OT (Politics): 2000

[flere-imsaho]

2000 U.S. Dead (almost 2200 coalition dead), 15,000 wounded

And if you'd like to turn your stomach:

RAMADI, Iraq, Oct. 22 - The Bradley fighting vehicles moved slowly down this city's main boulevard. Suddenly, a homemade bomb exploded, punching into one vehicle. Then another explosion hit, briefly lifting a second vehicle up onto its side before it dropped back down again.

Two American soldiers climbed out of a hatch, the first with his pant leg on fire, and the other completely in flames. The first rolled over to help the other man, but when they touched, the first man also burst into flames. Insurgent gunfire began to pop.

Several blocks away, Lance Cpl. Jeffrey Rosener, 20, from Minneapolis, watched the two men die from a lookout post at a Marine encampment. His heart reached out to them, but he could not. In Ramadi, Iraq's most violent city, two blocks may as well be 10 miles.

"I couldn't do anything," he said of the incident, which he saw on Oct. 10. He spoke quietly, sitting in the post and looking straight ahead. "It's bad down there. You hear all the rumors. We didn't know it was going to be like this."

Here in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province, Sunni Arab insurgents are waging their fiercest war against American troops, attacking with relative impunity just blocks from Marine-controlled territory. Every day, the Americans fight to hold their turf in a war against an enemy who seems to be everywhere but is not often seen.

The cost has been high: in the last six weeks, 21 Americans have been killed here, far more than in any other city in Iraq and double the number of deaths in Baghdad, a city with a population 15 times as large.

"We fight it one day at a time," said Capt. Phillip Ash, who commands Company K in the Third Battalion, Seventh Marines, which patrols central Ramadi.

"Some days you're the windshield," he said, "some days you're the bug."

Ramadi is an important indicator of just how long it may be before an American withdrawal.

The city has long been a haven for insurgents, but it has never fallen fully into enemy hands, as Falluja did last fall, when marines could not even patrol before an invasion in November. Senior commanders here will not rule out a full invasion, but for now, the checkpoints and street patrols continue.

Because troop levels have stayed steady here, Ramadi also differs from Tal Afar, a rebel stronghold near the Syrian border, where Americans laid siege only to have to return later because they were unable to leave enough troops to secure it.

Still, more than two years after the American invasion, this city of 400,000 people is just barely within American control. The deputy governor of Anbar was shot to death on Tuesday; the day before, the governor's car was fired on. There is no police force. A Baghdad cellphone company has refused to put up towers here. American bases are regularly pelted with rockets and mortar shells, and when troops here get out of their vehicles to patrol, they are almost always running.

"You can't just walk down the street for a period of time and not expect to get shot at," said Maj. Bradford W. Tippett, the operations officer for the Third Battalion.

Capt. Rory Quinn, a Bronx native who majored in international relations at Boston University, used a mixed analogy: "It's kind of like playing basketball: short sprints. Everything we do here is a minefield."

Commanders remain hopeful that Iraqi soldiers will soon be able to take full responsibility for the city. The number of Iraqi Army soldiers here has doubled in recent months. A city council has begun to work, and a local police force is being trained. But the relentlessness of the insurgent violence here ties the American units to the streets, forcing them to focus on the fight.

"We've never given them the chance to breathe, but it continues to be one of the most violent places," said Lt. Col. Roger B. Turner, commanding officer of the Marine battalion, which is attached to the Army's Second Brigade Combat Team.

The vast majority of Americans killed here since September have been victims of homemade bombs, what the military calls improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s. Sgt. William Callahan, a member of the bomb disposal team stationed with the Third Battalion, estimated that troops hit four such bombs a day in Ramadi. Most do not result in death or serious injury. Almost all are remotely detonated, which means someone is hiding in wait for coming vehicles.

Besides the two soldiers who died near Corporal Rosener's post, seven soldiers, including two Iraqis, in a Bradley were victims of homemade bombs in eastern Ramadi a week ago. Bombs killed one marine in a Humvee on Oct. 4, and five soldiers were killed in a Bradley on Sept. 28.

Gunnery Sgt. Jose C. Soto, the bomb squad's leader, said insurgents in Ramadi were highly trained, making bombs by linking several large artillery rounds together. They use fuel enhancements, like gasoline mixed with sugar, to cling to a victim's body and make a bigger fire, said First Lt. Bradley R. Watson, 27, of the battalion's Company L.

The Oct. 4 attack is an example. The area was rarely traveled by troops and was laced with explosives. Sergeant Callahan said 10 I.E.D.'s went off in the area that day. At 7:18 a.m., insurgents set off three explosives from holes in the road under a convoy, flipping a Humvee onto its back. Fuel gushed, making a pool on the ground, and a marine trapped under the vehicle was barely able to keep his mouth above the rising fluid. A Navy medic riding in the Humvee lost his leg but still gave first aid. The driver was killed instantly.

"It's like being caught in the undertow of a wave," said Lieutenant Watson, who was slightly hurt in the attack - the third time he has been wounded in Iraq. "Everything flips around. Everybody is shouting."

Snipers are a constant plague. In one area of the city, snipers have hit four Americans since late August, and soldiers were obliged to set up blast walls for security for a polling center there last week in the dark. A law school in eastern Ramadi had to be shut down because sniper attacks were coming from it at night.

"It's like everyone in this town is a sniper," said Muhammad Ali Jasim, an Iraqi soldier who has been stationed here since May. "You can't stand in one place for long."

"You get a workout," Corporal Rosener said. "It's all running. Running from building to building."

But closeness to the insurgents - a popular sniping position is in the hotel across the street from the marine camp in the governor's office - has given the Americans a better look at their enemy. The marines of Company K have seen arms pulling dead or wounded insurgents away from the hotel's windows.

Insurgent groups appear to be numerous and fractious. Religious and militant graffiti are scrawled on walls. Colonel Turner said he saw a man on Thursday giving out leaflets exhorting citizens to ignore any mujahedeen literature that did not bear the symbol of the Islamic Army militant group - two crossed swords draped with a black flag.

Ansar al-Sunna, another militant group, claimed to have killed four Iraqi contractors here on Friday.

Many of their techniques directly involve Ramadi residents. One is to use telephones to track American raids: Captain Quinn said he had heard the phone ring in houses along a block they were searching, and when the owner of the house they were standing in did not pick up, the calls stopped - the insurgents had found them.

The line between civilians and insurgents is blurry in Ramadi. In a twist that sets it apart from other violent cities, insurgents usually do not attack civilians in large groups. There have been no suicide bombings in recent memory, and I.E.D.'s are rarely placed close to houses. Insurgents have left alone American projects that deliver services that locals want, like the installation of 18 transformers last month for more power. And when the streets empty out, the Americans know an attack is imminent.

"The population clearly gets the word - there's a network out there," Colonel Turner said at the Third Battalion's camp, in an old palace on the Euphrates. "The average population has to go against them" or the fighting will continue, he said, referring to the insurgents.

Maj. Daniel Wagner, a civil affairs officer with the battalion, spends his days trying to draw in locals. But progress in Ramadi is measured in inches. Much of his time is spent patching and paving roads to prevent bombings, and planning demolitions to take away sniper nests - work he has sardonically referred to as urban renewal. Two parks are planned, as is a new police station. But the violence is a major hindrance.

"I should be able to just drive over," he said. "You need a four-vehicle convoy, you're out of breath, you're sweating, you sit down and say, 'Do you feel safe here? O.K., I've got to get out of here now.' "

The task is more difficult in that Anbar is one of Iraq's three poorest provinces, according to a survey conducted by the United Nations in 2004. Impoverished locals are easily recruited by insurgents. Captain Quinn said bomb makers usually carried $500 in their pockets - half the fee, he estimated, for the job, the rest being paid after detonation.

So far, reaching out to locals and persuading them to shut out insurgents seems a distant goal. Among the obstacles is the very armor that the troops so badly need for protection: on Ramadi's streets, marines in Humvees might as well be astronauts in orbit.

On one patrol last week, a marine from Florida smiled through several inches of bulletproof glass at a tiny boy in blue pants and a dinosaur shirt. The boy solemnly stood beside the Humvee, motioning with his arms - perhaps asking for a treat. The marine shook his head and shrugged, unable to understand.

The most immediate way forward, military commanders here agree, is training and deploying more Iraqi soldiers. Of the seven battalions in Ramadi, three are in eastern Ramadi with their own territory to patrol, said Maj. William R. Fall, the Iraqi Security Force coordinator. Still, only about a company and a half is based inside the central and western parts of the city.

Officers said Iraqi soldiers had vastly improved over the past year. The day of the referendum here was violent, with mortar and rocket-propelled grenade attacks raining down on many of the stations. But Iraqi soldiers stayed at their positions and returned fire when under attack, marines near the sites reported.

"I see incremental progress every single day," Captain Quinn said. "It's working, but it's not a three-month affair."

[Mike D]

To those who have and will serve in the line of fire -- Thank You. Your sacrifices are not in vain...and may your rewards be a job well done with the support of our nation.

[Mike D]

dola,

And the news hasn't been all that bad lately (for a change). There was even an article or two on the new Iraqi Constitution. Although not directly noted for having taken part, the US Soldiers in Iraq played a very important piece by providing security before during and now after that huge vote.

[NoMyths]

In our class tonight the event was marked by a Guardsman discussing the day his humvee was blown up. It's strange to me how so many people seem disconnected from the war, but that could just be because of how many of my students are involved with it...it's not something that goes away on a daily basis for me in the way that I imagine it can for some folks.

[Buccaneer]

230 years ago this month, the situation around Boston looked bad, really bad. The soldiers were ill-dressed, sick and in a bad mood as the seige was dragging onto into the start of the cold months. They had just heard about the British destroying the port city of Falmouth and that sent the mood, even among the commanders, into a more depressing state. There is no hope for the near future as the enlistments for the Connecticut regiments was about to run out and soon about 1/3 of the army (if you call it that) would leave to go home. While there were a number of stalwart men and women believing in the cause of rebelling against a tyrannical regime, it hadn't gotten into the hearts and minds of those shivering on the front lines. It would not be until a few months later when a little-known author made the difference with his words.

Written at the outset of the Revolution, Common Sense became the leaven for the ferment of the times. It stirred the colonists to strengthen their resolve, resulting in the first successful anticolonial action in modern history. Little did Paine realize that his writings would set fire to a movement that had seldom if ever been worked out in the Old World: sovereignty of the people and written constitutions, together with effective checks and balances in government.

[NoMyths]

I'm just glad you've lasted long enough to share your personal reminiscences with us.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I'm just glad you've lasted long enough to share your personal reminiscences with us.

Thank God Buccaneer could go to a public school back in the day when they used to teach kids history. Today people are like....weren't we just terrorists back then ourselves???

[Buccaneer]

History also showed that the radicals were against the occupiers of their lands, leading to acts of illegal assemblies, inflammatory propaganda, terrorist acts against those in authority and eventually to open warfare as an insurgency.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Thank God Buccaneer could go to a public school back in the day when they used to teach kids history. Today people are like....weren't we just terrorists back then ourselves???

I'd have said we were insurgents, but I keep hearing the right-side of the room claim that's just liberal media bias.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I'd have said we were insurgents, but I keep hearing the right-side of the room claim that's just liberal media bias.

Back when the term 'insurgents' wasn't a term that defined the killing of civilians in order to terrorize other civilians, I might have agreed with you.

[NoMyths]

No civilians were killed by colonials in your version of history? Interesting.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

No civilians were killed by colonials in your version of history? Interesting.

I have a close approximation, what number do you have? (Hint: It really was pretty low as the number of combat deaths, troops and civilians, were a fraction of deaths compared to diseases, accidents, misguided cannon shots, sunken ships, etc.)

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

No civilians were killed by colonials in your version of history? Interesting.

I didn't say that. But certainly you are not suggesting that killing civilians was George Washington's goal for obtaining independence from the Bitish. The American Colonists were rebelling against the crown and a VAST majority of the activity were British "subjects" rising up against their government.

What we have here is a nest of terrorists from everywhere blowing up mosque's and markets. That's not in the name of freedom, it's in the name of terror.

The Sunni's that blow up military checkpoints would be closer to an insurgent behaviour, but how many Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of the terrorists? 20,000? 30,000? It's sickening how you wish to portray these animals. As simple freedom fighters? That's a lie. They are not.

For example, here is video of a suicide bomber blowing up a military checkpoint.

Suicide Bomber at Checkpoint - Warning - RealLife

Now, this also happens in crowded markets and outside of mosques which are "target rich". You think they are simple Rebels? Freedom Fighting? George Washington would rather have done this than cross the Delaware? Sorry, we're just not gonna see eye to eye on this one. Ever.

I understand your 'point', not everything is clean and crisp and black and white...but there is a difference and the divide is the size of the Grand Canyon.

[ISiddiqui]

But certainly you are not suggesting that killing civilians was was George Washington's goal for obtaining independence from the Bitish.

Well prior to Washington's leadership, we had this nasty practice of tar and feathering tax men. If the revolution was led by Patrick Henry, or someone of that ilk, there would have been far more of that during the fighting.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But certainly you are not suggesting that killing civilians was George Washington's goal for obtaining independence from the Bitish.

Nope, not at all, as you correctly surmise.

I understand your 'point', not everything is clean and crisp and black and white...but there is a difference and the divide is the size of the Grand Canyon.

No need to airquote 'point' -- it was a valid, and understood, one. And of course there's a large difference on any number of key points.

That said, we'd be mad if we didn't acknowledge that the Colonials are easily defined as rebel insurgents (though not terrorists, especially in terms of leadership). But as I said, it worked out pretty well in the long run.

[NoMyths]

dola...

Originally Posted by Dutch

The Sunni's that blow up military checkpoints would be closer to an insurgent behaviour, but how many Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of the terrorists? 20,000? 30,000? It's sickening how you wish to portray these animals. As simple freedom fighters? That's a lie. They are not.

Whoa whoa whoa...not sure if you added this as part of your edit, but trying to attribute this statement to me is not only inaccurate, but beneath you (I would hope). Where did I say they were simple freedom fighters?

There are insurgent forces at work in Iraq. There are terrorists at work in Iraq. I am not fool enough to confuse the two, despite many folks' attempts to get me to do so.

And I doubt you want us to start comparing civilian casualty numbers for both sides. There's only one loser there: them.

[MrBigglesworth]

At this point, I'm not so sure you can call them insurgents. They are the other side in a civil war.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

At this point, I'm not so sure you can call them insurgents. They are the other side in a civil war.

Perhaps, but it's a civil war that's going very badly for the terrorists. They haven't won a single battle. They may think they are instilling enough fear for the Iraqi people to take over after their brutal bombing campaign is done, but I think we all know the Iraqi people have had enough of barbarism.

Again, thanks to our US soldiers who have helped in this fight. It's appreciated and you did the right thing.

[Warhammer]

I'm not sure this could be called a civil war. In a civil war, you have well defined areas of occupation. Their forces attempt to take over additional cities, etc. I don't think we've seen that at all. We've seen areas not wholly pacified flare up, but I don't think we could call this a civil war at all.

The other side of this coin, and the one I keep going back to, is that we have seen countless deaths in the Middle East since 1945. Playing the same old foreign policy game there was not going to change anything. Our most powerful weapon in this war is our culture. We need a friendly government in a country that has a history of being moderate. Iraq is a good choice for this. If we can get them to embrace our culture, or even accept it, it will permeate from there. That is when change will really begin to take place.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Perhaps, but it's a civil war that's going very badly for the terrorists. They haven't won a single battle.

Every time a roadside bomb blows up a Humvee and kills soldiers, they've won the battle, Dutch.

How about those Marines who were ambushed and slaughtered? Was that not the insurgents "winning a battle"? Then there's the successful reoccupation of Fallujah and other cities in Iraq the U.S. forces haven't had the manpower to cover.

They may think they are instilling enough fear for the Iraqi people to take over after their brutal bombing campaign is done, but I think we all know the Iraqi people have had enough of barbarism.

So you point is that the Iraqis will acquiese to the insurgents' demands if it means an end to barbarism?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Every time a roadside bomb blows up a Humvee and kills soldiers, they've won the battle, Dutch.

So everytime a bullet hits a US Soldier that is a battle won for the terrorists?

Sorry, but as I have said before, we are not going to know for 5 to 10 years whether this was worth it. Maybe not even then, but given this or the status quo, I much prefer this. At least this gives the people over there a chance to change their lives.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

At this point, I'm not so sure you can call them insurgents. They are the other side in a civil war.

Not to go back and forth on this (I've seen this theory from you before, and understand it's where you stand), but a civil war led by a Jordanian and fought by a significant number of foreign nationals? I just don't agree with your assessment, it's not a civil war when most of the people fighting have a political agenda that is much larger than Iraqi nationalism, and for many of whom is even devoid of concerns for Iraqi nationalism.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

So everytime a bullet hits a US Soldier that is a battle won for the terrorists?

OK, you define what "winning a battle" is in this war. I'm merely responding to Dutch's myopic assertion that the terrorists haven't "won a single battle in this war".

Sorry, but as I have said before, we are not going to know for 5 to 10 years whether this was worth it. Maybe not even then, but given this or the status quo, I much prefer this. At least this gives the people over there a chance to change their lives.

So your solution is to continue to send coalition troops to die and continue to borrow billions of dollars to finance an operation of unknown outcome?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

... to finance an operation of unknown outcome?

Rhetorically, couldn't that be argued for every dime of government spending of any type?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Not to go back and forth on this (I've seen this theory from you before, and understand it's where you stand), but a civil war led by a Jordanian and fought by a significant number of foreign nationals? I just don't agree with your assessment, it's not a civil war when most of the people fighting have a political agenda that is much larger than Iraqi nationalism, and for many of whom is even devoid of concerns for Iraqi nationalism.

More lies.

Foreign fighters probably only make up 4-10% of insurgents.

An inability to see the very real power struggle between Shiites & Sunnis in Iraq is myopia of the highest order.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Rhetorically, couldn't that be argued for every dime of government spending of any type?

Don't be ridiculous. When the government decides to spend $1 Billion on Stealth Bombers, I have to believe they're pretty sure they're going to get Stealth Bombers.

Likewise, when the government spends $Billions on Medicaid, I think we're all reasonably sure it'll be going to medical-related costs for the purpose of medical care.

Name me another initiative by this government that has an unknown final cost, a current cost that is past $200 Billion, places Americans directly in harm's way, and isn't supported by a majority of the country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Likewise, when the government spends $Billions on Medicaid, I think we're all reasonably sure it'll be going to medical-related costs for the purpose of medical care.

Umm ... that's probably not the best example you can find to make your case

Name me another initiative by this government that has an unknown final cost

Social Security is a good starting point. And virtually every program in the history of government had an "unknown final cost" ... unless you want to argue that each individual spending measure (instead of the cumulative total) is the way to measure "cost".

places Americans directly in harm's way,

While not technically a "government program", every American is "in harm's way" every day that Islamic terrorists are allowed to continue to exist.

and isn't supported by a majority of the country.

Thankfully, those aren't the ones making the decisions.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Name me another initiative by this government that has an unknown final cost, a current cost that is past $200 Billion, places Americans directly in harm's way, and isn't supported by a majority of the country.

But they hate our freedom!!!

[flere-imsaho]

I didn't think you could name another government program that fit those criteria, Jon.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK, you define what "winning a battle" is in this war. I'm merely responding to Dutch's myopic assertion that the terrorists haven't "won a single battle in this war".



So your solution is to continue to send coalition troops to die and continue to borrow billions of dollars to finance an operation of unknown outcome?

Generally, a battle is an instance of combat in warfare between two or more parties wherein each group will seek to defeat the others.

I would define a battle as a fight where the two parties are engaged with one another. A roadside bomb does not count as one party is not engaged in battle.

From this point of view, Dutch makes a correct statement.

To answer your second point with a question. If we stop and if we never spend money for operations where the outcome is unknown does that we that everything will be ok? Will we all be happy and will the world will be at peace?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I'm not sure this could be called a civil war. In a civil war, you have well defined areas of occupation. Their forces attempt to take over additional cities, etc. I don't think we've seen that at all. We've seen areas not wholly pacified flare up, but I don't think we could call this a civil war at all.

There are many many places in Iraq where it is too dangerous for even small groups of US Military forces to be. Much of the country we do not have security over. There are no front lines, but that is not how a modern civil war is fought. There aren't groups of 100k lining up across from each other anymore. The situation in Iraq is somewhat like the situation in Sri Lanka and Sudan, only in Sri Lanka and Sudan the forces are more even to each other, which changes the situation.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Generally, a battle is an instance of combat in warfare between two or more parties wherein each group will seek to defeat the others.

I would define a battle as a fight where the two parties are engaged with one another. A roadside bomb does not count as one party is not engaged in battle.

Dutch's statement is factually accurate but meaningless. That isn't the game the insurgents are playing. The White Sox won't score a single touchdown tonight, but that doesn't mean they won't win the game.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... that's probably not the best example you can find to make your case

Medicare/medicaid has about half of the overhead of managed care.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Social Security is a good starting point.

SS actuaries have accurately predicted the per year SS outlays for the past 50 years or so.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

There are many many places in Iraq where it is too dangerous for even small groups of US Military forces to be. Much of the country we do not have security over. There are no front lines, but that is not how a modern civil war is fought. There aren't groups of 100k lining up across from each other anymore. The situation in Iraq is somewhat like the situation in Sri Lanka and Sudan, only in Sri Lanka and Sudan the forces are more even to each other, which changes the situation.

That doesn't constitute a Civil War though. Was the Whisky Rebellion a civil war? No. As far as I know, (I could be very wrong in this) there is little central direction from anyone regarding how this war is to be fought (on the Iraqi side). You have local leaders that are rebelling against a government, but you have no central head organizing all the resistance forces. Also, several rebelling groups have fought against each other (how widespread this is, I do not know).

Just because an area is dangerous, does not mean it is a war zone either. Our troops could be in their barracks, and a bomber could walk up and attack it. Does this consitute a battle? No. Does it constitute an engagement? No. What is it then? It is an ambush, or a terrorist act.

To flere:

A battle is an action between two organized parties in which each side seeks to defeat the other. The emphasis is mine. Now, can you fight a guerilla war? Yes. However, in such a war, there are few, if any, clearly delineated battles. We are fighting such a war.

The way to win a war of this type is to build strong points, and then launch targeted raids from the stong point to dislodge the enemy. Then, you must take out the enemy leaders, both military and idealogical leaders. After that, it is a matter of time. Archer Jones does a good job explaining this in The Art of War in the Western World.

We need to win the war of ideas as much as the war militarily. What we need to be doing is show the Sunnis how they can benefit from the new Iraq. That is why I hope that it is a secular constitution, not a religious one. Unfortunately, we have not done enough in Iraq in this regard. If we do not, the minute we pull out there will be a civil war as the Shiites either attempt to exterminate the Sunnis, or vice versa.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The way to win a war of this type is to build strong points, and then launch targeted raids from the stong point to dislodge the enemy. Then, you must take out the enemy leaders, both military and idealogical leaders. After that, it is a matter of time. Archer Jones does a good job explaining this in The Art of War in the Western World.

I don't think we can "win" this one. Public pressure will get the best of the Politicians and we'll pull out, much like we did in Vietnam. The public will not want to see the youth of the nation killed for a dicey proposition, and for people who don't really want us there.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Dutch's statement is factually accurate but meaningless. That isn't the game the insurgents are playing. The White Sox won't score a single touchdown tonight, but that doesn't mean they won't win the game.

Exactly. If people want to define "success" in the War in Iraq by early 20th-century standards, then you're making the same mistake the British did in the Revolutionary War.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

To flere:

A battle is an action between two organized parties in which each side seeks to defeat the other. The emphasis is mine. Now, can you fight a guerilla war? Yes. However, in such a war, there are few, if any, clearly delineated battles. We are fighting such a war.

Hey, I'm with you on this one. You want to talk to Dutch, who seems to feel we keep on winning "battles" in Iraq, as if that means anything.

The way to win a war of this type is to build strong points, and then launch targeted raids from the stong point to dislodge the enemy. Then, you must take out the enemy leaders, both military and idealogical leaders. After that, it is a matter of time. Archer Jones does a good job explaining this in The Art of War in the Western World.

Then we've already lost. Heck, even the Green Zone isn't immune from attacks. Even our bases in the desert get moartered at night. Plus, we still haven't caught Al-Zarquawi, we still haven't caught bin Laden, and as long as the free flow of money continues from Saudi Arabia, I don't see these guys lacking for money.

We need to win the war of ideas as much as the war militarily. What we need to be doing is show the Sunnis how they can benefit from the new Iraq. That is why I hope that it is a secular constitution, not a religious one. Unfortunately, we have not done enough in Iraq in this regard. If we do not, the minute we pull out there will be a civil war as the Shiites either attempt to exterminate the Sunnis, or vice versa.

The constitution is a religious one. We lost that battle.

"The minute we pull out" there'll be a civil war in Iraq? There's a civil war there now. The only thing that will change when we pull out is that they'll stop attacking Americans and concentrate solely on each other.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

More lies.

Foreign fighters probably only make up 4-10% of insurgents.

An inability to see the very real power struggle between Shiites & Sunnis in Iraq is myopia of the highest order.

There are obviously disagreements between Sunnis and Shiites, and many Sunnis turned out to vote and voice those disagreements in the recent referendum. Characterizing the way in which the vast majority of people on both sides of this divide are comporting themselves as civil war is even more myopic.

Again, this isn't something I want to go round and round on, there are obviously problems, and there are obviously Iraqis involved in the insurgency. But the study you post is flawed on a number of critical levels (and admittedly it hedges a lot of what it says to account for this, but I feel like you're posting it to make a point it doesn't really set out to make). One it's based almost entirely on data from "Saudi intelligence sources," who have a definite incentive to downplay the number of Saudis who may be fighting in Iraq. Two, it neglects to emphasize (it actually talks about this but not enough) the fact that as the other sources they cite state, ie Israeli and US figures, some 60 - 70% of the violent actions that are taking place against Iraqi civilians are being perpetrated by foreign nationals. The fact that more Iraqis are being detained for questioning, or brought in for interrogation (a statistic this study is using to show that most of the insurgency are Iraqis) is misleading and should not skew the fact that a lot of the most violent action is being planned, supported, and executed by foreign nationals. Iraq is a battlefield right now for a much larger conflict, and the foreign leaders of that larger conflict are doing whatever they can to create instability, including fomenting an internal war. But I think focusing solely on the "civil war" misses the bigger picture of the conflict, and also that Iraqi sectarianism is not the disease in this conflict, but a symptom magnified by external influences attempting to create instability. Agree to disagree maybe.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I would define a battle as a fight where the two parties are engaged with one another. A roadside bomb does not count as one party is not engaged in battle.

OK, so as per the article in the original post, when a Humvee gets blown up by a roadside bomb and the "survivors" of the bomb are killed by small-arms fire, is that a battle?

[Mike D]

You want to talk to Dutch, who seems to feel we keep on winning "battles" in Iraq, as if that means anything.

We are winning the battle. The biggest battle we won to date? 67% turnout by Iraqi's to approve the new Iraqi Constitution. Others? Electing the temp parliament. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The ability to not have the Kurds, Sunni's, and Shia's break up into three factions of a civil war.

Each and every one of those battles so far have included lots of your little "victories" of road-side bombings.

But the Iraqi people are still standing, the US Military is still standing. Both are still making progress as advertised. Both are winning the big battles every single day. Not the terrorists. The Al Qaeda keep detonating bombs. It's easy to do. But the hard parts of winning battles in this non-traditional war? They are losing. They didn't stop the fall of Saddam. They didn't stop the election of a temporary parliament. They didn't stop the constitution. They kept bombing, but they kept losing. There is no massive civil war as the left predicted.

It's been hard work. It's been painful. It's cost lots of lives. But the terrorist's have not one a single battle. Not one. Sorry.

[John Galt]

Dutch, have you every actually studied a single guerilla war? These wars are won simply by the insurgency refusing to die and backdown. Eventually, the occupier or government loses because it can't keep fighting. Whether you believe this war is going well or not, it is silly to say the terrorists are losing on all fronts. Their victory is still being alive against the world's largest army.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Hey, I'm with you on this one. You want to talk to Dutch, who seems to feel we keep on winning "battles" in Iraq, as if that means anything.

I disagree with him that we are winning "battles" but I think that we are on the path to winning the war.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Then we've already lost. Heck, even the Green Zone isn't immune from attacks. Even our bases in the desert get moartered at night. Plus, we still haven't caught Al-Zarquawi, we still haven't caught bin Laden, and as long as the free flow of money continues from Saudi Arabia, I don't see these guys lacking for money.

Of course this stuff is happening. They know what we need to do and are going to do everything they can to prevent that from happening. We ARE going to lose troops over there. Every soldier that dies is a terrible loss. The problem is, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO PULL OUT! If we pull out, it is going to be a huge morale boost for our enemies and will show people that if they stand up to us, and commit heinous crimes we will back down. What we need to do is understand why we lost in Vietnam. We were backing an unpopular and corrupt government. It is not the same situation in Iraq.

There is only a minority opposed to us in Iraq. What we need to do, is show the people of Iraq why it is better to help us than it is to be against us. We must tell them that as soon as the uprisings are over we will leave. We must show them how our way is better than the way things were. That is why the Sunnis are pissed. They were the big dogs. They were holding the Kurds and the Shiites down. Now, they are terrified that they are going to pay for their crimes. It is OUR duty to show them that this is not going to happen. We need to show the Sunnis how we are protecting their rights as well.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The constitution is a religious one. We lost that battle.

I should've been more clear, we need to ensure that the constitution is not going to create a theorcracy. I have no problem with a constitution drawing heavily from a religion, but it must have freedom of religion in there. I have not done any digging on this so I am not sure how their's has shaped up. Basically, I don't want Iraq to turn into Iran.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

"The minute we pull out" there'll be a civil war in Iraq? There's a civil war there now. The only thing that will change when we pull out is that they'll stop attacking Americans and concentrate solely on each other.

It is a matter of degrees. I do not think it is a civil war because I do not think the Sunnis are as organized as we may think they are (on a grand strategic level). At the local level they are probably fairly well organized because you are talking about friends and families coordinating small attacks. Think more of a massive riot, where cities may be consumed in rioting, but the rioting in, say Memphis, has nothing to do with the rioting in, say Nashville.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Dutch, have you every actually studied a single guerilla war? These wars are won simply by the insurgency refusing to die and backdown. Eventually, the occupier or government loses because it can't keep fighting. Whether you believe this war is going well or not, it is silly to say the terrorists are losing on all fronts. Their victory is still being alive against the world's largest army.

This is a different case than Vietnam though. Even if the terrorists stay in a state of unrest, they are still going to lose this one eventually. The Shiites and Kurds have too much to gain, and will not join with the Sunnis.

Once the government gets established and they get a military drawn from the Kurds and the area towards Basra, I think things will begin to turn. You don't hear about the huge Shiite enclaves holding out any more. They are beginning to see the benefits of us being there. The people that are holding our are the Sunnis, who have the most to lose. We need to show them what they can gain by joining hands with the Shiites and Kurds.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

This is a different case than Vietnam though. Even if the terrorists stay in a state of unrest, they are still going to lose this one eventually. The Shiites and Kurds have too much to gain, and will not join with the Sunnis.

Once the government gets established and they get a military drawn from the Kurds and the area towards Basra, I think things will begin to turn. You don't hear about the huge Shiite enclaves holding out any more. They are beginning to see the benefits of us being there. The people that are holding our are the Sunnis, who have the most to lose. We need to show them what they can gain by joining hands with the Shiites and Kurds.

I disagree, but that really isn't the point. To say the insurgents are losing everything is to ignore the history of every major guerilla war in the modern era. We don't know what the future holds, but Dutch's pollyana take on what has happened is nonsense.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Their victory is still being alive against the world's largest army.

In a traditional war, I would agree with that. But as stated, this is not a traditional war. If their "army" wishes to hide in street clothes and pretend to be civilians. Then the war must be won in different ways than simple eradication. I'm not sure how you win a war against an army that does not show up to the traditional battlefield, do you?

Well....I do. While the enemy won't show up to the battlefield, you still have goals. What are the objectives? Is the objective of the terrorists simply to kill thousands of people? With civilians winning the casualty rate at a 10 to 1 clip over US and Iraqi Military personnel? Well, they accomplished it, I guess they can go home now.

But wait, that's not their goal at all. I'll bet it has something to do stopping the march of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and responsible self-policing states in the heart of the Middle East that will severely hamper their ability to strong arm the local populations. Well, they are failing on both fronts of the war.

They want so desperately for the US to leave and for Iraq and Afghanistan to fall into classical civil war where the religious zealots take over. They aren't remotely close to such goals and are failing.

Whearas, our goals continue to make progress, the constitution (and more importantly the voter turnout) was another landmark day in Iraq. The Iraqi Army is getting stronger, not weaker.

Our goals that we set keep happening. The terrorists goals do not.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

They want so desperately for the US to leave and for Iraq and Afghanistan to fall into classical civil war where the fundamentals take over.

That is the one part of your post I agree with. It was why it was also crazy for you to say, " [the insurgency] didn't stop the fall of Saddam." The insurgency craves anarchy. That is what Afghanistan was under Taliban "rule." So far, the insurgency has gotten exactly what it wanted: anarchy and disorder. The U.S. has made some progress which I never deny. You, on the other hand, gloss over the fact that the status quo is a victory for the insurgents and it is far from clear that any gains made will hold after the U.S. leaves (and that could be sooner rather than later). Saying, "But the terrorist's have not one a single battle. Not one. Sorry" is just asinine.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That is the one part of your post I agree with. It was why it was also crazy for you to say, " [the insurgency] didn't stop the fall of Saddam." The insurgency craves anarchy. That is what Afghanistan was under Taliban "rule." So far, the insurgency has gotten exactly what it wanted: anarchy and disorder. The U.S. has made some progress which I never deny. You, on the other hand, gloss over the fact that the status quo is a victory for the insurgents and it is far from clear that any gains made will hold after the U.S. leaves (and that could be sooner rather than later). Saying, "But the terrorist's have not one a single battle. Not one. Sorry" is just asinine.

Wait a second, I "gloss" over the bad news and you don't gloss over the "good news"? I'm telling you the good news and you're getting mad at me. That's glossing, brother.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There is only a minority opposed to us in Iraq.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../23/wirq23.xml

Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We are winning the battle. The biggest battle we won to date? 67% turnout by Iraqi's to approve the new Iraqi Constitution. Others? Electing the temp parliament. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The ability to not have the Kurds, Sunni's, and Shia's break up into three factions of a civil war.

So basically a "battle" is an ambiguous concept defined whatever way fits your rhetoric. Gotcha.

Tell me, would the assassination of important politicians, judges, lawyers and contractors be battles? Would the assassination of Al-Qaida's #2 men in Iraq be battles?

But the Iraqi people are still standing, the US Military is still standing. Both are still making progress as advertised.

What a hollow rhetorical flourish. "As advertised"? Do you want to go and rehash the rhetoric of the Bush Administration regarding Iraq circa 2002?

It's been hard work. It's been painful. It's cost lots of lives. But the terrorist's have not one a single battle. Not one. Sorry.

As long as you continue to change the definition of "battle" to suit your argument, your arguments will continue to be little more than fiction.

Originally Posted by Dutch

But the Iraqi people are still standing, the US Military is still standing. Both are still making progress as advertised. Both are winning the big battles every single day. Not the terrorists. The Al Qaeda keep detonating bombs. It's easy to do. But the hard parts of winning battles in this non-traditional war? They are losing. They didn't stop the fall of Saddam. They didn't stop the election of a temporary parliament. They didn't stop the constitution. They kept bombing, but they kept losing. There is no massive civil war as the left predicted.

But the insurgents are still standing, the terrorists of Al-Qaida are still standing. Both are still making progress as advertised. Both are winning the big battles every single day. Not the Iraqis. The U.S. keeps having patrols and combat operations. It's easy to do. But the hard parts of winning battles in this non-traditional war? They are losing. They didn't stop the destruction of key utilities. They didn't stop the assassination of key figures in the political reconstruction of Iraq. They couldn't do anything about the undermining of Iraq's economy. They couldn't stop the War from being used as a key part of Al-Qaida's recruitment effort. They kept mounting their undermanned patrols, but they kept losing. There is no security in the country, no sense of normalcy, no oil wealth to pay for reconstruction "within a year or so" and certainly no greetings with flowers as the Administration predicted.

Actually, you know it's a lot more fun to be partisan than objective.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

To say the insurgents are losing everything is to ignore the history of every major guerilla war in the modern era.

So the insurgents are not losing everything? They are not losing power? They are not in the minority of people in Iraq. They are not a hated minority, that is going to require the protection of the future government lest what they did to others is not paid with interest?

I'm just befuddled by this statement. This isn't a Vietnam situation where we were holding back the North. This isn't an American Revolution where the people were rising up against the king. The insurgents are resorting to violence lest they lose their power. I don't see any other way of looking at this.