Max Boot in the LA Times (Bug Me Not):
No wonder public support for the war is plummeting and finger-to-the-wind politicians are heading for the exits: All the headlines out of Iraq recently have been about the rebels’ reign of terror. But, lest we build up the enemy into 10-foot-tall supermen, it’s important to realize how weak they actually are. Most of the conditions that existed in previous wars won by guerrillas, from Algeria in the 1950s to Afghanistan in the 1980s, aren’t present in Iraq.
The rebels lack a unifying organization, ideology and leader. There is no Iraqi Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro or Mao Tse-tung. The top militant is Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian who has alienated most of the Iraqi population, even many Sunnis, with his indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
Support for the insurgency is confined to a minority within a minority
Stormy 70
This is why I am optimistic for Iraq. Wars take time, and patience is required. With all the crappy headlines, it pays to step back, and remember the bigger picture. The insurgents are fighting a losing battle, in my opinion.
ppgaz
Good Christ. I can’t believe what I am reading.
What does this moron think terrorism IS? It’s about moving a large enemy with a small operation.
Fewer than two dozen people brought this country to a standstill on 9-11. A couple of idiots in our own country brought the country to a standstill in Oklahoma City.
It’s not about numbers, or strength. It’s about effect.
That’s the whole POINT of terrorism, for crissakes.
Stop, already, with the dumbed down version of this situation. There is one and only thing that matters in Iraq: Who will govern. Our stated goal is to leave behind a stable, liberal democracy. Our unstated goal is that this government be, at the least, not fatally unfiendly to US and Western interests, otherwise, we’ve wasted our time.
I leave you with the words of William F Buckley, who said this recently, and on this very topic:
Democracy depends entirely upon the submission of the minority.
Words that a lot of today’s bullshit artists might want to think about.
ppgaz
Okay Stormy, put down the green chiles for a minute.
Scott M (White House liar) was not able to answer this a week or two ago, maybe you can do better?
What are the signs that the insurgency is in its “last throes?”
Would it be the steady influx of insurgents into Iraq?
The ceaseless, seemingly increasing pace of attacks?
The steady or mounting death rate?
I’m just asking.
Nash
Short form:
Dead enders.
They are on the run.
Last throes, pip pip.
It’s always darkest before the morning.
Peace in our time.
carry on
Stormy 70
I didn’t say they were in their last throes, but they are fighting a losing battle.
(Green chilis rule!, can’t put down.)
Nash
A little help here, please?
Is this one of those early-to-mid-losing battles or is it of the almost-at-the-last-but-not-the last-throes type of losing battle?
ppgaz
Okay, I’ll play along.
What are the signs that they are “losing”, again?
Caution: Before you answer, you might have to consider what their goal is.
JG
They will not stop so long as we are in the country. We just need to withstand their aggravation until this new gov’t gets off its ass. All I ask from my government is a plan. I’m not asking for a TIMETABLE. I don’t want to know if they’ll be home in six months. Tell me some milestones. What are some goals that we want to accomplish so we at least can track progress other than the administration telling us the insurgency is in its last throes, freedom is winning all that bullshit. Its insulting to me.
Stormy 70
They are dying by the hundreds, which is the way you lose a war. I don’t know at what point we are at in the battle , one can’t know an unknowable (I love Rummy). All I know is that we were told this war would take decades, and we are only in the midst of the third year. I’m glad we took the offense, and created the battlefield to meet the Jihadists on in Iraq. Kill them over there and not here.
ppgaz
Well, that’s a take. I dunno, though.
See: Northern Ireland. Israel-Palestine. Algeria.
Remember, this is not about winning territory. Not about winning hearts and minds. Not about winning a battle.
It’s about effect. It’s about unrest, churn, creating uncertainty. Terrorism is about those things.
In other words, it’s like Usenet ;-)
ppgaz
Let me put it this way:
Remember the weeks after 9-11? Think: Anthrax
Probably one guy (or gal, I suppose, theoretically). No organization. No funding. No support. Probably just some lone wolf lunatic.
With a little powder, and some stamps, he paralyzed this country.
Tell me again…. how do you “win” a “War on Terror?”
Stormy 70
I don’t know the answer to that question, we’ll have to discuss it at our restaurant. :)
Did you see my comment where I told you I was a girl? Once again, why does everyone think I am a dude? Have I no feminine qualities?
JG
‘They are dying by the hundreds, which is the way you lose a war.’
So were the NVA.
‘ All I know is that we were told this war would take decades,’
WHAT?!!!!!! Decades? Who the hell said it would take decades.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/19/rice-says-administration-told-americas-iraq-would-be-a-generational-commitment/
Not lefty propaganda, quotes about teh war and how long it will take.
Tim F
The goal of the insurgency is to destabilize Iraq. Not to conquer Iraq but to make it ungovernable. By their planning, once Iraq descends into chaos the other secular Arab dictatorships are next. Out of the chaos, eventually, will rise a Greater Caliphate. At least that’s the goal of the al Qaeda-aligned insurgents.
Baathist dead-enders just want to fight the last war, and maybe get Saddam out of the brink and back in power. The shia fighters (think Sadr) have their own agenda, Iran-style theocracy for example, and Chalabi’s rabble are just out to get rich and hone their assassination skills.
At the current attrition rate the US can hope to keep a lid on it for a year or so before our position becomes untenable and we either hold a draft or go home.
People who claim that Iraq had something to do with terrorism claim two data points: Atta in Prague and Zarqawi. Atta was in the US at the time of the alleged meeting. Zarqawi holed up in the Kurd-controlled north. Since the north was administered by, well, us, by Bush logic we should have invaded ourselves. Iraq was definitely not part of any coherent ‘war on terror’ before the invasion, but it sure as hell is now. Thanks Bush.
ppgaz
Seriously? I had no idea you were a girl. If you said so, I missed it. Not that it matters in terms of what we are talking about in here though.
Anyway, the thing is, I have no real idea either (how a War on Terror is “won”). See, I think nobody really has the answer to that question. But we have a government which insists that it does have that answer, but can produce no data or evidence from past history to support the idea. In other words, being kind to them (which is not my style, as we all know) …. what you are watching today is an experiment. At best.
An experiment. One that drains our resources, costs a fortune, kills a lot of people, takes all the air out of our own domestic politics, polarizes this country, and apparently has done nothing to reduce the level of violence in the Arab region.
I’m sorry, I have a hard time seeing that as a great victory. I see it as a potential boondoggle … one in which we are now firmly stuck, because there is no way out without hurting more people in the long run, endangering more of our own troops, and causing Dog knows that chaos and upheaval in the region.
Color me …. pissed.
Sojourner
The U.S. will run out of soldiers before the terrorists run out of bombers. Unless Bush is willing to start a draft, all the terrorists have to do is blow up a few people each day until no Americans are willing to enlist.
Looks like the strategy is working…
And I’m sure they’ve learned a lot about explosives, which will serve them well when they decide to expand out of Iraq.
I feel safer. Don’t you?
Uncle Kvetch
Is this one of those early-to-mid-losing battles or is it of the almost-at-the-last-but-not-the last-throes type of losing battle?
Neither. We are currently in the left-turn lane, about to turn the corner onto the road that will lead us into the tunnel at the end of which the light is. Everybody hold on tight, and whatever you do, Don’t Stop Believin’!
Sojourner
So when are you signing up to go over and fight the good cause, Uncle?
ppgaz
Does the tunnel have a vestibule for sentence construction?
Helpful I am just trying to be.
T
When are all you staunch pro-war posters going to enlist?
Your hypocrisy is truly staggering.
Steve Wood
Well T,
I think the US was correct to invade Iraq and impose democracy. I was over there with I MEF when Sadr was in Najaf, Zarqawi was in Fallujah and of course, the media was screaming civil war and that the US was losing. Of course those problems came and went due to the fine work by the Marines and soldiers. I was also over there during the tense election period, where again the media told me voter turnout would be very low, the US should listen to the Sunnis and not hold an election until the situation was ‘stable’ or it would most likely would be seen as invalid. Amazingly, no delay and the elections panned off. Now I’m back in the US and suddenly everyone is a brillant strategic planner–due to the execellent media coverage.
Well, let me predict the future:
1) Most of Iraq will continue to be stable
2) Many media predictions of failure
3) Constitution will be written
4) Iraqs will gain more training and more independent operating capability
5) US troop strength will continue to dwindle
6) Many more Iraqis will die
7) More US personnel will die
The US doesn’t have to win. The new Iraqi government has to be stable enough not to lose and remain a democracy when the US withdraws. I don’t know the president’s mind but my view is that is the end goal for US forces. Nothing operates in a vacuum and so far no one has mentioned independent thoughts by the Iraqis themselves. They know Bush. I also think they are smart enough to realize that help in not guaranteed after Jan 2009.
g2
Good to see an optimistic assessment for once. Though, at this point I can’t see it changing the growing public opinion against the war.
It would have helped if the rationale for going into Iraq had been spelled out clearly and truthfully from the beginning, and if the planning for the post-maneuver phase had been sound, and if so many obvious mistakes hadn’t been made along the way.
There are two rationales for Iraq that make sense to me:
One, draw in the terrs from surrounding countries, and in the process, map out their organizations and capabilities so we can go after them next. But frankly that’s pretty weak; we should have been able to scope out their organizations via the usual intel methods, and take them down where they lived via the usual covert ops methods, without causing so much chaos along the way. Instead, the present situation creates new terrs and insurgents faster than we can blow them away.
Two, establish a friendly regime in a country that holds large oil reserves, to act as a counterbalance in the event that Al Q or equivalent takes over in Saudi or other significant oil-producing countries. This makes a lot more sense and it’s a stronger arguement. It would have stirred up a hornets’ nest of opposition from liberal politicians who would have over-simplified it into “a war for oil.” That issue could have been dealt with by tying the war into a serious energy policy, such as the one Bush is promoting this year. And then we’d have had a decent national debate about energy, and the Democrats would have gotten some of their own points into the policy. And perhaps we would also have recognized the long-term nature of the engagement, and put the necessary resources into the war from the beginning.
Yes, it’s so darn easy to second-guess history. But can anyone think of a better rationale for going into Iraq? (Aside from “Saddam was a monster.” There are plenty of monsters out there, some of whom such as North Korea’s “Dear Leader” are more significant threats.)