akuma587 said:
Would it have been a good idea to keep an army together who formerly served the person who you came there specifically to take out of power? That could be a pretty risky move, as they may not exactly even want to work with the invading army or respect their authority. There are probably as many good reasons for doing it as bad ones. Securing weapon storages is a good idea, but the way terrorists work they could make a bomb out of what is in my kitchen. It doesn't require much money or supplies to be an effective terrorist. They are dangerous because they are religious extremists (even more dangerous than the religious extremists in our country if you can believe that!). It is very hard to fight against someone who is willing to die for what they believe in, especially if they strap a bomb to their chest. That is my point.
|
No there really wasn't. A very small part of the army were hardline bathists. The rest were in the army beause it was basically the only way to make any money. That was a big part of the insurgency early on. Just angry out of work people.
If they would of been kept on the payroll rather then skyrocketing unemployment the whole thing would of ran more smoothly. We probably would of been out already since they would of already had some decent well trained troops that could of faught the insurgents... that would be short on well trained troops.
There aren't many "Bomb to your chest!" terrorists over in iraq. Outside of the ones that are being imported by Iran in the like... and they are a very small part of the insurgency... a part that will probably leave once iraq is stable enough for us to pull out. Leaving the Iraqis with only the hardline bathists more or less since the main Shia and Shite parties have combined.
