Back to the thread at hand, what do I think should be done? Well, I think we need to increase use of force over there. Start with systematic sweeps of areas, and go door to door and clear neighborhoods.
I'm not against that per se. What I don't see the need of is for our troops to be the ones doing the door-to-door thing. Let the Iraqis do it. If our troops are the ones doing it, our troops are the ones getting killed (a cost that I think we could bear, that isn't my objection) and as such our leftist, anti-war media would be making hay of it, playing into the terrorists' hands. Besides that, it builds up animosity towards us (which tends to breed more terrorists), where having their own troops do it does not.
Let our troops fight. I have talked to so many soldiers who say they were constantly being told not to fire back at times, and to first check and see if it was a kid or mom or something. Thats ridiculous if true, and needs to stop.
Agreed, it is ridiculous to have those sorts of rules of engagement on our troops, at least in a perfect world. But it isn't a perfect world, we have to take the 5th column of our own press into account, and they'd have a field day with that sort of thing. Since there are only 3 alternatives: The Status Quo, what you suggest, or withdraw our troops from such ops and allow the Iraqis to do it; I say that the best option is the last one -- let the Iraqis do it, as long as the job is actually getting done. Make them take responsibility, make them take the PR heat for their own internal security.
Our focus should be our soldiers' safety first.
To a certain extent, yes. As long as the necessary strategic objectives are being met. That doesn't mean not putting them in harm's way, but not doing so needlessly. Our going door-to-door when the Iraqis should be doing that (by now) is, IMHO, needlessly putting them in harm's way. Instead, our sights should be fixed on Syria and Iran, and applying pressure on Pakistan to be the real, active ally in the WOT that they profess to be.
1. It is amazing how un-patriotic people are on these gun boards.
It isn't unpatriotic to be critical of what the administration is doing -- that sort of thing is vital in a democratic republic. It does, however, mean that such criticism really should be constructive in nature. It does not mean that the advocation of turning tail and running, abandoning our strategic necessities and obligations is acceptable, because it isn't. THAT is being unpatriotic. Note that I do NOT suggest doing any such thing.
2. Americans in general don't have the gonads to handle Iraq like it needs to be handled.
I wouldn't say that. The rank and file out there -- Joe LunchBucket as my PR wife would call him -- probably does. But our media, professional diplomatic corps, intelligista, and other parts of the KumBayYah crowd don't. And since they control the information feed to Joe LunchBucket who doesn't know any better, it amounts to the same thing. The thing is, if a call went out to do this thing right, Joe LunchBucket would answer the call. Joe LunchBucket isn't the problem. It is the KumBayYah crowd that is pulling the strings.
3. Iraq is no where near the danger that Iran poses. Hopefully we handle Iran properly.
Agreed. Right now, we need to be phasing out of active ops in Iraq and be thinking ahead to Iran and perhaps Syria. Again, since we claim that Iraq is sovereign then they need to take responsibility for themselves as a sovereign. We've got other fish in that area to fry. More ominous fish.
But I do enjoy seeing people like you make claims that I do simply because I recognize when gross mistakes are being made.
