Replies

It took fifty responses to get one which actually read what I wrote and can respond intelligently.

Love reading your stuff by the way.

That's an interesting assertion, backed by dubious data. In The American Revolution, significant numbers of American Colonists took up arms on behalf of the British Army and were organized into armed formations that were large enough to be logistically self-sufficient. Based on the premise you offer here, Jefferson, Franklin and Washington all three should have hung up their spikes, hired a good barrister and cut a good plea bargain.

The data to support my assertion that we care more about the Iraqi's freedom than they do is that I don't see them fighting and dying in droves to win it. I hear stories of them running from the fight. I don't see responsible Iraqi leadership developing. Regarding your analogy to the our revolution: Well I guess the difference between the Founding Fathers in America, and us in Iraq is that it was THEIR country. I don't want to die protecting some jag-off who doesn't have enough self respect to protect himself.

Regarding question 2, you didn't seem to address my actual question. What I am referring to is the politically correct way we are fighting. This is not the way Sherman fought, or the way we fought in WWII. We attacked their civilians centers. On principle I am against fighting this way, but certain wars seem to require it. I think this is one of them.

The use of the Tory analogy is extremely flawed.

Yes, there were significant Tory military formations. But at no point were the Tories ever able to control a single colony. When the British evacuated Philadelphia the local Tories packed up and left with them. Apparently the idea of holding Philadelphia all by themselves was out of the question.

We cannot create a new Iraqi political class. Who are we negotiating with in Fallujah ? Chalabi ? The Governing Council ? Of course not. Only the local clan and religious leaders can actually speak for the people and they are not supporting our efforts.

>>>>>The data to support my assertion that we care more about the Iraqi's freedom than they do is that I don't see them fighting and dying in droves to win it. I hear stories of them running from the fight. I don't see responsible Iraqi leadership developing.

Without knowledge of what is required to develop a competent army, I'd be inclined to think in a similar vein. However, there are certain aspects of this that you should be aware of...

1) You don't develop a new Iraqi Army overnight. It requires 18 Months of training before an officer is ready to lead a US Infantry Unit. (OBC, Airborne School, Ranger School and then specialty training depending on the unit assignment such as Mortar Leaders' Basic Course, Bradley Commanders' Basic Course etc).

It takes about 12 - 15 months to train the EM's to an acceptable level of MOS proficiency. (Basic, followed by AIT, followed by specialty training for some infantry MOS.) My point is that the Iraqis did exactly what most untrained armies did. They ran like no one's business. That doesn't tell you whether they valued their freedom.

Secondly, comparing Al-Sadr ability to operate in two or three cities to the ability of Tory militiamen to own an entire colony is a flawed analogy. Remember that British forces spent their winters in Philadelphia in comfort while the Continental Army drilled at Valley Forge. Certainly, the Loyalist/British forces enjoyed significant civilian support in Philadelphia.

I commend to your reading list "Oliver Wiswell" by Kenneth Roberts. It would significantly expand your base of knowledge regarding the Tory forces during the Revolutionary War.