I've spent 21 years to date in the USAF - never have been impressed by 'intelligence' chiefs. They are weenies who offer 20 opinions at once, and always counsel against doing anything until the data is more certain.
Any reader of military history knows nothing worth trying is ever free from the possibility of failure - and there is never enough data to be certain of any decision.
They are probably right that the insurgency is growing, and will continue to grow while we maintain a strong military presence.
Here's the real question: can we keep Iraq stable enough long enough for their own government to take over, with minimal help from us?
If yes, then the insurgency will fade away.
If no, then Iraq will be better off than under Saddam, but we will have failed in our strategic objectives.
It is certainly possible that we will fail - inserting a democracy into a country whose religion is opposed to freedom (Islam is about submission, not obedience by choice) is a difficult thing. But frankly, the middle east is such a s%&#hole that you can shake it up, and almost anything that falls out will be better than what is there right now.
No one ever won anything by waiting for a certain bet. This is a gamble, but it is worth taking. Listening to intel weenies is a certain recipe for failure.
I totally agree. Also, the funding for the insurgency is coming from Iran. Iran is the biggest problem in that area and it's going to be the next big challenge for the administration.
We are definitely in a race. We would have bought a lot of time if we would have crushed the Falluja uprising several months ago.
At some point we are going to have to revisit that blown opportunity and eliminate the bad guys there in a very public and definitive way.
What I don't understand is why its taking so long to build up a decent Iraqi security force. We trained, equipped and fielded a military of fifteen plus million in about 4-5 years in World War 2. But we barely have 100k Iraqis after a year.
There's a lot of wisdom in what you say, but the one thing that hits home in the intelligence reports cited in this article is that there aren't enough "coalition" troops to pacify Iraq. Do you disagree with the contention that more troops are needed?
good response