What would you do

Shadow Fighter

New Member
How would you have handled the war in in the gulf if you were the Bush.b/c i would have moved to Isral and waited untill the time was rite then i would have attacked.I would have been bombing for months at a time then the area i bombed i would have move ground troups in at and started bombin somewgere else/thats what i would have done.
 

McTaff

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
This is a very dangerous and rocky territory, as it is as much a political discussion as a military one.

You'd also need to stipulate that indeed there was no choice other than to invade, which is a hotly contested issue ever since the whole thing started.

However, simply sitting outside and flinging in munitions by the ton isn't a good way to get things done, particularly as they had many objectives that were to be accomplished. Bombing the country flat would have been a bad move.

Moreover, the US Government decide to go in there, and the basic objectives; it's up to the JCOS and military leaders to decide the best way to do it; Bush and his buddies can't micromanage a military operation.

However, one of the few additional things I'd have tried to do would be to lock down the borders in and out of the country on all sides as early as possible to reduce the flow of non-military combatants and munitions/explosives/arms. That's just one aspect I think could have been improved upon.

Apart from that I'm not speculating on the operation itself, validity of, or execution of.
 

shimmy

New Member
Why at All?

I think America's fight is in Afganistan. I would have better equipped the people in Afganistan and I would have increase boots on the ground there. I would not have sent troops to Iraq.
At almost one billion dollars per day saved by staying out of Iraq, I would have increased the budget for Homeland Security and INSA, and the rest of the money would go to pay down America's debt.
Obviously many people at this site will not agree with me because my ideas will take money away from the DOD . But a USA that does not over extend its troops, that is better off economicly, and is saver will be a stronger USA.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Mmmmm....

:eek:fftopic

Going off topic & continuing the Afghan discussion, I think that the Americans, are on a hiding to nothing in Afghanistan. !!!

For nearly the last 200 years, many of the worlds larger fighting nations have tried to overcome the difficulties of trying to take control of the country & failed.


The British, the French, the British for a 2nd time, the Indians (??), the Russian's & now the American's/British coalition forces have all tried to succeed, with many battles won, but never managed to complete their goal.
(Note: Check the History of the region on Wiki/Internet, including the Khyber pass...)

The Landscape is very barren & mountainous & doesn't lend its self well to conventional tactics. Added to that the mentality of the nationals who have lived there for centuries & are happy eeking out an existance.

After all, how would YOU feel if someone tried to invade your country & take control...??
:unknown
Systems Adict
 

PullerRommel

New Member
I think a sustained bombing campaign from Israel would have not solved anything in Iraq because the problem they have is not that soldiers fought back but a constant and increasing insurgency which was not there befroe the invasion you couldnt really stop it.

Personally i would have put the troops that went into Iraq into Afghanistan but yet again i dont think that would nescasirily stop anything except maybe stop uncontrolled southern states and maybe stop Poppy/Opium production which has other negative effects (I.E. Economy in certain parts would collapse and people would basically starve to detah because of lack of income etc.) but this would need a Permanent presence or atleast 10 years to make the government an effective fighting force.
 

Manfred2

New Member
Mmmmm....

:eek:fftopic

Going off topic & continuing the Afghan discussion, I think that the Americans, are on a hiding to nothing in Afghanistan. !!!

For nearly the last 200 years, many of the worlds larger fighting nations have tried to overcome the difficulties of trying to take control of the country & failed.


The British, the French, the British for a 2nd time, the Indians (??), the Russian's & now the American's/British coalition forces have all tried to succeed, with many battles won, but never managed to complete their goal.
(Note: Check the History of the region on Wiki/Internet, including the Khyber pass...)

The Landscape is very barren & mountainous & doesn't lend its self well to conventional tactics. Added to that the mentality of the nationals who have lived there for centuries & are happy eeking out an existance.

After all, how would YOU feel if someone tried to invade your country & take control...??
:unknown
Systems Adict
Look, Addict, we did not conquer Afganistan. We helped the 40,000 troops
of the Northern Alliance over-throw the hideous Taliban regime, and only employed 10,000 of our own men in the process.
Today, the Afgans are not 100% behind finishing off the Taliban for reasons of thier own. A Drug cartel (which is all th Taliban is anymore) can buy a lot of friends, don't you know?

How would YOU feel if someone invaded your country, and over-threw and regime so fascist that music itself was banned?
 

gunnut2002

New Member
Ok now look at the regional geography. at the time the US was going to invade iraq. Now look at Isreal positon in the reigon.Now althought it is with in bomber and fighter range of iraq. How would the US get their ground forces into iraq if they had gone in from Isreal? Isreal is on the other side of the reigon it just doesn't make any sence to have gone in from isreal. Thats why the US went in from saudi arabia and not isreal.
 

metro

New Member
How would you have handled the war in in the gulf if you were the Bush.b/c i would have moved to Isral and waited untill the time was rite then i would have attacked.I would have been bombing for months at a time then the area i bombed i would have move ground troups in at and started bombin somewgere else/thats what i would have done.
Some questions:
-Exactly what, would you have moved to Israel and why?

-Are you taking geography into account?

-Are you taking "regional sensitivities" into account?
Getting the approval, or at least the tacit approval, to invade Iraq from neighboring countries was not a simple matter. A sustained bombing campaign on an Arab country emanating from Israel, would have been something bordering on the impossible.

-Are you taking logistics and/or cost into account?
As it was mentioned, while flying from Israel to Iraq is possible--assuming you get the okay from countries you will be flying over--why would you ever want to do that? It's only creating more problems.

-When you say "bombing for months at a time," are you taking into consideration that we don't have an endless supply of bombs? Bombing Iraq back into the stone-age is a questionable tactic in my mind and it probably wouldn't gather much support anywhere in the world... it just doesn't look good on tv (to say the least):rolleyes:

-When it's time to bring the ground troops in from Israel... a convoy across the desert?

I'm not trying to be flippant or anything, I just want to out point a few of the reasons this isn't a very realistic scenario (IMHO).
 

Manfred2

New Member
While it was happening, I kept thinking I would have gone into Iraq a lot sooner, months sooner in fact.

as things turned out, I was right. Turkey got cold feet and denied acess to the 4th division at the last moment. It would have been quicker and cleaner with forces coming down from Turkey, and fewer truckloads of God-knows-what would have made it to Syrai and Iran.
 

Combatintman

New Member
Surely the outcome of the war and how that bit was handled isn't actually the problem. The Coalition took apart Saddam's regime in fairly short order - bombing Iraq for longer would not have changed that and in fact would have created more reconstruction problems than there are now. As to bombing Iraw from Israel, that would have been a recipe for disaster, the whole Middle East would've been up in arms. The problem is the aftermath - the lack of troops, the wishful thinking/planning assumptions (if indeed there were any). Clearly I could go on and on but there's been enough written about it elsewhere.
 
Top