WHich is a moot point, since active fighting is over. What battle have we lost because we were outnumbered? You claim that numbers are our problem, and yet you offer no reason why more troops would help. How would more troops prevent roadside bombs, unless you used them to overly oppress the Iraqi people which is what the attacks are blamed on in the first place?

Here's why, Bakerstreet:

Me: More troops would most certainly help now. But they aren't available. And there is no will among either the politicians, nor the people, to create a force big enough in order to accomplish the goal. It took about 10,000 Marines and Soldiers to succesfully besiege Fallujah, a city of 350,000, and keep it out of the hands of the insurgency for many months. The problem with the siege of Fallujah was that the US Military could only sustain one large scale operation at a time. For Fallujah, American troops from other parts of Iraq had to be pulled in order to provide the manpower. The occupation force is not large enough to run multiple simultaneous operations across several urban centers.

The problem is the passive approach. We are using our military like policemen, not like soldiers. Sitting around waiting to be attacked, and then firing a few shots at the attackers. The problem is now the insurgents hardly even engage in manned attacks against American forces. They've reverted almost entirely to IED attacks. They don't need anybody forces in the area massed to launch an attack. They've defined the nature of the war. We need to take that option away from them. The siege of Fallujah was a perfect model last year. Take the fight to their strongholds, all of them--at the same time--and clear out the stables. In addition to that, set up checkpoint at all points of entry from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. We have the technological capability to monitor infiltration from isolated spots in the deserts.

Once they ARE attacked, we only use a fraction of our forces to address the attackers. Kind of shoots the idea that more would help in the foot, doesn't it?

The strategy of waiting for them to attack us IS the problem. If more troops are just going to be used in the manner they are now, then it will be a failure. But I'm of the belief that American forces are employed as they are BECAUSE there aren't enough to operate in more effective ways. If I'm mistaken in my belief, then the war planners are seriously incompetent.

We aren't fighting forces that we can't beat with even a small fraction of our force. The difficulty is knowing where they are and who they are, because they hide as civilians among civilians. Those are issues a million more soldiers wouldn't help, and that would only be helped by further oppressing and abusing the rights of Iraqis.

Like I've said, the Fallujah (x10) Plan must be implemented. Multiple sieges against insurgent strongholds. You're going to have to decide what you want more, victory in batle, or providing a pretty face to pretty rhetoric. Even the most benign actions by US troops elicits unwarranted criticism from naysayers, both in the "Arab Street" (apparently it's as much Clichy-sous-Bois and Rotterdam as Amman and Cairo) and in the West. If you're going to be branded a devil, then at least get the results of a devil.

In reality, we could crush any organized offence that attacked us directly in Iraq with HALF the troops we have there. You can claim this isn't constabulary, but it really is. We are weeding hit-and-run insurgents from innocent civilians. More troops would just be standing around waiting to get attacked.

I claim that it IS constabulary, and that it shouldn't be. It should be military, and it should be offensive.

By that standard no war the US has ever fought has been a success. Not the civil war, not WW2, none of them. All the nations we invaded were ruined, all were occupied years later, and each war spent us militarily to the point we couldn't as effectively react to other threats. Patton's view of the Soviets, and our unwillingness to address them, is a great example.

Nonsense. The Civil War and WW2 were total victories for the United States, and she emerged from both more powerful than upon entry. For after the Civil War, what threat did the United States face other than Indians on the Plains? After WW2, the United States was at awesome strength to respond to other threats. Korea was just five years later, and only the political will was lacking to engage in total war. Patton was right aout the Soviets, but our enemy at the time was Germany, and we kicked their asses.

The French emerged on the victorious side, but who in the hell could say the War was a success for France. The phrase "Pyrrhic victory" comes to mind.

We were so spent by WW2 that we were unwilling to do anything but fight anything but small proxy wars with the Soviet Union and China for decades.

More nonsense. We lacked not the ability following WW2; we lacked the will. When the Soviets detonated their atomic bomb in 1949, the era of total victory, at least between nuclear powers, became history. America fought proxy wars against the Soviets & Red Chinese because the stakes of nuclear warfare were considered too high.

Personally, I consider Kennedy's Cuban efforts a failure. Castro is still laughing it off. Yet, for some reason people revere him and consider Bush much worse. Seems like political sour grapes more than real military "failure" on Bush's part to me.

Kennedy's Cuban efforts WERE a failure, and the resolution of the Missile Crisis was just mopping up some of the failures. I admire his anti-communism, but the reason Kennedy is so lauded today is because he was assassinated.

Sorry people and that "includes" you col klink! "overwhelming force" is NOT a perquisite for winning either a battle OR a war! While it would be a slam dunk at that point, it's NOT necessary for a win. Well, if our goals are very limited, then of course overwhelming force wouldn't be necessary. But we didn't just seek to remove Saddam from power--we were trying to transform Iraqi society. As impossible as that idea is, one shouldn't even contemplate the prospect without a willingness to employ overwhelming force.

Go read about what the Greeks did to the Persians at Thermopylae and then come talk to me about needing an over-whelming force to realize an objective. The ONLY reason the Greeks lost is because they were betrayed.

Go read about what the Greeks did to the Persians at Thermopylae and then come talk to me about needing an over-whelming force to realize an objective. The ONLY reason the Greeks lost is because they were betrayed.

First of all, you're offering for comparison apples and oranges. Thermopylae itself is a matter of battlefield tactics--how to win a particular battle. Iraq is a matter of strategy--assembling battlefield victories in a campaign in order to achieve overall victory. If you want to argue that victory in Iraq will come via defending a mountain pass to keep masses of infantry from streaming over, be my guest. I fail to see at all how Thermopylae has any relevance in this debate.

Do what was done in Fallujah at this time last year, but do it all over the Sunni strongholds-- Ramadi, Fallujah, Samarra, Baquba, Mosul, and especially Sunni Baghdad. The result of Iraq is not going to be a masterpiece, no matter what. We need to opt for the best possible solution given the circumstances.

Well thought out.

People who surrender are left to attack again in Iraq.

General Bakerstreet: apparently, then, we are not executing the war very well,now are we?

First of all, you're offering for comparison apples and oranges. Thermopylae itself is a matter of battlefield tactics--how to win a particular battle. Iraq is a matter of strategy--assembling battlefield victories in a campaign in order to achieve overall victory. If you want to argue that victory in Iraq will come via defending a mountain pass to keep masses of infantry from streaming over, be my guest. I fail to see at all how Thermopylae has any relevance in this debate.

Then I guess you aren't all that up on warfare.The "entire" premise is built on strategy, Iraq/Thermopylae....makes no difference. It's ALL strategy! And you seem to be missing the point. The point was and is you do NOT need over-whelming force to achieve a objective. The Greeks didn't have such a force and yet they achieved their objective (deny the Persians access). And we are not required to have such a force either. It's called "Peace through superior firepower".
And just an FYI.....Thermopylae itself was a matter of tactics, PERIOD.

drmiler

The "Overwhelming Force" is the military policy of the US. Please do not tell me what our military policy is and it has worked for the U S Military in the past. The way we tried to SECURE Iraq after Saddam fell DID NOT WORK! The generals told Bush what was required to secure Iraq and he did not listen. That has caused almost ALL the American deaths and injuries.

To solve the problem now would require even more troops than after Saddam fell and the casualties would be unacceptable. This is an issue that the Iraqi People MUST solve. IT is time for us to move out of Iraq and allow the Iraq people to secure THEIR COUNTRY!

drmiler The "Overwhelming Force" is the military policy of the US. Please do not tell me what our military policy is and it has worked for the U S Military in the past. The way we tried to SECURE Iraq after Saddam fell DID NOT WORK! The generals told Bush what was required to secure Iraq and he did not listen. That has caused almost ALL the American deaths and injuries.

You know what klink???? Sometimes you are a bigger fool than I thought! Did I say it was NOT US military policy? NO I DIDN'T! What I said was that you didn't need it to secure an objective. And if you doubt that just maybe you should go back to the war college. So clam up!

That has caused almost ALL the American deaths and injuries.

BS col, just BS.

The generals told Bush what was required to secure Iraq and he did not listen.

That's a General, not Generals. If you have more info on this, again I ask provide a link.

drmiler The "Overwhelming Force" is the military policy of the US. Please do not tell me what our military policy is and it has worked for the U S Military in the past. The way we tried to SECURE Iraq after Saddam fell DID NOT WORK! The generals told Bush what was required to secure Iraq and he did not listen. That has caused almost ALL the American deaths and injuries. To solve the problem now would require even more troops than after Saddam fell and the casualties would be unacceptable. This is an issue that the Iraqi People MUST solve. IT is time for us to move out of Iraq and allow the Iraq people to secure THEIR COUNTRY!

So once AGAIN col, I can see from answers above.....hoist by your own petard!

Lee 1776

Wrong.

First, Gen Franks who prepared Op Order 1003 for the invasion of Iraq called for 300,000 troops the day Saddam fell. A detailed summary of Gen. Franks Op Plan is contained in "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward and the 300,000 reference is on page 96.

The Army CoS told Bush it would take several( more then two per Webster) hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. Since then most Four Star generals have said the number of forces were not sufficient to establish and maintain control in Iraq after the government fell. We had almost 500,000 troops in the Gulf War and we were not attempting to occupy a country with a large hostile population. Bush DID NOT allow the people with the military experience to properly conduct the war and Bush has caused most of the American Deaths and injuries as a result!

drmiler

You are totally wrong. The way Bush choose to conduct the Iraq War after Saddam fell is NOT in agreement with military policy and DID NOT WORK. If you believe we EVER had control of Iraq you are living in a dream world. We did not control the borders, we did not control the Amo Dumps, we did not clean up all the areas where Saddam's followers operate from to kill our forcers and we did not protect the oil, water and electric systems. The reason we did not do these ESSENTIAL things is we did not have anything close to the number of forces required.

First, Gen Franks who prepared Op Order 1003 for the invasion of Iraq called for 300,000 troops the day Saddam fell. A detailed summary of Gen. Franks Op Plan is contained in "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward and the 300,000 reference is on page 96.

As I said elsewhere, I will have to get a look at that book. But at this time not one major publication CBS, Newsweek, 60 minutes, and NPR who has reviewed and commented on Woodwards book even hints to this great revalation. You seem to be the only source.

Since then most Four Star generals have said the number of forces were not sufficient to establish and maintain control in Iraq after the government fell.

This is the third time I am going to ask this, provide a link!!! I want a link to where these so called Four Star generals had told Bush before the invasion that more troops was needed. We have a collection of retired yahoos (Gen Clark) commenting after the fact that it was their opinion or later stated the more troops was needed.

Either provide links to interviews for Generals consulting President Bush at that time, or stop using these false statements.

Only one of Bush's Generals have stated to Bush more troops was needed, and this guy was neither part of the planning group or even in the military when the plan was activated.

GP: You set up particular reasons that the Iraq war is failing. When I and others pose that those exact reasons to other wars, you simply wave it off. You can't, though. In terms of casualties, in terms of difficulty, in every last desciption you have given, we've done BETTER in Iraq than in other conflicts.

In the end, you don't like why we are there, and I think that is tainting your objectivity. I haven't seen a single reason more troops would help, your fallujah example doesn't cut it. We could have diverted many, many more troops there had we needed to. Our hesitance to throw more troops into a meat grinder shouldn't be considered a flaw.

The Japanese in WW2, given situations like Fallujah, would have gotten a hundred thousand soldiers together, and just rushed the place. They would have lost 20K of them in several different battles, and then lauded their victory. If that is the kind of war you want to fight, well, frankly we don't have much common ground.

The only other option would have been to soften the area up from a distance for a couple weeks, until they came limping out with white flags. I can imagine the world's response to Fallujah as a firebombed Tokyo. If you want to take another 100k solidiers to Iraq and use them as cannon fodder, shame on you. If you don't, then I don't think you really have a perspective on what tossing more personel into these situations would accomplish.