemen is coming out of one. In Yemen we use a COUNTERTERRORISM strategy - it's too wide and includes
"militant and extremists", but at least we are not actively supporting and particular tribes, like we do in Afg. and like we did in Libya (NTC).
We cannot impose our ideas of which factions to back in foreign lands, anymore then we would have wanted the British in our Civil War.
Which 'sides' are you referring too and whose 'side' are we on?
we are fighting the Afgan Taliban, and droning the Paki Taliban.
It's not our war, let them fight it out.
At one time armies fought each other in that manner and 'hearts and minds' were of no concern whatsoever. But the Communists realized that propaganda can work wonders by undermining the opposition by other means. Although they couldn't run an economy they were masters in the art of convincing people that their freedoms sucked and that totalitarianism was really the way to go. Other groups, particularly militant Muslims, certainly recognized this strategy. We need only look at Iraq where the Coalition, through military means, won areas that now have the Al Qaeda flag flying above them. That's because AQ didn't bother with the hearts and minds argument at all. That is only a recent, and rather juvenile, strategy.
I think I answered Iraq for you
Exactly. terrorists can shrug these poff easily while the claim can also be made that we are genuinely fighting terrorism.
Right. The technology is there to just drop a couple and then after a day or two ask if they want more. Peace can come quickly if a genuine and serious response is made. WWII proved that. WWI proved the opposite.
Right!
I don't know whose advice was followed instead. The US was 'leading from the rear' so someone in the Obama administration should know.
Most every democracy uses soft power. I read that opinion piece you submitted but it could have been written decades ago.
we do, but we rely far too much on hard power.
That was just a quick article, glad you looked it over, it was the idea of our decline in the use of soft power, in favor of more hard power I was referring to.