"Barring some unforeseen development, 2006 will mark the second straight year that US casualties have declined. You won't read that in the MSM anywhere."
Spoken like a graduate of the "McNamarra/Rumsfeld War College".
Wars are not won by statistics; they are won by the application of relentless, destructive power by your military machine and the practical demonstration that your system is superior to the other guy's.
If you don't fight wars in this way, you will lose.
If you fight wars with one eye on casulaty counts and the other on press releases, you will lose.
If you fight with one hand tied behind your back (in this case, Iraqi's who's first loyalty is to tribe, sect or scumbag-du-jour masquerading as Today's Savior, in other words, unreliable allies) then you will lose.
If you allow your enemies to not only survive, but to prosper (see Usama Bin Hidin', Al-Sadr, et. al.), you will lose.
If your goal is to promote your system without making the preparations to ensure that your system will take root (i.e. holding elections when democracy and the public/private institutions which form it's foundations, don't exist as even abstract notions), then you will lose.
The goal of this war, from Day One, should have been the complete and total destruction of Ba'athist Iraq, returning it to it's natural,pristine, desert state, erasing any visible sign of the "Old Order", ensuring that the "Iraqi people" (an artificial construct to begin with) were reduced to pre-Stick Age living conditions and under such incredible suffering that resort to Islam, Ba'athism, Pan-Arabism, and a whole host of other "-ism's" were all equally unattractive options in which no one had the slightest confidence. Or the ability to advance.
THAT is war. Not "how many did we lose this month as opposed to last month, or six months ago".
The fact remains that the rush to pass responsibility off to the Iraqis, the indecent haste in which a "Hearts and Minds" campaign was begun before the shooting stopped, coupled with a cake-walk-three-week-bumrush on Baghdad (the Iraqi army can only fight those weaker than themsleves or totally unarmed peasants) blinded those in power to a universal truth; Wars are not won by guys in White Hats running a Public-relations campaign. They are won by the application of brute force.
But of course, Rumsfeld had all that 'Vietnamization' experience behind him, so it's easy to see why he wasn't up to the task. What puzzles me is why GWB didn't realize it a year or two ago. Apparently, the only message that gets through is electoral defeat.
I don't disagree with that. We removed Saddam and defeated his military using a preponderance of force. We won the war against Iraq.
If you fight wars with one eye on casulaty counts and the other on press releases, you will lose.
Precisely, which was one reason why we lost in Vietnam. It is the MSM/Dems that keep track of American casualties in Iraq and note milestones.
If you fight with one hand tied behind your back (in this case, Iraqi's who's first loyalty is to tribe, sect or scumbag-du-jour masquerading as Today's Savior, in other words, unreliable allies) then you will lose.
War is just an extension of politics. We are not fighting in Iraq against AQ and the insurgents with "one hand tied behnd your back." We are working with the democratically elected government of Iraq, a sovereign country, to maintain security and stability. We are not occupiers and our presence there is at the sufference of the Iraqi government.
If you allow your enemies to not only survive, but to prosper (see Usama Bin Hidin', Al-Sadr, et. al.), you will lose.
I agree, which is why I said that was our big mistake initially. The Iraqi government is now coming around to that conclusion.
If your goal is to promote your system without making the preparations to ensure that your system will take root (i.e. holding elections when democracy and the public/private institutions which form it's foundations, don't exist as even abstract notions), then you will lose.
We have been working with the Iraqis from the very beginning to set up their government institutions. I know personally several people who went there as advisers to the various Iraqi ministries to set up the organizational structure. I don't know what other preparations you are talking about. Provide some specific examples of what you mean. FYI: Iraq had elections under Saddam, but he won 100 percent of the vote. There was a parliament, court system. etc.
The goal of this war, from Day One, should have been the complete and total destruction of Ba'athist Iraq, returning it to it's natural,pristine, desert state, erasing any visible sign of the "Old Order", ensuring that the "Iraqi people" (an artificial construct to begin with) were reduced to pre-Stick Age living conditions and under such incredible suffering that resort to Islam, Ba'athism, Pan-Arabism, and a whole host of other "-ism's" were all equally unattractive options in which no one had the slightest confidence. Or the ability to advance.
Now you are being silly. Instead of Wombat, you should be called dingbat. And who would be responsible for providing for these people you have just dispatched to the Stone Age? What would be the international ramifications? Do you believe that the UK, Italy, or Spain would have ever agreed to be a partner to such a policy? Nonsense. Be realistic.
The fact remains that the rush to pass responsibility off to the Iraqis, the indecent haste in which a "Hearts and Minds" campaign was begun before the shooting stopped, coupled with a cake-walk-three-week-bumrush on Baghdad (the Iraqi army can only fight those weaker than themsleves or totally unarmed peasants) blinded those in power to a universal truth; Wars are not won by guys in White Hats running a Public-relations campaign. They are won by the application of brute force. .
That was the problem. We didn't pass off responsibillity sooner like we did in Afghanistan. We had a deBaathification program that actually delayed the assumption of power by the Iraqis. Bremer should have been there in charge of the CPA for a few months not a year.
But of course, Rumsfeld had all that 'Vietnamization' experience behind him, so it's easy to see why he wasn't up to the task. What puzzles me is why GWB didn't realize it a year or two ago. Apparently, the only message that gets through is electoral defeat.
What did Rumsfeld have to do with Vietnamization policy? In pont of fact, Vietnamization worked. The South Vietnamese fought on for almost two years after the last of our combat troops left. The US Congress cut funding to the South sealing their fate and the NVA violated the Paris Truce Agreement by invading. A sad chapter in our history that put millions into reeducation camps, tens of thousands murdered, hundreds of thousands of refugees including boat people, and millions of Vietnamese condemned to the oppression of a Communist government to this very day. Hopefully, we woh't repeat that regretable act again with the Iraqi people.