Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Apr 11, 2007.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Revealed: a new counter-insurgency strategy to carve up the city into sealed areas. The tactic failed in Vietnam. So what chance does it have in Iraq? Robert Fisk
     
  2. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    For once, Poncho, I might be able to agree with at least some small part of what's written in your referenced source although I'm very skeptical of the agenda behind it. I don't like gloom and doom forecasts that predict failure. Our enemies do like them!

    The strategic hamlet program - somewhat of a British idea - did not work out very well in Viet Nam. It was implemented too quickly and too weakly. It aggravated some of the local population who resented being relocated from their ancestral homes to the so-called "secure" hamlets and especially so if they weren't all that secure at night. It's military force was composed of local militia - VN Popular Forces - who lacked the best equipment and training. In fairness to the attempt, however, it has to be noted that something needed to be done and it just isn't easy to find solutions without trying.

    We did have success with the Combined Action Program implemented by the US Marines in I Corps. This put together small units of mixed Marines and Popular Forces to secure - and keep secure - small villages. The units lived there close to the people day and night. The US Army also did some of this but not to the same scale. The key to success was, in my opinion, committed warriors with the good weapons, communication, training, and motivation providing dependable security that was visible to the people.

    The most effective solution to war seems to be to find, engage, and kill or capture the enemy - no enemy no problem - to the point of breaking their will to fight; and holding what is gained long enough for civil government to restore and maintain order, security, safety, and justice for the people. That doesn't negate the tactical concept of bypassing and cutting off forces. It's just to point out that people need confidence in their government to support it else they will tell whomever is in charge whatever they want to hear in the interest of survival. Most people are followers that "go with the flow". If they get they idea their little village is going right back into enemy hands in short order then they're not going to be very eager to help root out any enemy amongst them. They smile a lot!

    The latest effort does, I believe, attempt to attain the described situation of uplifting the people's confidence. I hope it works and it's worth a try! There are some great leaders working on these plans that know a whole lot more about it than you and me. They've been experiencing the situation for a while now. If we have better ideas perhaps we could send them along to them for consideration. Otherwise, I'm for supporting the effort and having confidence it will help!
     
  3. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Robert Fisk is a die-hard liberal with an anti-American bias. That said, America will never rule Baghdad - those people have been fighting each other for thousands of years. The fighting and killing will continue whether or not the US is in Baghdad.
     
  4. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, which is a very good reason to question the real agenda of the article.
     

Share This Page

Loading...