Almost every time I’ve heard President Bush talk over most of the last six years, I felt like the guy was speaking to me from a parallel dimension. A Disneyland, happy-face universe, where freedom was always on the march, and terrorists were just about to be smoked out of their holes. No matter how bad Iraq got, the good guys were winning. No matter how many people got blown up, everything was just fine.
Tonight was different. A visibly nervous President Bush stepped out of the Magic Kingdom, and spoke to us, for once, from the White House. He described an Iraq that matched up to the one my friends serving there describe — the one I’ve seen myself. He was honest about the challenges ahead. And he was straight-up about how his plan to settle Iraq down hadn’t worked.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation… We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq particularly in Baghdad overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraqs elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam the Golden Mosque of Samarra in a calculated effort to provoke Iraqs Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people and it is unacceptable to me.
Now, I’m pretty damn skeptical that Bush’s solution for Iraq — 21,500 more U.S. troops — is really going to turn things around. There are some intriguing elements, yeah. And there are some good, new commanders to carry the strategy out — ones who seem ready to commit to counterinsurgency’s most basic tenets. But it all seems like too little, too late.
The only way this plan even has the smallest scrap of hope of working is if it’s governed by cold-eyed reality, not fuzzy-headed wishes. So give the President credit, at least, for driving out of Disneyland.
i find it real interesting to see the comment about baiting Shias by blowing up the Golden Mosque of Samarra. Very similar to the baiting of America by blowing up the WTC.
I played this game in Nam! ( It SUCKS )
Pull everyone out that is worth a shit (forgive my language)
NUKE the PLACE! And take some of the neighbors with it.
Take the oil we ((( WON ))) the war.
Then get rid of Bush and his buddy!
We need a GOOD Marine or War Vet in this office. Of the President of the US That thinks more of our troops!
And I was not a Marine! (Army)
Number of troops IS a matter of low intensity conflict. This is not a traditional warfare with a frontline. Low intensity conflict involving guerilla tactics is spacial versus tradtional warfare being line oriented where frontlines are visual. Low intensity conflict is more about short range combat versus traditional warfare being more about long range (out range) combat. What does this all mean? It is very rare to be able to destroy mass chunks of enemy in low intensity conflict as traditional warfare where there is a frontline, where enemies wearing battle dressed uniforms with ranks and in military vehicles. In low intensity conflict, the enemy is spread out, and stealthy in terms of difficulties to determine the difference with civilians. Enemies do not often keep strongholds. If they are under attack, they attempt to escape from the surrounding enemy. In low intensity conflict, the enemy is offensive-centered, or say more concentrated in ambush. What is the solution to this low intensity conflict? Cordon and search. Surround, raid, and seal. QUANTITY of troops. It is very difficult to detect enemy until visual contact. No chunks of enemy at one spot, just like the state of osmosis, and that makes high explosive weapons more useless, and even more where civilians are concentrated in urban warfare. This state makes the low intensity conflict spacial oriented rather than lines of frontlines. Spacial oriented operations requires quantity. If there is not enough troops, the enemy will easily escape or outnumber the troops silently sneaking up and surround. Tell me what happened in the two battles of Fallujah? There were more troops involved in the second. Quality was not everything, but it may have contributed to the victory of the second. It will be the same for the next in Baghdad. There are thousands of houses and buildings to search in Baghdad. If the factor of quality is something like a stupid idea, just try to do it on your own and tell us if you can seal the area just by your own. There is a need of more troops, much as possible, for speediness to counter counter operations around the capitol, and to engage in spacial search inch by inch for every terrrorist and weapons. The troops will need to “squeeze” into the capitol from around, where there will be no room to escape. You need quantity for that. Is it possible to do it with preventing terrorists from sneaking out? Yes, there are plenty of “methods” using IT to determine rather a terrorist or not. More troops is the solution in low intensity conflict. It is spacial where no frontiles exists, and where you could just drop a high tech bomb from a stealth bomber to kill a chunk.
P.S. The hummers needed to be uparmored for the current trends of Iraq due to the state of conflict being low intensity conflict and spacial, and where the concept of “frontline” in traditional warfare gone. This is a spacial conflict where quantity matters.
I mentioned “Quality was not everything” but I meant “Quantity was not everything”. Sorry.
Driving out of Disneyland?.…sorry, ain’t so. when his military commanders balk at achieving “success” via this latest escalation, no, you cannot say that Bush is truely trying to make good. he is only grasping at straws.
going to pull forces out of Afganistan in order to prop up work in Bagdad? hey fellas (and ladies).….anybody got any idea what happened to catchin’ n killen ol Bin Laden?.….the guy who actually, really attacked us?
y’all must remember him, surely?