And how is this article intermingling some virulent anti-American diatribe with Bremer's assessment, as though they are the same report? That other nonsense, that we set ourselves up for failure with "jingoistic" slogans, is so much leftist drivel.
"Learning"? This is entirely old news. It was known before the war even began. Only, back then the story was that they were forced to watch the flick, not read the book. Also the movie Enemy at the Gates with Jude Law, about Stalingrad. The point was to scare us at how ready for another Stalingrad Saddam's army was. That's their strategy: Stalingrad! Brilliant!
The Iraqi resistance movement is believed to have a war chest of up to $1bn - with a further $3bn hidden in Syria - and it is paying between $25 and $500 for each attack on US forces.
It would seem that if Syria does not cooperate in interdiction of that money, they are a de facto enemy by Bush's own doctrine.
Dr Anthony Cordesman, a specialist on Iraq. He concludes that US soldiers are dying because of the ideological approach of the administration, and "four years into office, the Bush national security team is not a team".
I wonder how significant it is that Cordesman does not know that Bush has only been in the office of the Presidency for some two years and ten months.
US military officials said the leadership of the resistance is coming from former generals and colonels from the old Iraqi army, now disbanded, who see no future for themselves. This means that US successes in picking up the remaining 15 senior Baath party officials and military leaders pictured on the 55 playing cards will have no effect on the strength of the resistance.
Ok, fine, but what it also means is that US successes in picking up those former generals and colonels could have an effect on the strength of the resistance.
The report makes clear that there is no long-term future for the US military in Iraq
Bush has said as much from the beginning (though there have always been suspicions that the plan is a "neocon" imperialist one to use Iraq as a new Middle East base, which may have some truth to it).
"Some Sunnis and others will always treat the US as "antibody" and cannot even get intelligence up to the point where [it] will stop all attacks."
I don't understand this excerpt, it's saying that because "some Sunnis and others" will always treat the US as "antibody", that they (the Sunnis and others?) won't get intelligence up to the point where that intelligence will stop all attacks?
Okay fine, but (1) how about just stopping *most* attacks (stopping "all" attacks is a goal which can never be achieved, anywhere) and (2) isn't it the US intelligence which is really important here? I know what (I think) they're trying to say, but it's a little misleading.
Interviews with former Iraqi commanders show that while none of them had chemical weapons under their control they believed that other units did have chemical weapons.
I guess they're Lying, just like Bush
There were estimated to be at least eight resistance cells in Baghdad, each with some 25 members.
Ok so that's 200 people. Kill or capture those 200 people and the problem is solved. I'm not saying that's easy, but this article makes it sound like it's *physically impossible*. Which is weird.
Dr Cordesman points to an important flaw in US planning since mid-summer when the Interim Governing Council was established as the Iraqi face of the occupation. He says that it has delayed "nation-building" in Iraq because of divisions, personal ambitions and lack of local following.
Interesting point which should have been elaborated upon in this article.