President Bush has recently spoken often of his new strategy in Iraq. My questions are; What was our old strategy? And what is the new strategy?
If you don't know what we're doing, why are you so against it?
His strategy is to have as many posts about the same thing as possible.
Where have I said I was against the old or the new strategy? Certainly not in this topic because as the creator I intentionally formed a non-biased open-ended objective question to facilitate discussion. Try staying on topic please.Stingray24 wrote:
If you don't know what we're doing, why are you so against it?
Where is another thread about the specifics of our military strategy in Iraq?usmarine2007 wrote:
His strategy is to have as many posts about the same thing as possible.
Most of us are against it because no one knew what we were doing there in the first place. If you actually listen to what Bush has said, the "objective" of the war has changed multiple times.Stingray24 wrote:
If you don't know what we're doing, why are you so against it?
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-01-25 17:43:36)
You are kidding right?jonsimon wrote:
Where is another thread about the specifics of our military strategy in Iraq?
Search for iraq strategyusmarine2007 wrote:
You are kidding right?jonsimon wrote:
Where is another thread about the specifics of our military strategy in Iraq?
QFTusmarine2007 wrote:
His strategy is to have as many posts about the same thing as possible.
Of course the objective changes. The battlefield is a fluid environment, constantly changing. Common sense would dictate adjustments.Spearhead wrote:
Most of us are against it because no one knew what we were doing there in the first place. If you actually listen to what Bush has said, the "objective" of the war has changed multiple times.Stingray24 wrote:
If you don't know what we're doing, why are you so against it?
The overall objective of the war. Not individual operation objectives. There are millions of ways to support a war, but if you have no primary objective, no PRIMARY, SOLID reason to be over there in the first place, you're going to run into problems.Stingray24 wrote:
Of course the objective changes. The battlefield is a fluid environment, constantly changing. Common sense would dictate adjustments.Spearhead wrote:
Most of us are against it because no one knew what we were doing there in the first place. If you actually listen to what Bush has said, the "objective" of the war has changed multiple times.Stingray24 wrote:
If you don't know what we're doing, why are you so against it?
For example :
The reason we fought in Europe during WW2 was to defeat the Nazis.
The reason we fought in Vietnam was to prevent the communist North from absorbing the South
The reason we fight in Iraq is because.......... WMD? No. Defeat Saddams regime? Already did that. Restore peace? Working on it......
My point is, in order to win a war on the big scale, it'd be a good idea to have a primary objective before you go in. A "Here's what we plan to do, here's how we're going to do it, and here's what's going to happen after this is all over" plan. It seems we got a 1/3 this time.
Our old strategy was to respect the Iraqi governments ROE's (rules of engagement) and essentially continue to train and equip Iraqi battalions and other units until they were ready to fully assume control of the country. . . .That strategy has proven ineffective in its ability to stop insurgent/terrorists from killing at will. . . In war you must adapt to the ever changing battlefield, and in this case the war has shifted towards a new approach. .jonsimon wrote:
President Bush has recently spoken often of his new strategy in Iraq. My questions are; What was our old strategy? And what is the new strategy?
Training has taken longer, and the governments unwillingness to quell sectarian violence has lend to this new approach.
The new strategy is the remove the ROE's in regards to certain insurgent groups etc. essentially allowing our military to attack anyone/everyone who is a threat to the fledgling democracy. For instance, we were not allowed to attack Sadr or the Mahdi militia because it supported Al-Malaki, that has since changed. . . .
Basically our troops dont have restrictions (or as many) as we did this past year (06' the worst of year of sectarian violence) of the war. The purpose of doing this for our troops, is clear, and that is the "re-taking" of Baghdad from the militants. Bush wants to add more troops to Baghdad to give a "boost" to our troops as well as Iraqi units already trying to fight militants.
We know, as well as the insurgents. . .if Baghdad falls to either side, that side is the winner of the conflict. . .Therefore it is imperative if we want to win in Iraq, we must secure Baghdad. . .
Clear enough for you. . . .
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-01-25 18:05:32)
How about you look it up? This whole thread is off topic as it is not even debatable. If you made it debatable and asked "Do you agree with the strategy in Iraq?", we would just have yet ANOTHER repeat of the same thread that has been done countless times over. That said, how about I go make a thread asking who won the 1975 World Series?jonsimon wrote:
All of this is off topic, I'd like to see if anyone has any idea of what our military strategy in Iraq was, is, or will be. I'm talking about troop movements and deployments as well as operations. Bush, congress, and the media keep talking about the "strategy in Iraq", but does anyone aside from the men IN iraq know what our 'strategy' is?
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2007-01-25 18:09:16)
That is because the MISSION in Iraq has changed. It was not about terrorism in the beginning it was to force compliance and yes, punish, Iraq for its non-compliance of the UN resolutions. Only after the terrorists moved in did terrorism become the issue in Iraq.Spearhead wrote:
Most of us are against it because no one knew what we were doing there in the first place. If you actually listen to what Bush has said, the "objective" of the war has changed multiple times.Stingray24 wrote:
If you don't know what we're doing, why are you so against it?
WMD's was part of the long list of compliance issues that were in question. It wasn't the main reason for going, it was the whole non-compliance issue.
Last edited by lowing (2007-01-25 18:15:11)
First of all, I deleted that post because fadedsteve actually attempted to answer my question. If you don't know jacksquat about the topic maybe you should leave it to him to post in this thread. This is Debate and SERIOUS TALK, military strategy is very serious talk. There are no threads about "do you agree with the strategy in Iraq", only threads about the war as a whole. Go ahead and make that thread, I'm sure someone will answer.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
How about you look it up? This whole thread is off topic as it is not even debatable. If you made it debatable and asked "Do you agree with the strategy in Iraq?", we would just have yet ANOTHER repeat of the same thread that has been done countless times over. That said, how about I go make a thread asking who won the 1975 World Series?jonsimon wrote:
All of this is off topic, I'd like to see if anyone has any idea of what our military strategy in Iraq was, is, or will be. I'm talking about troop movements and deployments as well as operations. Bush, congress, and the media keep talking about the "strategy in Iraq", but does anyone aside from the men IN iraq know what our 'strategy' is?
So it is now about defeating terrorism, a feat which has almost never been done in recorded history?lowing wrote:
That is because the MISSION in Iraq has changed. It was not about terrorism in the beginning it was to force compliance and yes, punish, Iraq for its non-compliance of the UN resolutions. Only after the terrorists moved in did terrorism become the issue in Iraq.Spearhead wrote:
Most of us are against it because no one knew what we were doing there in the first place. If you actually listen to what Bush has said, the "objective" of the war has changed multiple times.Stingray24 wrote:
If you don't know what we're doing, why are you so against it?
WMD's was part of the long list of compliance issues that were in question. It wasn't the main reason for going, it was the whole non-compliance issue.
That's my point. "Defeating terrorists" is not a valid reason for war. You've seen plenty of why I say that.
And if you actually looked in those threads about "the war as a whole" (and I know for fact that you have), you would see that nearly every post is someone agreeing or disagreeing with the strategy. Just because this exact thread title may not have been done before doesn't make this anything that hasn't been done to death, had its corpse exhumed, then killed again.jonsimon wrote:
First of all, I deleted that post because fadedsteve actually attempted to answer my question. If you don't know jacksquat about the topic maybe you should leave it to him to post in this thread. This is Debate and SERIOUS TALK, military strategy is very serious talk. There are no threads about "do you agree with the strategy in Iraq", only threads about the war as a whole. Go ahead and make that thread, I'm sure someone will answer.
Additionally, simply asking for information does not set the stage for legitimate discussion or debate. Obviously, a flamewar about Iraq will ensue if this thread is allowed to remain open...you would have to be naive to expect otherwise. But, since you want to get technical about the nature of your thread, your question could be far more easily and accurately answered if you go off and do some research of your own, and not rely on the potentially absurd interpretations of this forum's users. This would be no different than me making a thread asking someone to post a detailed summary of World War 2.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2007-01-25 18:23:36)
It could be defeated if all nations stood up and fought to defeat it and offered NO SAFE HARBOR to them or their money. right or wrong??Spearhead wrote:
So it is now about defeating terrorism, a feat which has almost never been done in recorded history?lowing wrote:
That is because the MISSION in Iraq has changed. It was not about terrorism in the beginning it was to force compliance and yes, punish, Iraq for its non-compliance of the UN resolutions. Only after the terrorists moved in did terrorism become the issue in Iraq.Spearhead wrote:
Most of us are against it because no one knew what we were doing there in the first place. If you actually listen to what Bush has said, the "objective" of the war has changed multiple times.
WMD's was part of the long list of compliance issues that were in question. It wasn't the main reason for going, it was the whole non-compliance issue.
That's my point. "Defeating terrorists" is not a valid reason for war. You've seen plenty of why I say that.
Common sense would also dictate not expecting to be welcomed as liberators after mounting an invasion.Stingray24 wrote:
Of course the objective changes. The battlefield is a fluid environment, constantly changing. Common sense would dictate adjustments.Spearhead wrote:
Most of us are against it because no one knew what we were doing there in the first place. If you actually listen to what Bush has said, the "objective" of the war has changed multiple times.Stingray24 wrote:
If you don't know what we're doing, why are you so against it?
http://forums.bf2s.com/search.php?search_id=2058847257 My results using "iraq strategy". Did you only look at the topic titles?jonsimon wrote:
Search for iraq strategyusmarine2007 wrote:
You are kidding right?jonsimon wrote:
Where is another thread about the specifics of our military strategy in Iraq?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
we are exporting a war to save american lives.
dont like it? toooo fucking bad, well do what we need to do to protect ourselves.
dont like it? toooo fucking bad, well do what we need to do to protect ourselves.
...or protect the interests of defense contractors and the military industrial complex....Parker wrote:
we are exporting a war to save american lives.
dont like it? toooo fucking bad, well do what we need to do to protect ourselves.
"Protect ourselves" from what????Parker wrote:
we are exporting a war to save American lives.
dont like it? toooo fucking bad, well do what we need to do to protect ourselves.
Now I agree with the invasion of Afghanistan, that was a major breeding ground for terrorists.
But with Iraq invasion the country been changed into a breeding ground and war call for terrorists. Iraq was no great threat to the USA at that time.
If you so worried about being attacked, why haven't the US gone into North Korea, Iran hell even Pakistan. They are more of a threat than Iraq every was.
No this isn't a USA bashing post, far from it. Its a blinkered view bashing post.
I'm in full support of all the troops in Iraq and all the other country's, I hope they get the job done so they can come home safely to family's soon and yes we need to stay until Iraq can support itself.
Last edited by paranoid101 (2007-01-25 18:40:35)
beuller, beuller..lowing wrote:
It could be defeated if all nations stood up and fought to defeat it and offered NO SAFE HARBOR to them or their money. right or wrong??Spearhead wrote:
So it is now about defeating terrorism, a feat which has almost never been done in recorded history?lowing wrote:
That is because the MISSION in Iraq has changed. It was not about terrorism in the beginning it was to force compliance and yes, punish, Iraq for its non-compliance of the UN resolutions. Only after the terrorists moved in did terrorism become the issue in Iraq.
WMD's was part of the long list of compliance issues that were in question. It wasn't the main reason for going, it was the whole non-compliance issue.
That's my point. "Defeating terrorists" is not a valid reason for war. You've seen plenty of why I say that.
A lot of things could be accomplished if the world was united in favor of it. Expecting the world to support a pre-emptive strike is usually very unrealistic.
media blackout will equal victory in iraq.