New Enemy May Require New Tactics

[kskiska]

Non-Iraqis Now a Concern For U.S. Military Planners

Tuesday, October 28, 2003; Page A14

BAGHDAD, Oct. 27 -- Having focused its combat operations for months on a stubborn Baathist resistance, the U.S. military said Monday that it could be up against a new and more elusive foreign adversary after a wave of suicide car bombings rocked Baghdad.

As recently as Sunday night, Army Brig. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the commander of the 1st Armored Division responsible for security in Baghdad, said he and his staff had "not seen any indication of foreign fighters" in the Iraqi capital.

(snip)

But retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, a Persian Gulf War commander, said the challenge confronting military commanders goes far beyond intelligence networks and tactics aimed at thwarting terrorist attacks.

"As has often been noted, U.S. forces fought and won a long series of battles and engagements in Vietnam -- in the military sense -- but lost the war," Van Riper said. "The real question today is whether the administration can articulate what its overall strategy is in Iraq, and if it can -- which I seriously doubt -- does the military have a campaign plan to carry out that strategy? Too many are focused on the tactics and not the needed strategic and operational plans."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26505-2003Oct27.html

[Voltaire99]

1. Proven "tactic": withdrawal

Saves lives, too.

As for the claim that Bush cannot simply leave Iraq now - alas, even parroted by Bill Clinton at the Kennedy Center appearance - that claim is predicated largely upon saving face.

It's less applicable when there is no face left to save. Our old 20th-century alliances lie in ruins. Our credibility is shot. We're losing our shirts. The question now is how many more needless deaths are required before this obscene miscalculation is acknowledged - as, be certain, it ultimately will be.

[Tom Kitten]

2. I thought this was the flypaper strategery?

better we fight them over there than here at home? Isn't this part of the grand Bush strategery?

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. i think what they mean is

thier gonna give the order to fire on everythig that moves

[dbt]

4. Another lesson not learned in Viet Nam

What do you do when outsiders start helping the locals resist your colonial ass? How do you fight when the Bad Guys and the Good Guys look alike to your Western eyes?

Answer: you are fucked any way you turn. "Welcome back, Uncle Sam. We're just dying to show you what we've learned in 30 years."

IRAQ NAM!

:cry:
dbt

[Kinkistyle]

7. Something more recent

Do the words "mujahadeen", "Bin Laden", "Afghanistan" and "Soviets" ring any bells? Not to the Mis-Administration!

[EdGy]

5. this all sounds so familiar...

seems to me this is exactly what the anti-war movement was predicting...

Remember this?




It was all so predictable.

That's why I think it's clear that this whole Iraq thing and "War on Terror" is not about making us safer, but just the opposite. They purposely want to provoke attacks against the US to make us less secure.

Because the right-wing republicans can only hold onto power if people are afraid.

[NNN0LHI]

6. "Because the republicans can only hold onto power if people are afraid"

Yes Sir. That is the game plan. Remember "Bring them on"?

Don

[Maeve]

8. The "victors" aren't the onew to say the war is over

It ain't over until the defeated surrender. We surrendered in Veitnam by cutting our loses and leaving the country.

No one surrendered in Afghanistan, no one has in Iraq, either.