[bdeaner]

Only a matter of time

[Tijeras_Slim]

They're seriously outnumbered unless you count the fifth column of leftists, reporters, and other vermin giving them aid and comfort in our own streets and schools.

[woofie]

Wait ...Time magazine and the left is rooting for the insurgents...maybe they will win

[Mich0127]

I think the Liberal media will be sad to hear this
Think they are still rooting for the infidels?

[concentric circles]

"The outcome of the first reported battle since the end of major combat operations in Iraq suggests victory may be closer than most Americans dare to hope."

"...the Fedayeen Saddam ambushed two convoys... in Samarra... The attacks were well planned and coordinated. The attackers were brave. The attackers died like flies."

"...Martin Sieff of UPI thinks it was a premature escalation based on rising confidence."

"...But because seeking a standup fight with the U.S. military is a stupid thing to do... the attacks more likely were motivated by desperation...."

[Siegfried]

Martin Sieff of UPI thinks it was a premature escalation

Ooooh, I hate it when that happens.

;-)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The issue is political, and the issue is in the U.S. That's how the NV prevailed in the mid-1972s, and that is how the Saddamites are trying to win now.

But in the 1970s the U.S. had a McGovernite Democratic majority in Congress--and much greater public naivete' about the nature of journalism. Back then Walter Cronkite was seriously considered the most trusted man in America. Now there are Republican majorities in Congress--and Walter Cronkite is just an acknowledged leftie commentator.

The Republican party is, ironically, now centered in the formerly solid Democrat South--which is acquiring congressional seats and electoral votes at the expense of the Democrats' base in the Northeast. And now we have FR, talk radio and the Fox News Channel to balance our political discourse.

Whether or not the Saddamites understand that, they are betting on filling an inside straight. And even though they hope to cause political problems for Bush by inflicting otherwise meaningless casualties in Iraq, the political effect of any likely success might not help their allies in America. The latter could so easily overplay their hand . . .

[Blood of Tyrants]

"In addition, the guerrillas understand that their resources are limited and that attrition, over time, plays against them."

Not only attrition from masulties but attrition from men just getting tired and disillusioned and simply walking away. Pretty much like it happened in Germany after WWII.

[JoeSchem]

John Kerry voted in favor of the war resolution, now foulmouths Bush for 'botching' Iraq, and will probably be all in favor of Iraqization come Spring.

[polemikos]

because seeking a standup fight with the U.S. military is a stupid thing to do, Stratfor, a private intelligence service, thinks the attacks more likely were motivated by desperation.

Haven't read the original Stratfor report, but this conclusion is nonsense. "Stupid" is a relative term when dealing with Islamakazis. It may be "stupid" from a western military perspective, but they are intelligently following the Islamakazi system. Success is killing the enemy even if it means dying in battle. If hopelessly outgunned they'll surrender, but only to fight another day. It's The Islamakzi Way^TM

If this attack was by mujhadeen/jihadi irregulars, they are as motivated by the presence of American targets as anything else. The presence of cash, reporters, local supporters, and some larger strategic issues, like influencing American media reports (give me a break) would just be icing on the cake. Most of them believe that firing from a crouched or prone position is unmanly. And I've seen multiple commentaries that 90%+ of the munitions they fire in a firefight aren't even aimed -- it's the primitive equivalent of carpet bombing.

The mistake they made here was their assumption that a large number of their ilk in an ambush guaranteed them some Islamakazi success (killing Americans). If they had, then the op would have been a "success". They didn't so it was a failure. They'll rethink their approach. Because firefights aren't "successful", they'll continue with standoff attacks or they'll try entrapment (e.g., US convoys in narrow streets with landmines).