New tactics in Iraq: Will they work?

President Bush says his commanders in Iraq are adjusting their tactics by adopting what they call a "more aggressive" approach in response to mounting losses.

On Sunday night American tanks fired on targets in Baghdad and Tikrit - the birthplace of Saddam Hussein and used a long-range satellite-guided missile for the first time since the war was declared over by George Bush.

The Americans also say they want to speed up the transfer of power in Iraq, something that's likely to dominate the agenda when President Bush starts his state visit to Britain tomorrow.

Will the change in military tactics work? Is President Bush right when he says US forces will stay until their work is finished ?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

A "more aggressive" approach is likely to lead to a further deterioration in the already parlous situation. The response will be further suicide bombings and sundry attacks against the US occupation forces. The Americans have made a hash of this right from the start and Bush is desperate for an exit strategy - even if that means other countries' forces being harried into assisting in Iraq and subjecting themselves to similar attacks.
Paul Taylor, UK

There is a horrible inevitability about what is happening in Iraq at the moment and the future of US/UK involvement and activity there is clear for all to see. One only has to look westwards at what is happening in Israel/Palestine to see what will happen if the "new" tactics are employed for any length of time.
Colin Allen, England

Bush and Blair do not have a clue what to do to get out of the mess they have created John Farmer, UK

So the new spin is: "the tactics are working, they have reduced the number of attacks on US troops albeit increasing the attacks on Iraqis". Well that's alright then isn't it. The reality is, give it a few days and another US helicopter or two will be shot down and the statistics will be the other way round. Whichever way you look at it, Bush and Blair do not have a clue what to do to get out of the mess they have created.
John Farmer, UK

If the coalition keeps getting hit with bombs and crashed helicopters, it means that "Bush and Blair don't have a clue what they're doing". If they try and prevent such disasters by tightening security, increasing patrols and the use of force, then "it's being irresponsible". Let's face it, the truth of the matter is that those who hate Bush will continue to hate him regardless of what he does at this point.
Jim, USA

The focus should be on the Iraqi people. If their living conditions improve then Iraqis will no longer see the allied forces as an occupation force. Instead the allies will be seen as a humanitarian organisation. In this work I think they have to use the British, they are more used to peacekeeping operations.
Magnus Olsson, Sweden

Wrong tactics. If you know where the opposition is why are you not going in to arrest them? By bombing the opposition, collateral damage is much higher and causes more to join the opposition. I say cut your losses and surrender to the UN.
KK Chan, Malaysia

We need to turn over control to the Iraqis and get out of there. They do not want us in control of their country and will keep targeting our soldiers until we leave. It is another Vietnam in the making...how many lives of our men and women will the president put on the line, before he realises that we have done all we can for Iraq, now they have to do for themselves.
Irene Moss, USA

Change and adaptation in technique is better than doing nothing Sam, India

Yes. Change and adaptation in technique is better than doing nothing. History will be our best teacher.
Sam, India

My answer will be very simple, new tactics in Iraq will not work. The best thing is for the military be under the UN command.
Amir Y Sabri, Baghdad, Iraq

Plan B - Search all of the Baghdad community and disarm all of the people. Isolate the town and announce any civilian with weapons will be considered an enemy. All not agreeing should leave the country or be executed. Bring in more American troops and Allies. Let them police the cities until the enemies of democracy have been removed. Identify the enemy through disarmament! Good Suggestion, Right? God be with you.
L William, USA

I believe that the so-called tactics in fighting the renewed insurgency in Iraq are, though well-intentioned, doomed to failure. What we are doing now is only staving off the inevitable exit while the guerrillas are nipping at our heels as we contemplate how we are going to disengage and leave. If we are going to stay, we need common-sense solutions to win the support of the Iraqi people and not their anger and hatred. Only then can we start to see some hope toward resolving this almost hopeless struggle.
Adan Jimenez, USA

We are in the 21st century. It will no longer be possible for any nation to occupy and colonise any other nation, no matter the reasons that are given, no matter the military might of the occupier. No nation, no matter how small no matter how weak, will allow itself again to be dominated. I am surprised that the superpower did not have the superintelligence to know this. This war is lost. And national pride and human dignity will triumph.
Nzeadi Ibe, Switzerland

Poor intelligence is costing both American and Iraqi lives Matthew Mankiewich, New York, USA

I agree with the folks who say that being "more aggressive" without knowing what you're shooting at is pointless. Poor intelligence is costing both American and Iraqi lives. I also believe that as desirable as it would be to pull out now, we can't. Leaving would create more chaos than exists now.

One thing I find encouraging are the reports that certain American units like the 101st Airborne have had some success winning people over. I have much more confidence in the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the soldiers on the ground than the idiots in Washington. They may yet win the day.
Matthew Mankiewich, New York, USA

When are we going to put the jigsaw pieces together, and realise that 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq are just a few of many steps towards deliberate global instability, general chaos, and the push towards greater control of the masses. Bush has now secured a massive amount of American citizens' own money in order to ensure that the War on Terror is pretty much indefinite.

You are being asked to give your money to the cause. It will not be too long before you will be asked to also forsake your privacy, your individuality and your freedom. Enemies of the "free world" have been engendered as part of a much longer-term drive towards the twisted religious fervour of "Armageddon". At least we get to watch it on TV. How entertaining. How lazy of us.
Shaun, UK

The rule of law and justice has been forgotten by the American occupation forces Steve , UK

'We will find, capture and kill' a quote from an American colonel. (I thought you were supposed to protect and try captives not kill them!). This sums up the whole American attitude to Iraq. The new approach is to bomb 'suspected terrorists'. It seems to include anyone who looks suspicious. The rule of law and justice has been forgotten by the American occupation forces and we are back to the 'body count' mentality of Viet Nam.
Steve , UK

Any military tactic will bring more hate even if the American will is honest! People see easily bad behaviour and forget quickly good one!! The only way is to demonstrate to Iraqi in large scale that the coalition is here for the good and noble purpose, by investing largely even if there's a non-return of investment...because if we want to achieve a political role in the middle-east, this is the best way and this will be our best and valuable return for the long term.
Omar, Iraq

The use of high tech weaponry against guerrilla type warfare is useless and even ridiculous. They are bombing Tikrit's citizens who sympathise, or so the US claims, with Saddam but to what cost? To kill one alleged freedom fighter how much collateral damage is acceptable? My feelings as usual bring in the UN!!!
Frank, Belgium

Surely if they just spent a fraction of $400 billion on help to solve global famine, disease and the AIDS epidemic, then the US would be so popular they wouldn't need an army because everyone would love them!
Steven Lofty, London

As the saying goes, 'The beatings will continue until morale improves'. Nothing is going to be achieved in this cycle of violence.
Liana, UK

This new and more aggressive approach taken by the US led coalition will only create a more aggressive response from terrorist and resistance groups. This will obviously result in a higher number of civilians getting killed which will affect even more negatively the occupation forces. Sharon in Israel is using the same tactic and the question is, are they any closer to a peaceful living? I think they could not be further away.
Alfonso Salgueiro, Luxembourg

I'm glad that somebody finally had the fortitude to get rid of Saddam, perhaps we will not have to go back a third time Gary, USA

I was in the first gulf war, and I'm glad the job is finally getting finished. If not for the UN this problem would have been solved long ago. This organization propped Saddam up for all these years, all the while starving the average Iraqi. That was a great strategy. No. there is no comparison to Vietnam, or any other place. This is a unique situation, which will improve in time.

The fundamental problem with people nowadays is derived from playing too many computer games. They have this belief that everything has to happen right now, and have not developed the maturity to have patience. I have spoken to many of the GI's in Iraq, and I get a far different picture from that portrayed in the media, for the most part. I'm glad that somebody finally had the fortitude to get rid of Saddam, perhaps we will not have to go back a third time.
Gary, USA

Who are we Westerners to claim to invade a country for no reason and then force people to accept the human price of new tactics half-developed by a Iraqi US administration dedicated to business management?
Philippe, Switzerland

The brutal truth is that the Coalition needs to stop fighting "tough" and start fighting "smart". To be successful, you need to have good intelligence, know who you are fighting and know what you are doing. None of these attributes has been evident so far. The new tactics have far more to do with the frustration of the military commanders who haven't been trained to fight this type of war than with a well thought out alternative plan.

These "new" tactics have already been used by the IDF in the west bank for the last two years and achieved nothing apart from getting a lot of people (mostly innocent!) killed. What the US forces should be looking at are the methods the Brits used very successfully in defeating the Mau Mau in Malaya. Abrams tanks and firepower will not win this war for the Coalition, only lose it!
Dave, Australia

I believe the war in Iraq has been lost. The coalition went in with no idea how to create order from the chaos. They appointed a Governing Council that was full of Iraqi exiles and people who are not acceptable to Iraqis. The coalition implemented a plan to take the oil fields and "privatize" all national businesses in Iraq by selling them to their friends. Why is it a surprise to find out that this is unacceptable to the Iraqi people? Incidentally, what is happening is exactly what Bush Sr. (Pres 41) postulated would have happened if Saddam had been removed during gulf war one.
Justeen Ward, USA

In my view, this unnecessary war is already "lost". The new tactics will make the inevitable "cut and run" happen that much faster. I'll have to say that I'm really disappointed in the UK for having signed up for this folly. My country has been taken over by a right-wing cabal - what's your excuse?
Hugh Marshall, USA

I just pray for my fellow soldiers and the Iraqi people Dave, USA

Every day it seems Iraq becomes more synonymous with Vietnam. You cannot win some one's heart and mind by poking them in the eye with a stick. I don't think the Bush administration, who planned this invasion, not the Americans, fully planned on what to do afterwards because if they did, it wouldn't have happened in time for the 2004 election. Insurgents do have to be dealt with, however we need to watch our fire. I just pray for my fellow soldiers and the Iraqi people. May they all be brought to safety.
Dave, USA

The only way for the US, UK and the Iraqi police force to win this war is to have good intelligence. They don't seem to have too much of it right now, though.
Amit F, Israel

I have a "new tactic" for Iraq. Let's ask the Iraqis what they want us to do, then do it.
Gerry Noble, UK

The new tactics may kill more innocents than change the present Iraqi situation.
Belal, Sweden

The practical approach to stop continuous killings in Iraq is just to speed up the process of transferring power to the Iraqis. It is clear that the presence of US soldiers in the country is perceived as invasion.
Emmanuel Nzunda, Kenya

Stronger tactics certainly pale in comparison to the former tactics of Saddam Hussein James Battles, USA

Stronger tactics, though roundly criticized by many, certainly pale in comparison to the former tactics of Saddam Hussein. It's doubtful the coalition will resort to using chemical weapons on the Kurds, or helicopter gunships or the Shiites. Nor should we expect to see hundreds of thousands of innocent victims being exhumed from mass graves as a result of the US lead coalitions toppling of Saddam Hussein. Anyone that can't see the difference in tactics between the former regime and the coalition forces should have their head examined.
James Battles, USA

Controlled Aggressive tactics is the way to go from now on, it will give control of the situation for the allies. If they slacken a bit the terrorist will react like they are doing now. The allies must be reminded that they are on a war zone situation and should utilise all its might and strength to steer and control the situation. Yes they can do it.
JT Tavainavesi, Fiji Island

People who believe new tactics would work live in their own make believe world like Bush and Blair. How many mores lives have to go before US/UK realize that the invasion was wrong and you can't bully around the world forcing democracy. We were promised WMD's that aren't there. Al Qaida wasn't there, but now they ARE there making Iraq even more dangerous breeding ground for terrorists. Bush and Blair must be brought to justice for their irresponsible behaviour.
Rakesh, India

The tactics are only about control and not about promoting democracy.
Patrick, Ireland

Discussion of tactics is a secondary issue and a distraction. What about the reason for the war in the first place? Where are the so called weapons of mass destruction? The people who are paying the heaviest price for this greatest abuse of power in modern times are the innocent while those responsible for creating this mess are getting away with it.
Robin Ballantine, UK

New tactics? Sounds to me just like the old tactics, but more of it.
Ben, UK

I am afraid that only innocent civilians will suffer again A..Kalamas, Greece

What have we seen of the new tactics up until now? Usage of tanks, artillery, mortars, air strikes etc. All these are long-range weapons used against large enemy formations in a combat area, not against guerilla fighters in cities you are supposed to control. Two things may be happening: either this is just a hollow show of force, or there are real operations executed without any caution to avoid civilian casualties. I don't mind the first case, but the second is to be condemned. I wonder, who is really the target of this more aggressive approach? If coalition actually knew who the real insurgents were, they would have apprehended them by now. I am afraid that only innocent civilians will suffer again. But according to history, suffering brings resolve to resist and fight.
A..Kalamas, Greece

I thought they used up the 'more aggressive approach in the initial invasion. Mission accomplished proclaimed Bush on May 1. It's just like Vietnam all over again. We've got a long way to go before they exhaust themselves from the killing and boasting. The weapons may be new but the imperialism is strictly 19th century. No new ideas here, and no light at the end of this tunnel either.
Roger Lafontaine, Canada

The new tactics won't work. If anything it will increase innocent deaths. And judging by history, America will see it as a success.
Adams, Ghana

The change in tactics will be precisely as successful as Israel's tactics towards the Palestinians - divisive & disastrous for all parties.
Russell Secker, USA

I rather think it can no longer be hidden that the coalition is losing the war Frederic Lagoanere, FRANCE

New tactics? All that I see is the US Army showing off its war machines around Iraq, and more importantly, Bush getting ready to leave at all cost by June. I rather think it can no longer be hidden that the coalition is losing the war.
Frederic Lagoanere, FRANCE

These tactics have been tested by Israel in Palestine - and they haven't got peace there yet.
Peter Hennessy, UK

Bush said today that we were not going to give up to an organization of terrorists and guerrilla fighters. In the 1700s England thought exactly that of its American colonies. They were merely a group of untrained farmers fighting back against their controllers. England had a fully trained army. However the USA is no longer a British colony. There is a great parallel between that war and the war in Iraq. Therefore bush is almost guaranteeing our loss in this war, isn't he?
Emma McBurney, age 13, England and USA

I'm surprised to see that some people still think that the war in Iraq has anything to do with the war on terrorism. The war on Iraq should be called "the war of settling old scores".
Violence begets violence it says. Being more aggressive is not the answer. Acting as an invader is not the answer, treating them with contempt and arrogance is not the answer, treating them as a Third World country is not the answer. Instead of viewing everybody as a potential enemy, shooting first and asking questions later, they should do it the other way around, the results will be a hundred times better. Learn from the commander in the city of Mosul, his approach is different and has had better results. Remember that the Iraqis come from a completely different culture, if the US are really liberators, as they say, treat them with the same respect as you would treat your own people.
Marc Lejoly, Belgium

The mismanagement of the war in Iraq has increased the risk of global terrorism, not reduced it John, England

I don't believe I'm pompous, or a coward, and I'm certainly not Anti-American, but I must confront the views expressed by Kent of the USA. Saddam, though a vile dictator, was not a sponsor of terrorism. There were no links between his regime and Al-Qaeda - Bush and Blair have openly stated this. The mismanagement of the war in Iraq has increased the risk of global terrorism, not reduced it.
John, England

The new tactics won't work, but neither will a UN peace-keeping force (remember Bosnia). Iraq could split in three, starting with the Kurds declaring an independent state. I just hope that Basra doesn't turn out to be the Coalition's Dunkerque.
Charles Smith, UK

Tactics are in no short supply. The problem is the lack of strategy. The "winning hearts and minds" issue was a tactic - a communication one - and it failed. The new tactics might lead to even fewer hearts and minds wishing to cooperate with the occupation forces. Again, what lacks is the strategy, and this should be on the whole Middle-East level, not only on the Iraqi level.
Jamil, France

More enemies than friends in Iraq would almost certainly assure failure of the coalition mission Vietnam War veteran, USA

It is highly unlikely that using more aggressive force will pacify resistance in Iraq. The very nature of guerrilla wars is that the weaker belligerents or insurgents can suffer many defeats and still rise up and fight again. The biggest danger for US-led coalition forces is that if they use military tactics of excessive violence and humiliate too many of the Iraqi people, they will create more enemies than friends. More enemies than friends in Iraq would almost certainly assure failure of the coalition mission. It is almost impossible to win a guerrilla war in any country without the popular support of the people within that country. Just like in Vietnam, the US military is stuck trying to do a job that should have been handled with diplomacy.
Vietnam War veteran, USA

Bush knows that staying in Iraq is unpopular and may cost him the election. He stays because he believes it is the right thing to do, oddly enough.
Bruce Hall, USA

Winning hearts and minds appears to have been a losing battle. Now America is resorting to brute force and ignorance. All in the name of peace.
John Saunders, Denmark

Simple: NO, you only need to look further west (Israel/Palestine) to see the results. What we need to do is for the US to leave Iraq and put the UN in charge. The US is trying to correct invasion mistakes with occupation and humiliation of the Iraqi people.
Zacd, USA

These guys are not going to settle their differences in a civilised tea-time discussion Kevin, UK

It appears that the only thing some of the diehards from the Saddam regime understand is violence! Whatever the adherents of Western liberal humanist "religion" may believe - these guys are not going to settle their differences in a civilised tea-time discussion over a pot of tea...
Kevin, UK

The US wants to show the Iraqis that it has big firepower and is willing to use it. But wait a second. I thought US already "Shocked and Awed" the Iraqis seven months ago. Looking back at the history, we can see that US lost against the guerrillas in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.
Zack, Canada

If an Iraqi army was recreating democracy in the UK, because of our terrorist activities in invading sovereign states, how might we feel about them?
Peter Wallace, UK

There are two major differences between Iraq and Japan/Germany after World War II. First, unlike Iraq, Japan/Germany were both industrial powerhouses before the war hence they both already had the institutions in place to help them towards a prosperous recovery after their defeat. Second, the Japanese/German armies were truly defeated and the surviving forces surrendered, however the Iraq army just disappeared, the republican guard, special republican guard and fedayeen all went home leaving their fight for another day. Unfortunately for the coalition that other day has now arrived.
Ahmed, UK

If Iraqis think any way like Palestinians, I think using more brutish force will only backfire Julian, USA

If Iraqis think any way like Palestinians, I think using more brutish force will only backfire. Israel has been relentless in decapitating the terror cells of the Palestinians, yet they just grow new heads. What would make us think the terror cells of Iraq would be any different? At least in Israel's defence, they usually make extraordinary effort to minimize "collateral damage". Imitating their more extreme countermeasures will likely prove as counter-productive for us as they are for Israel.
Julian, USA

What seems to be floundering are efforts to get the Iraqi population on side against the extremists. How many Iraqis are fighting alongside Allied troops now? How many Iraqi policemen are in operation? Without strong local security rather than merely Allied forces any new, democratic Iraqi government would be a short-lived affair.
Lorraine, St Albans, UK

As a mother of a soldier who has already been over there and thankfully returned, and who will probably go back over there, I am glad that the US has adopted the new policy. Only when Saddam is found and caught will the efforts in Iraq be completed. The Coalition forces should be there as long as necessary. The new stance in Iraq would work better if the unsure would increase understanding and support of those in the Coalition who are in Iraq to help make a free Iraq possible.
Edie G. Zorn, USA

I find it extremely scary to see that some of my compatriots actually believe that the war on Iraq is a natural extension of the war on terrorism. Ironically, Iraq became a new front on this war after the US invaded and occupied the country, giving Islamist activists and militants a new place, besides Afghanistan, to fight and expand operations. It seems that the initial and deliberate accusation of the Bush administration that Saddam and Bin Laden had links will come to bite him back. Before it's too late, bring our boys home so they can change our own regime in the upcoming elections.
Fernando Zambrana, USA

The US/UK should show a strong hand against Saddam loyalists M Alattar

I am an Iraqi American. I had several members of my family killed by Saddam. The US/UK should show a strong hand against Saddam loyalists. They should not appear as loose/weak/politically correct as they have in the recent months. I as well as other Iraqis inside Iraq applaud this operation. This is the only language these terrorists understand. The average Iraqis do want the coalition to show a strong force against those evil doers. Please continue this "cleaning up" of Iraq.
M Alattar, USA

I think the main problem is the West applying its own beliefs and ideals to those who do not necessarily share them. It seems to me that we, the west, believe that what we hold dear is what the rest of the world believe in too, and this is not always the case. As for whether the problem can be solved by force. We only have to look at Vietnam, Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, Northern Ireland to know this cannot happen. A political solution must be found otherwise the west will find itself fighting a "hydra" in Iraq. The solution might not be ideal or even acceptable to the West but then again whose choice is it?
Nick, UK

History has taught us that a military solution never defeated a popular underground resistance force. On the contrary , its creates an environment for further recruits. There is not going to be a military solution to the chaos in Iraq, the solution must be a political one. For the sake of peace and stability in Iraq the US must leave Iraq soon and after handing over the entire responsibilities to a UN administration with a clear mandate and time table to hand back sovereignty to an elected Iraq administration
Khalil, UK

The coalition must stay and be strong or the loss of life will have been pointless Neill, US

The US has no alternative but to step up the war against Iraqi terrorists and murderers. What amazes me is that Britain and the US did not declare martial law once they had defeated Saddam Hussein and these cowardly attacks began. The coalition must stay and be strong or the loss of life will have been pointless. Peace can be established in a democratic Iraq if we have the resolve to make it happen.
Neill, US

All of you pompous, anti-American cowards are completely missing the point. The problem we face now is not Iraq, Israel, Palestine or the US. The problem is Terrorism. We all need to work together to crush terrorism before we face much larger problems. What do you think will happen if some terrorist group attacks the U.S. with WMD and we have a million people killed? I can tell you that we will not send in troops and tanks - we will respond with WMD and some terrorist supporting country will be vaporized. Is that what you want?? If you don't, I would suggest you quit complaining about U.S. policy and start fighting the real problem - Terrorism in all its forms.
Kent, USA

It is truly disheartening to hear that once again we think that escalating the violence is going to bring peace. Show me the historic example that proves this theory. It seems Israel has been using this model since the beginning, and the crimes just become more and more heinous. When have bombing, shooting, and otherwise terrorising people ever brought about a happy, free, stable society? When are we ever going to learn this lesson?
Sonny, USA

The US must stay and finish what they started. They said that they were up to it Martin, Botswana

People keep on saying that the US must pull out and let Iraqis solve their own problems. The fact is that ordinary Iraqis didn't create these problems. The US led invasion did and therefore the coalition has an obligation to make sure that the country is stable before they leave. The US must stay and finish what they started. They said that they were up to it.
Martin, Botswana

Recently I saw a picture on the front page of a local daily, which showed three small children covered in a blanket outside their house with fear visible in their eyes. The description said that the shot was taken during a US raid. When the US went into Iraq many had told them that it was not going to be easy. Now they have found that out for themselves. The new tactics adopted by the US are going to make the situation worse. It will create anger in the hearts of the Arab community when they see pictures like the one I mentioned above. Furthermore blowing up targets using bombs and artillery fire is not an answer to guerrilla attacks. Their present tactics will only create more resentment and causalities within the Iraqi public who could have been won over to the US's side.
Ribu Jacob, Kuwait / India

B, Iraq

What tactics? I have only one thing to say to Mr Bush and Blair: Get your boys out of Iraq asap. If I were in Iraq, I would fight your troops right, left and centre. You have marched in there uninvited, occupied their land, and have kill thousands of Iraqis in the name of "American freedom". You have no business there. Just pack, and go, while you're still alive!
shereen, Egypt

Hard-hitting tactics should have been adopted right from the beginning Anonymous

The US strategy has ALREADY made the world a better place for millions of Muslims as dictatorial regimes reluctantly move to reform and advocate tolerance. The anti-Bush camp will be shamed by history. Hard-hitting tactics should have been adopted right from the beginning. Iraqis bow to only fear and unquestionable authority. Unless the Americans show forcefulness ordinary Iraqis who have been brainwashed for decades will only anticipate a Saddam or Baathist come back. Go ahead and evacuate and relocate entire villages, displace Saddam loyalists and change the economic and social equation that for decades favoured Saddam loyalist. It is only then that things will change for the better in Iraq.
Anonymous

Eye for an eye makes the world blind. The US needs to close and control the Iraq borders once the supply of weapons, money and people is cut off then put a stranglehold on the trouble makers. Most of whom are not Iraqis but anyone with a beef with the US or UK. These people need to be dealt with area by area and get the local Iraqis on side. Most local people want schooling for the children, jobs for the men folk and a safe, secure place to bring up a family. The US should have used the Iraq army/police to retain control of the country then weeded out any unwanted leaders and use this as a labour force to rebuild Iraq.
Brett Davidson, UK just back from Iraq

When the going gets tough, Bush's reaction is to lash out and resort to violence. It doesn't seem to occur to him that this Wild West approach is what got the USA into Iraq in the first place, and is the root cause of their present difficulties in that country.
Chris Hunter, England

Adopting a more aggressive approach by US troops in response to mounting losses will lead nowhere except to more bloodshed. Fifty years of Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the best example that violence leads nowhere but grief and death. It's time to end this kind of approach to solve a conflict. Now there are more terrorists in Iraq than under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Winning a war might be easy for the U.S. but keeping peace and order is a different kind of job. Next time think about consequences before unleashing an unnecessary war .
Marc Besenius, Luxembourg

The new tactics can work but it runs the risk of alienating Iraqis Kevin James, USA

I believe that the new tactics can work but it runs the risk of alienating Iraqis depending on the number of civilian deaths and hardships caused. So much in the Arab world is based on perceptions about US motives. We are losing that battle and that is the key to solving the Iraqi problem. We need to convince ordinary Arabs, not just Iraqis that our motives are indeed sincere. We cannot do this by patronizing or devaluing their culture. We cannot choose democracy for them, instead we must convince them that it is in their own interest to choose it for themselves. This is essential if any democracy is to survive in Iraq. This may require us having to live with a form of government we do not entirely like/agree with in the short run, but in the long run, the Iraqis will, like the rest of us come to see democracy as the best choice.
Kevin James, USA

"More aggressive"? How in the world can you adopt a more aggressive approach when you don't even know who you are fighting? I can offer some unsolicited clues: it could be the remnant of Saddam's followers, the opportunists, Saddam's supporters outside Iraq, the Iraqis themselves - the list is endless.

We should get out of Iraq as soon as it is economically sound Gary, UK

Sometime, it is best to allow nature to take its' course. The best action is in-action. I suggest we should get out of Iraq as soon as it is economically sound. The Iraqis will manage their own problems.
Gary, UK

Reply to Gary, UK: Your ideas are just so typical of joe public in the UK. We join the 'coalition of the willing' and blow a country to pieces, and leave an already sanctioned and weakened country grasping to existence! And you suggest we leave? We have an obligation to rebuild Iraq and set up a stable and safe country before we can 'leave'.
Abdul, UK

Seems a very good way to lose the 'hearts and minds' battle. This tactic can only help the terrorists and guerrillas inside Iraq.
David Patrick, UK

As a pragmatist, I hope that the change in tactics works, and we can get out of there as soon as possible. If the post-war plans, or lack thereof, were originally based in reality, there would be no need for a change in tactics. Further, if the Bush administration's foreign policy were based in reality, we wouldn't be there, at least not isolated and alone.
Carl

Although I cannot speak for every individual in Iraq, I can say what my response would be to an alien invader with a brutal record for setting up and supporting dictatorships, indoctrinating locals with "correct culture" and ignorant to mine - I would take the fight to them, and would not stop until my land was free.
That Saddam and his cronies were an oppressive regime which murderously beat down dissent is not being questioned here. Many Iraqis profited under Saddam, many lost lives, families, communities, but to think that the answer to this problem would be to invade the country, kill thousands of civilians, dismantle the infrastructure of an entire nation, then vow never to leave until the country runs to the invader's plan is both arrogant and foolish.
J Gomer, Wales

Aggression will be reciprocated by aggression. The Iraqis have been humiliated, shamed and belittled and it's hard to see any other reaction other than hostility, seething anger and contempt for the invading forces.
Al Lalji, UK

The justification for the invasion seems to rest on the fallacy that action, regardless of how ill-conceived, is better than inaction, regardless of how well-considered Ian Miller, UK

Let me explain to Paul Mc, that we, the "Anti-War brigade" never thought Saddam wasn't a problem. What we thought was that violence wasn't a solution to the problem. The justification for the invasion seems to rest on the fallacy that action, regardless of how ill-conceived, is better than inaction, regardless of how well-considered. The fallacy is summed up by the call "We have to do something about it!" People who say this without thinking things through, usually go on to do something entirely counter-productive. The New Tactics in Iraq are a classic example.
Ian Miller, UK

Until Bush and Rumsfeld realise the complexity of world affairs, things are going to get only worse. It is not acceptable to characterise the war with sound-bites like 'good vs. evil' or 'The people we are fighting hate freedom'. These simplistic views of the war commanders ensure that only simplistic solutions are thrown at the problems the U.S. faces. It comes as no surprise that the only 'new' tactic the U.S. adopts is more brute force!
Shilen Morjaria, London, UK

The problem with westerners is that they can not understand or choose not to acknowledge that we people of the so called "third-world" do not trust them for historical reasons. Who was it that helped the Saddams, Mobutus and others Suhartos to power? Who colonized us, drew up our countries boundaries according to their needs? Because of these things, the Iraqis can NOT trust the US.
Sekou Sundiata, DR CONGO

This shows why the war was wrong in the first place. It's sad the Mr Blair didn't have the courage to face Bush and tell him that the war was wrong. Without UN backing USA and Britain have got themselves in a right mess. Something had to be done about Saddam but going to war was like using a hammer to crack a nut. US soldiers on Iraqi land will only create more backlash and a lot more soldiers will die before this issue is resolved. Bush and Blair should have paid more attention to the aftermath before being so speedy in going into an unjust war.
Lawrence, UK

So, the Americans are to become 'more aggressive' are they? Can someone explain to me how you can get more aggressive than invading another country for no reason?
Gavin, England

This is a no-win situation Paul Mc, UK

This is a no-win situation, I agree with the liberation of the people of Iraq and I'm always puzzled by the Anti-war brigade who think that life under a dictator (who has murdered thousands of his own people) demands no action, surely they deserve the same right to freedom as people in the west .
The people who want the US to leave Iraq will be the same people that will be protesting that the US has left the job half done and why have they deserted the people of Iraq....
Paul Mc, UK

I believe that this 'new tactic' is no more than a show of force in which innocent people will die. Once again we have to suffer the insult of having the story fed to us in a haze of ambiguity and lies. My faith in governments telling the truth is at an all time low.
Sean, Belgium

How can you have a change of tactics when apart from the actual invasion there does not appear to have been any in the first place.
Nigel Clarke, UK

The Americans can appear as tough as they want. They know they are getting their butts kicked big time, and will soon have to crawl out of Iraq the way they crawled out of Lebanon and Somalia.
Kerry, London, England

Whether the new tactics work or not it is clear that the old strategy was not working. You cannot put soldiers in danger and then expect them to fail to defend themselves. This weekend saw the 400th US casualty of this conflict with almost as many military personnel dying after the ceasefire as during the war itself. That is unacceptable and tactics had to change. My only question is why did they not change sooner?
James Crsoby, Telford, UK

The US can try a hundred and one different tactics but none will work. No right minded person allows another country to occupy it by force. The ONLY tactic for US is to 'get out' and get out quick before it loses more of its troops.
Mullah Hafeezud Din, UK

Lets not try to be whiter than white hear, the only important thing is to stop the killings of British and American troops and then get the hell out and leave Iraq to whatever mess it creates for itself.
Richard, UK

Such tactics completely failed to work for the USA in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Russians in Chechnya. Why on earth do they think it will work now? It will only breed more sympathy and fuel justification for the resistance fighters' actions.
NM, UK

This campaign has Vietnam written all over it Stacey Mitchell, UK

This campaign has Vietnam written all over it. The longer coalition forces remain in Iraq, the more Iraqis will turn against them. Iraq needs a coherent plan, formulated with the full support of the UN. I accept that withdrawal of forces now would be a mistake, but it needs to be done sooner rather than later.
Stacey Mitchell, UK

The artillery fire and the missiles are puzzling. Who are they shooting bombs at? If they knew where the guerrillas are hiding, why did they wait so long before attacking them? Or is it just meant for the TV images? I'm a bit worried that this will cause again a lot of civilian casualties without solving anything.
Simon, Netherlands

Saddam Hussein adopted a "more aggressive" approach in response to "terrorists" in Iraq and everyone called him a brutal dictator. The Americans are half-way down the one-way street that leads to being in the same position Saddam was in...
Nathan Hobbs, UK

Quite simply NO, the new tactics will not work, and look very much like the actions of an administration in panic. We have lost any "moral high ground" and the initial support of the Iraqis. We are now an occupying force with no hope of success. Time to withdraw and hand over to the UN, if they'll take it on.
It's a sorry mess indeed, and I am ashamed of Britain for getting involved and not trying to stop this foreseeable mess from happening in the first place. Mr Blair is on very thin ice methinks!
Phil Cox, England

Wrong tactics for the wrong problem John M, LyneMeads, UK

Wrong tactics for the wrong problem. Until the US recognises that the main problem lies in Israel-Palestine there's unlikely to be any significant improvement in reducing violence.
John M, LyneMeads, UK

Surely taking a more aggressive stance will result in even more aggression from the Iraqi people who do not want the Americans there. It will bring along more violence.
Robert Bedford, England

More aggressive means more resistance to come. I don't thing American can read the minds of Asians. It's too sad to see the human losses in Iraq, including Americans, because of some people's wrong thinking.
Mano, Japan

The only tactic that will ever work for the Americans will be for them to LEAVE Iraq.
Akram, UK