If the stray dogs are a problem, is killing them effective?

I am not an expert on these topics, but have heard convincing arguments that killing (or 'destroying'?) animals to reduce their population is unsuccessful, as it creates a vacuum filled by other strays, who have more food, space and breeding opportunities as a result.

I believe this is why many organisations in more peaceful places than Baghdad opt for neutering and castration rather than killing.

Of course it would be nice to think that the argument for effectiveness coincides with a more ethically tolerable alternative.

I was in the Gulf War and we ran the Kurdiah refugee camps in Northern Iraq. We had problems with stray dogs as well. They were really big and hsuky weighing about 150 punds or more they would run up on people in packs and bark at them. I don't know if any one was attacked but many Kurds and US troops carried big sticks to beat the dogs if they became too aggresive. I wanted to shot the dogs but I was not in charge. In Kuwait, the same things, wild grey dingy dogs were running all around the place. I think they should be shot and killed on site. They don't belong to any one and are a nuisance. These are dogs domesticated by man at one time or another and not like animlas in the forest or woods over populating because man has destroyed thier habitat.
1.4 million dogs is ore than the population of most cities in the US. Also add about 4.2 million dog poops on the streets per day times 365 days. 1.4 million will turn into 2 million in a year or two. They need to kill them or send them to China where they eat them. We can trade the dogs for other resources.

When I was a platoon leader in Afghanistan, we often had close to a dozen strays hanging around the small combat outpost that we lived on, when we first arrived in theater. A dozen strays are too many, and they definitely represented a hazard to the health of those on the COP, that they would get into the trash pit, fight with eachother and were a danger to the soldiers at the COP. When we got rid of most them, we let a couple of the more well-behaved dogs hang around. One dog in particular became a great pet and would regularly accompany us on patrols. As a patrol leader I loved having the dog with us, because she could always hear things that I couldn't, and she would always bark if a stranger got too close. Besides that, the soldiers loved her and no matter what kind of day you were having, she would always be there to take your mind off of things. Having a couple of dogs around during a deployment may not be the smartest idea in terms that yes, they can carry disease, and yes they occasionally can present a hazard to soldiers and military working dogs. But the benefit to morale that they provide is undeniable. Often during a deployment it can be difficult to maintain one's sense of self, to hold on to the things that remind us of home, and make us normal; a dog can help you feel a little closer to home. There is something about a dog that can help remind soldiers that there is an entire world outside of a combat zone.

I am sorry, but I really could care less about a bunch of stray animals getting shot. You know who I care about? The actual people dying-- the littered corpses which many of these dogs feed upon according to the CNN report. This is seriously why I despise most of these animal rights groups. Instead of using valuable resources to care for human beings, they're off blowing money on some mangy street dog. You could also do as one of the previous commentators suggested and ship them off to China or Korea so they could eat them. Personally I think Asians in those countries would prefer farm raised animals rather than nasty, urine soaked street dogs.

For me the dogs represent moral standards of Iraq (in a good way)

Because you won't find any dogs in Saudi Arabia

Dogs are haram a/c to Koran.

It shows that Iraqis are not as dogmatic as the peoples they are surrounded by.

Moreover, if you feed a dog it will never bite you same can not be said about Iraqi politicians.

Back to the strays adopted by unit personnel, I know the SPCA is working to help guys bring back their mascots and this weekend I was with one of the nation's lagest distributors of vet medicines, he told me he was willing to supply meds to US personnel mascots at no cost if they need them. He is a real patriot and has been very active in supporting the buddy dog and guoide dogs for soldiers and asked if this would help. He also has a staff of vets that could answer animal health questions to soldiers removed from military vet support. Any thoughts guys?