Posted on 09/30/2003 3:35:57 PM PDT by 91B
In Iraq, our ground troop shortages meant we couldn't secure the military bases and munitions dumps & key infrastructure & put the hammer down in Tikrit & Fallujah from the get go. So the bad guys easily re-grouped, got their supplies, attained some early successes & have been given the opportunity to plan, rehearse, and adapt.
In both cases, if we hit with all we had at the beginning, there would have been no chance to adapt & re-group & get away & realize--hey! we can take the Americans!
We will win--but it will take longer than it should have & cost more lives & $ because we had a SECDEF who doesn't understand land warfare and doesn't listen to those who do.
I like the approach we're taking. Keeping it to what's needed, trying to get other nations to get in and help us out. Right now, al Qaeda and the Ba'athists might view the lack of a UNSC resolution about Iraq as an inducement to attack and further fracture what support Bush has. We get more foreign troops in there, scale our numbers down, it starts getting harder for al Qaeda (and whoever else) to attack an American. Then al Qaeda has to ask itself- how many more nations do I want to piss off by killing their soldiers? How many of my assets do I want to devote to Iraq (if I'm bin Laden) when American involvement is growing smaller, not larger?
The author doesn't mention Pakistan. That nation is going to come into the mix sooner or later as well. How do we target al Qaeda in Pakistan? You just know the Pentagon is cooking up something and that they also have some sort of contingency plan on stand-by in case it goes tits-up there and the fundies take Musharraf down.
The author does mention the elections and this is good. Al Qaeda gets a vote in the war and they certainly get a vote in the elections. I look for them to watch the political situation on the ground in America very closely. If they believe Bush is vulnerable to losing- they will try to cue their attacks in such a way as to help Clark or Dean or whoever Bush is facing come next November. Not such a big attack that everybody rallies around the Chief again but withering attacks. A steady stream of casualties for the American media and democrats to pontificate over. The democrats are, after all, more or less al Qaeda's best friend in America.
The President needs to have Iraq looking presentable come next year. Maybe not 100% ready to walk baby democracy, but at least with its hair combed, the dirt washed from behind the ears and able to sit still in polite company...
That bear repeating my screaming eagle friend. I am posting from Camp As Saliyah in beautiful Doha, Qatar. Yourself?
On 9/12/01 we should have nuked them all.
Then we could have begun the leisurely work of assassinating every terrorist left.
--Boris
Oh absolutely. That was one good point I agreed with in the article. For what it's worth, I didn't disagree with the overall gist of the article. I simply lean more towards the size force we have in Iraq. If the commanders on the ground said they wanted another division, I would totally support that. At the end of the day, they know what they need. But I also see the bigger strategic angle STRATFOR is getting at. It's not so much about whether we can maintain in Afghanistan and Iraq but what else can we handle now if it comes up?
Bush and Rummy are stuck with some pretty ugly political realities. I think the plan to get more foreign troops in place- particularly Turkish and Russian troops will have a positive impact on this equation in our favor. I'd really like to see the Turks (who are mostly Sunnis) patrolling around the Sunni areas.
It seems to me it's a lot easier to defend a border than to govern as conquerors within a hostile society. That's the logic behind the Israeli proposals of "transfer". That's what's motivated population transfers in the past.
It also imposes an enormous penalty on the losers.
For starters, the capital cities of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya.
For dessert, North Korea.
We are at war--in case you missed 9/11/01. We nuked Japan on the basis of far less provocation.
Pearl Harbor was a military base not on US soil and those killed were mostly military people. The WTC was on our soil and targeted women, children and other non-combatants.
We are at war. Get this through your head. The war is for the survival of Western civilization against barbarism. The enemy has declared the terms of the conflict: there are no innocents, no non-combatants. Very well; now we understand the rules...let us act on them.
--Boris
I'll see your bump and raise you a bump.
It's my personal belief that Rumsfeld is trapped in a world of his own making. He's a stubborn (it's not too strong a word) proponent of a limited OOB - whether for philosophical or political reasons - and yet is pushing a long term strategy which requires just the opposite, all the while writing checks on on overdrawn reserve component account. When those drafts (pun intended) reach the bank, there's gonna be hell to pay.
The more I consider it, the more I believe we missed a window of opportunity in the months after 9-11 to take a radically different approach which we're going to be wearily regretting in the years to come.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.