No, actually the enemy isn’t. The media is eager to report anything good about Iraq actually as you might notice with the two Hussein brothers. Instead they report that soldiers die and their attackers get away.
Well, now, if the enemy is “taking it” as badly as you say, but its just that we dont get the news…how did you find out? Have you some extraordinary sources of intel you should like to share?
Islamo-fascists? Is this the new empty term of abuse? Not bad in a way, stupid for its mixed metaphor, but of course little to do with the Baath and the like. I would try Pinko-Arabos, or something like that, again something of a fact free smear, but at least you would be betting the metaphor more or less right.
Guerrilla warfare against a conventionally superior enemy. Old idea, the term itself stems from the Spanish war against Napoleon as I recall.
I should not rest assured insofar as depending on the context, more deaths on the Iraqi side has the potential to generate more opposition. Tradition of the blood feud and all that. Further, as experiences in Algeria have shown, should the opposition be selling their resistance to the population better than the occupier - and the modern record on this vis-a-vis colonial occupiers is not encouraging for the US - it only gets worse.
This mix and match is getting me a bit disappointed, you seem to believe one is fighting al-Qaeda people in Iraq. Might be true to an extent, but the “Party Line” from the Bush Administration is that the opposition is Baathist. They are, for the record, secular socialists, so you should make reference to Commies.
I shall not bother to comment on emasculated men comments on a message board, it strikes me as rather empty.
Give that man a prize !
On a serious note, would that more and more conservatives such as yourself lay aside their star spangled shades for a bit and start seeing this whole affair for what it really is. A FUBAR power play, filled with lies and misrepresentations from the start. About the only thing they were right on was counting on the support of the great many who felt like you.
Unfortunately, as we have seen in this thread, it appears that some have those jingoistic shades tacked on to their ears.
And they are still being had.
And the band plays on:
I will add reference to my own reporting here on some recent conversations: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=179177&pagenumber=2#newpost
Think of it as Collounsbury reporting.
I should think it would be useful, as I have been mentioning for months now, for people like Astro to generate political pressure for more resources to be devoted to Iraq to avoid disaster.
To what end; if reports are correct, fighters are now starting to be drawn to Iraq from all over the Muslim world in the same way they were after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ? This has all the hallmarks of a unifying ‘crusade’. And from their pov, more US troops means more fish in the barrel . . .
Option Two, the UN doing its nation-building thing: But will sufficient members and leaders of the UN give him a paddle to get out the creek ? Right now, I’m having a hard time seeing how that might happen given that just about everyone in the so-called ‘international community wants rid of the businessman/politco as soon as. Their view is the real world needs to get back to the important projects like Kyoto, the ICC, etc. . . .
To my mind, there are just too many reasons for the ‘international community’ not to help Bush.
Optiuon Three - I can’t yet see one.
This is a very tricky scenario; Afghanistan, circa 1981, anyone ?
It is not that grave as of yet. This is not as of yet comparable to the Soviet invasion. There is, in my judgement, a window of opportunity that is not yet closed.
I find your comment incoherent.
Well that is true.
Optiuon Three - I can’t yet see one.
This was obviously London, I did not see it.
Option three is a semi-internationalization supported by US taxpayers pocketbooks.
It’s not exactly that clear cut.
From this
Freedom is a wonderful thing. But people need more than freedom.
Ah yes; ‘Empire troops’. The British and Romans, for example, did this with good effect.
Quite whether the notion works in the democratic/capitalist era remains to be seen but an interesting idea. e.g. Will (for example) Polish troops be happy to die for US. Inc/dollars . . so the question becomes, what would the nation of (in this example) Poland gain from/be given for serving the empire ?
Interesting . . .
Increased support doesn’t mean just more troops. the CSIS report for the Pentagon had reccomendations for a signifigant number of civilian personel. The gist of it was that if Iraq is rebuilt better, stronger, and faster, (the Six trillion dollar nation), they think that Iraqis will more readily find ways to get over the invasion of their country.
Coll,
The origins of “Islamo-fascist”:
Mr. Farah is, well… you can see how he is. He has adherents obviously. Some of them post here.
Wonderful. Ever more learned the interventions on the subject.
Actually if I may ask you to give a resume in the Recon thread. I am terribly behind work and don’t have the time.
Freedom is a wonderful thing. But people need more than freedom.
So right you really are gex gex, but just be patient.
The establishment of a lasting democracy in Iraq is an art work in progress. In a few short years we will see a shinning new star in the middle east. A nation of worth with great contributions to the larger community of mankind.
Viet Nam could have been a shinning star, had it not been for the cowardness of the hippies and the polititians and the press.
Cite, please.
Yes, by rank amateurs unlearned in the medium in which they are working and unaware
So runs the inane masturbatory fantasies in Conservo Porn. Like all Porn, it has little to nothing to do with the hard realities on the ground.
Oh, I am sure - we need only abstract away from the nationalist reaction in Vietnam, the rot from within in South Vietnam, its corruption and lack of support. Yes, indeed, it would have been a shining star, if only the hard realities had not been there.
But it is convenient to speak of ‘cowardice’ in place of hard nosed analysis.
The enemy is taking it up the ass? Are you sure of that? Even if it is so, as was said about Vietnam: The US can kill ten times more “enemies” than the number of soldiers it is losing and yet it will be the US who tires first. They are fighting for their homeland and their independence while US forces are beginning to wonder why they are there. All the rhetoric about freedom and anticommunism did not win Vietnam and I doubt they will win Iraq. The longer the situation goes on, the more Iraqis killed, the more the Iraqis will be galvanized against the invaders. The Americans can go home but the Iraqis have nowhere to go. They are fighting for their homeland.
>> apalling atrocities in recent years perpetrated against Americans and our interests.
WTF? Some Saudis did something and that justifies killing Iraqis who had nothing to do with it?
The Vietnam analogies are way out of line here. Iraq is not Vietnam. Among the differences:
[ul]
[li]Terrain. Vietnam was mountainous, with jungles and lots of places to hide. Attacks could come out of nowhere and fade away before the Americans could retaliate. Iraq is mostly flat and barren. That plays to the U.S.'s strengths.[/li][li]Rules of engagement. Part of the problem of fighting the Vietnam war was that the U.S. tied its own hands for fear of drawing China or Russia deeper into the conflict. So known supply lines like the Ho Chi Minh trail remained open. Major centers of resistance were left untouched for large periods of time. Often, targets of opportunity were ignored for fear of political repercussions. In Iraq, the U.S. can target and hit anything it feels like, and is even willing to pursue fleeing fighters into neighboring countries. Basically, the U.S. writes the rules, and so far it’s not taking much off the table. Mosques, mostly.[/li][li]Technology. The intelligence gathering capability of the U.S. military today is orders of magnitude better than it was in the Vietnam era. They can target radio transmissions almost instantly. They can fill the skies with UAVs armed with hellfire missiles. Satellites with synthetic aperture radar and infra-red cameras can spot tunnels and the heat from car engines through buildings. That makes it very, very hard for a guerrilla force to stay concealed.[/li][li]Size of the conflict. Vietnam had MILLIONS of combatants. Money and weapons flowing into the north from China and Russia. In Iraq, you have maybe 10,000 ex-Fedayeen, with a few hundred million dollars of regime funds, maybe some imported fighters, and some disaffected people willing to roll a grenade into a group of Americans for a few hundred bucks.[/li][li]Popular support of the population. In Vietnam, the Vietcong had widespread support among the population. It was a populist uprising. In Iraq, this is largely not the case. Most Iraqis think the U.S. is screwing up, and they’re annoyed about that, but there’s no sense that they’re willing to take up arms en masse and oppose the United States. Basically, they just want their standard of living improved. If the U.S. can get the electricity turned on, get the oil flowing and direct some of the money to the population, and get Saddam and break the back of the resistance, things will be fine. Granted, those are some big IFs, but it does illustrate the fundamental difference.[/li]
[/ul]
It’s interesting to compare the current guerrilla war in Iraq with the guerrilla war in Germany after WW II. It took 2 or 3 years to finally end it. http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/007763.html