Destroy militias or not?

[Obergefreiter]

I was thinking about this yesterday.

I think that after a U.S. pull-out there will be a civil war in Iraq as the differnet religions try to gain power or take out various grievences against eachother.

With that in mind, do you think it is best for the Coalition to:

1) Destroy the militias in order to keep them weak so they will not fight.

2) Make some sort of "deal" with them so as to have a ballance of power to keep them from fighting. (Old hatreds die hard, easy to buy new weapons etc..)

I can convince myself that both can and can not work, but what do you think?

Do you think that a civil war is likely after the pull-out?

[Spearin]

The problem is that you can kill the fighters, but can you kill the motive behind their fighting?

[LordHalbert]

You can't stop people wanting to kill you but you can instill enough fear into people to make then not act on their feelings.

Take for example Fullujah - if the US Marines had done as they should have done and killed everybody who resisted and lined up all the enemy dead in the middle of road for all to see, there would be fewer willing to take up arms.

[Secret Squirrel]

You can't stop people wanting to kill you but you can instill enough fear into people to make then not act on their feelings.

Take for example Fullujah - if the US Marines had done as they should have done and killed everybody who resisted and lined up all the enemy dead in the middle of road for all to see, there would be fewer willing to take up arms.

no, there might be fewer with aks and probably more with suicide vests.

[OB Kenobi]

Take for example Fullujah - if the US Marines had done as they should have done and killed everybody who resisted and lined up all the enemy dead in the middle of road for all to see, there would be fewer willing to take up arms.

If this was WW2, I know which side you'd be on.

I'd also like you to consider the simple fact that in order to do what you suggest, you would sustain heavy casualties yourself. The Fallujians battling US marines on the outskirts of the city killed about 100 troops in one week. The inside of the city is so dense that tanks can't enter, it would require door to door fighting, with civilians--yes, serving as human shields--crowded in the middle.

War isn't about getting to do whatever you want just because you have the military capability, or being able to exterminate everyone who opposes you, war is politics. Especially if the war you're fighting is supposed to be a "liberation," and the whole world is watching.

[Ratamacue]

I'd also like you to consider the simple fact that in order to do what you suggest, you would sustain heavy casualties yourself. The Fallujians battling US marines on the outskirts of the city killed about 100 troops in one week. The inside of the city is so dense that tanks can't enter, it would require door to door fighting, with civilians--yes, serving as human shields--crowded in the middle.

Just for your consideration, the Marines managed to completely take over a large town near Fallujah with minimal tank or air support and no KIA's an managing to kill about 100 insurgents. No doubt a city like Fallujah would be more difficult but a lack of tank support doesn't mean all that much. Most of the Marines heavy casualties were early on in the fighting when they'd just arrived in country. Even as the fighting escalated after that, their casualties began to drop greatly.

Just some thoughts...