Can't we talk about something important, like how liberals hate God and wish he'd go away?

"Apparently our military leaders still don't believe we're fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq"

Thus spake General Drum, the intrepid and wise military leader!

I read that the cost of the war is going up based on the last supplemental request. This probably confirms why it is going up.

am, what do you think is going on?

The fact that we are conducting airstrikes as we start the fourth year of occupation is the only fact anyone needs to know to determine that we have lost this "war".

As Kevin said, bombs are the insurgents best recruiting tool. Or, maybe, second best after Abu Ghraib.

This post provokes two thoughts: first, this is exactly what started happening in Vietnam as Nixon began to implement his "Vietnamization" strategy. It killed a lot of people, but obviously didn't really accomplish anything. Second, Juan Cole has for some time argued that the US has a moral obligation to preven a full-scale, conventional, civil war from breaking out in Iraq, and that this can be done via air power and special forces (neither based in Iraq per se). Cole has otherwise been very critical of the US use of airstrikes and of the unwillingness of US media to report on their effects. I've never quite understood exactly what air power is supposed to accomplish vis a vis preventing a conventional civil war. Certainly over the last few weeks we've seen killing on a scale not far below full scale civil war; hard to see what air power could do about any of it.

It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

boronx, it is a long established fact that am doesn't think at all.

as for this news note, look, when the president doesn't understand what's going on (and he clearly doesn't), then it's hard for the Pentagon to understand what's going on. it's much easier for them to cling to the notion that we are fighting an "enemy," rather than coming to grips with the multi-dimensional unhappiness that is this demented piece of bush-ian adventurism.

You mean you don't believe Dickless Cheney's claims that the insurgency is desperate and on the brink of defeat?

You mean violence and the US response is actually increasing, contrary to what the conservative lemmings who comment here say?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Kevin, is there an info on the BDAs of these air strikes? Or do you think they are just blowing things up for the hell of it?

A review of military data shows that daily bombing runs and jet-missile launches have increased by more than 50 percent in the past five months, compared with the same period last year. Knight Ridder's statistical findings were reviewed and confirmed by American Air Force officials in the region.

Isn't interesting how this goes mostly uncommented upon by the press in general?

"War in Iraq? Isn't that just Iraqis whacking Iraqis now? sigh. Oh those hot-blooded desert people. They'll never learn."

Heyzeus! Just like Vietnam towards the end - pull the troops but bomb the shit out of everything.

Bill Maher was right. The 9/11 hijackers weren't cowards. They were willing to die for what they believe int. However, when things get too hot or complicated for the U.S., we always substitute fire power for strategy. How many Glenn Reynolds, Jonah Goldbergs, Assrockets, Limbaughs, Cheneys or Bushes have been, are willing to die for this cause?

May they all die slow painful deaths and burn in hell for eternity.

"Bombs don't beat insurgencies. The fact that we're increasing our reliance on them is bad news."

Well, that was the entire Bosnian war, and that had zero American deaths. No real nation building though.

Its more troops
Then its less troops (Murtha)
Now its troops instead of airstrikes...

Am I the only person wondering how America lost its way? This war is as pointless as it is endless. Nobody seems to have any idea of an end game. Our leadership hasn't got a clue. The Democrats should be screaming bloody murder, but aren't. They cower under their beds afraid of a President with a 36% approval rating and no plan. The people are out front of the elected officials, but neither the press nor the officials seem to notice. Iran is on the horizon. That's just what we need. Yeh, right.

"Men, it is not your duty to die for your country; it is to make the other son-of-a-bitch die for his." -Patton

Our advantages are in firepower and information. If we're using the latter to put the former to better use, that's GOOD news, not bad.

I don't expect our army to play fair and scale down just because the other guy isn't an even match.

McAnus: Well, that was the entire Bosnian war, and that had zero American deaths. No real nation building though.

Bosnia didn't involve an insurgency.

Why do you lie?

Could it be you don't really have any real evidence that would show your support for Bush and his policies are justified, so you just make it up?

Pretty much nails it.

Its more troops
Then its less troops (Murtha)
Now its troops instead of airstrikes...

First, its conservative lies.
Then, its more conservative lies.
Now, its conservative lies still.

McAnus is consistent!

McA: Well, that was the entire Bosnian war

Bosnia was not an insurgency.

Iraq is a country that we "conquered" three years ago. Remember "Mission Accomplished". We are bombing territory that we claim to control. This is equivalent to bombing Frankfurt or Hamburg in 1948.

Didn't Sy Hersh wrote about this in the New Yorker months ago? I seem to recall him writing about a new military strategy that would rely on air power as a way to reduce our reliance on ground troops in Iraq.

The Democrats should be screaming bloody murder, but aren't. Posted by: Ron Byers

They can't Ron because they never put up any resistance to it to being with. Except for Russ Feingold. Feingold/whoever in 2008?

Bombs don't beat insurgencies. The fact that we're increasing our reliance on them is bad news.

When you know you can't win... it increases the frustration... and so you drop more bombs.

Jeff II, I am with you on Feingold. Near as I can tell he is the last real American in Washington.

Keith G: The linked article doesn't talk about damage assessments. It quotes military spokesmen saying that they use precision munitions aimed only at known targets, but that's it. Take it for what it's worth.

I'm not sure it really matters all that much, though. If there's anything that nearly all counterinsurgency experts seem to agree on, it's the fact that bombing is counterproductive when it comes to defeating an insurgency. That's true even of precision bombing.

If our counterinsurgency tactics were successful, we'd be bombing less, not more. The fact that the opposite is true means either that our counterinsurgency tactics aren't working or that the military doesn't really believe we're fighting a counterinsurgency. Either one of those is bad news.

Thus spake General Drum, the intrepid and wise military leader!

Marty Kaplan has an interesting article over at Huffington Post entitled "We the Morons" that would seem appropriate to this conversation about the Iraq War and the failure of our leaders or the press to notice that we are bombing more and enjoying it less.

According to Kaplan "we are at a watershed high in Americans' hunger for political information, intensity of political feeling, and yearning to make a difference. Ironically, at such a ripe moment, the political class seems to be catastrophically out of touch with the governed whose consent they depend on."

I wonder why?

Sounds like a big portion of Iraq is the "land of no go". The doctrine of US casualty minimization for political purposes.

Either it's the beginning of a withdrawal or the beginning of a world of hurt.

Our advantages are in firepower and information.

You can scratch information. We don't know who they are, where they are, or when they are. The leaders of this expeditionary train wreck have been consistently ill informed about the situation (militarily, culturally and politically) within Iraq.

Firepower is the last resort, and that's why an increasing reliance on it is not a good sign.

Thanks Kevin. I was just wondering if BDAs would give an indication of tageting: safe-houses, munition stashes, etc. I sure hope the US military is not blowing things up just to show them who is boss.

I'm having a bit of trouble keeping track of the political Bat-Turns around here. Can we hear again from those who thought the idea of an "over the horizon" force that would come zooming in on demand was a brilliant idea?

What the hell did you think THAT would involve if not air power?

Or were we speculating on "over the horizon" door-to-door ground forces? That would be something to see logistically.

You really need to keep some note cards or something to try and stay consistent.

tbrosz

You are right, if we were trying to use an "over the horizon" strategy air power would be our weapon. Unfortunately our Hummers are still driving around the streets, taking fire. Our soldiers are still dying.

I have heard that the tactic of choice is to chase a group of insurgents into a house and then to call in air. That way the troopers don't have to risk going into an unknown. Good tactic if you have unlimited air.

What the hell did you think THAT would involve if not air power?

troops and systems that aren't based locally, but can be deployed quickly to the target area, if necessary.

it means our troops aren't sitting there as targets, right in the middle of the Iraqi's daily lives, but can show up on very short notice, should the situation call for it.

but of course you knew that, didn't you ?

tbrosz -- you and your hero stepped in it, you guys get to pick it out of your tread with a stick.

Murtha is just one congressman throwing out ideas. He's not the party and his brain farts don't have to be in tune with the party platform.

B

Murtha's "brain farts" are better than the collective wisdom of our entire civilian leadership team of Bush, Rumsfelt, Cheney ad nauseum.

no arguments there -- but I don't think anyone has a good solution for this mess. Better ones, yes. Good ones, no.

I'm just curious what the target of these bombs are. I here a lot of "they" and "them" talk; who are "They?"

Well, that was the entire Bosnian war

Look! It tries to think again!

tbrosz: I'm having a bit of trouble keeping track of the political Bat-Turns around here.

We're agile - unlike wingnuts that only turn right.

To me the real point is that if you feel compelled to increase airstrikes, the mission ain't even close to accomplished.

Hint: the bombing of Japan and Germany stopped in 1945. Truman didn't announce VE or VJ day and then say "oops, just a few more years of bombing".

This is more like the Tet Offensive. Tactically we won (cue cmdicely rant). But the American people started to realize that the "almost over" line was bullshit.

You really need to keep some note cards or something to try and stay consistent.

Thought the war was a stupid idea before it started.

Still think it's a stupid idea.

Where's the inconsistency?

We've completely fucked up Iraq. When SAS soldiers start resigning things are truly bad:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas12.xml

D. is right: Sy Hersh wrote about this as a strategy soon to be implemented by US forces, last fall in the New Yorker. The idea was that this would help cover our ignominous retreat...much as in Vietnam.

Is there such a thing as being too far ahead of the curve?

to go one step further in response to tbrosz, the point is that what's going on in iraq is an internal struggle. the purpose of an over-the-horizon force is just in case it all really goes to hell in a handbasket.

instead, we don't have a defined enemy, just a morass. Bush thinks the enemy is terrorists, or today, he thinks it's IEDs for crissake. I'm not even sure that calling what's going on an insurgency makes any sense any more.

what certainly doesn't make sense is to think that we've got an advantage in "firepower." for that to be meaningful, there would need to be an enemy over whom we have that advantage, but there is no "enemy."

meanwhile, congrats to am for continuing to demonstrate what not-thinking looks like!

meanwhile, congrats to am for continuing to demonstrate what not-thinking looks like!

Actually, I think it's called "over-the-horizon" thinking.

Or, in layman's terms; "Off-the-planet" thinking.

Well I think this makes perfect sense. We have "unlimited" munitions, and we certainly control the air. So we just drop shit 24/7, everyone stays inside, and presto! No insurgency, no grumbling about the US presence, no nothing.

It's a perfect plan. Unless you have to leave your house, I guess. But then fuck them, they shouldn't have been born in Iraq.

When SAS soldiers start resigning things are truly bad:When SAS soldiers start resigning things are truly bad

Why do SAS soldiers hate America?

Fuckin' liberal pussies....

/snark

(please don't kill me and make it look like an accident, any SAS guys who are reading this. It was snark. SNARK!)

I mentioned earlier that I have read the tactic of choice is to chase Iraqi insurgents into a house and then call in air. I said that was a good tactic, and it is from the point of view of the American troops. It is exactly what I would do if I were them. But it does have one bad side effect. Those houses are occupied. The poor folks living in those houses die just like the insurgents trapped with them. Mom, dad, grandma, little sister die on a regular basis. That is how you recruit new insurgents.

I read in a post recently that war is a necessary evil. If it isn't necessary it is just evil. The guy is right.

The fact that the opposite is true means either that our counterinsurgency tactics aren't working or that the military doesn't really believe we're fighting a counterinsurgency.

lol...

Reminds me of a famous oxymoron...

And speaking of military intelligence...

Given that 42% of our taxes go in that direction, don't you wish the whole thing was run like a business?

I mean talk about government failure....
Iraq sets the bar for t-shirt hell:

300 billion dollars and all we got was this lousy civil war...

Geneva Hague Fucking War Crime

Aerial Bombing of civilian areas during an occupation is a War Crime, dammit. Fuck censure.

There must be some kind of mistake. We can't possibly be dropping bombs (and thus killing innocents). We're the good guys. Didn't they welcome us with flowers and tiny little American flags? Didn't they? And whatever you do-- DO NOT talk about once nationalized Iraqi oil now being in private hands. That isn't why we went there. It's just a fortunate side effect. Love your president. Love the war. It's all good.

Aerial Bombing of civilian areas during an occupation is a War Crime, dammit. Fuck censure.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on March 14, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

But if guys with rpg's and military rifles are in an area, its not civilian anymore, is it?

Calling in an airstrike as opposed to storming the house and getting shot with an RPG is just self-defense.

Well, that took a brain surgeon. Until one figures out how to stop an insurgency from breeding, there is no defeating them.

But if guys with rpg's and military rifles are in an area, its not civilian anymore, is it?

Hang on - we're not talking about US cities here.

Americans are war criminals en masse.

Most of you have dodged the issue. Anybody who thinks you can have easily deploy an effective "over the horizon" ground force doesn't know that much about deployment logistics. For example, a C-17 can carry exactly one Abrams tank.

It's typical for the anti-war types to howl about American casualties that are the inevitable result of pinpoint ground actions, while at the same time wailing about the innocents on the ground that die in Clinton-style air wars.

Pick a tactic. Any tactic.

And please, let's not regurgitate "stay out of Iraq." This is a problem in Afghanistan, too.

A small article of historical interest. Contrast and compare.

It's typical for the anti-war types to howl about American casualties that are the inevitable result of pinpoint ground actions, while at the same time wailing about the innocents on the ground that die in Clinton-style air wars.

Sorry, but why did Clinton get mentioned? Sorry mate - there's a corollary to Godwin's Law which states any time a Bush supporter brings up "Clinton!" their argument is discounted.

And no, it's not just his penis.

Oh,, and 'wailing about the innocents' it just tawdry. I'll remember not to 'wail' the next time 911 is mentioned.

And please, let's not regurgitate "stay out of Iraq."

Of course, because that issue is over, isn't it.

We don't even talk about the Iraq War any more.

Old news.

This is a problem in Afghanistan, too.

Do say. Of course, if you actually had support from the local population, you could pursue a classic (and successful) anti-insurgency campaign.

But you don't.

So you can't.

You supported this war - what now?

Jeff II, I am with you on Feingold. Near as I can tell he is the last real American in Washington.
Posted by: Ron Byers on March 14, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Me too.
I've been saying this for weeks. The Dems have stared into the eyes of their enemy, and they not only blinked, but they closed their eyes, laid on their backs, spread their legs wide and handed a container of pre-warmed lube to him and whispered "be gentle, I'm a virgin."

What I don't get is - November 04 came and went. November 06 is coming, and they're still spreading their cheeks and begging for a good hard pounding.

And I'm hearing these kinds of complaints from callers to lefty-talk radio. I'm reading these kinds of posts more and more frequently. The Democrat voter base is getting more and more pissed, and the Democratic politicians are growing more and more passive, impotent, and irrelevant.

I can't imagine that they're ignorant to this growing buzz of discontent. I'm even hearing rumors of Gore running as an Independent in 08. I'm sure he'll get a lot of Dem defectors if they blow '06 (and I'm convinced that it's already too late for them to recover, no matter what scandal comes out about BushCo). If I were a Republican thinking of the Presidency in '08, I'd have a hard on right now.

I keep thinking that the best possible thing that could happen to this country right now is for the Democratic party to go away, and a new DLC-less party arise to take it's place.

I keep thinking that the best possible thing that could happen to this country right now is for the Democratic party to go away, and a new DLC-less party arise to take it's place.

And how is that magically supposed to happen - I thought you guys were part of the "reality-based" crowd?

Pick a tactic. Any tactic.
Posted by: tbrosz on March 14, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, please.

RummyBush's tactic seems to be:
Enough soldiers to piss them off, enough hardware to bankrupt us, enough panic to justify the sense of urgency, but not enough of any of it to get the fucking job done.

500,000 troops, or zero troops. Do the job right or don't do it. Iraq was an optional war of choice. Most people *knew* that beforehand. The rest, who didn't, were lied to.

And don't bother with the tired "but we don't have 500,000 troops" argument. It's bullshit. We're a nation of 300 million. You recruit, you train, and after the required time to get it done, you THEN send in the troops. There was no reason to rush to war, other than to preserve the illusion of urgency based on the lie of WMD. Perhaps had we waited two years to get up the proper troop levels, we would have found out through inspections that there was no WMD, and the invasion would have been found to have not been necessary at all. Doesn't that sound Fiscally Responsible? That should resonate with a true conservative. Unfortunately, there are none left in the Republican Party. Just assholes who like to complain about evul librulz.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm

This may be "they or them"

Tom, you're a fuckwit and more incoherent than usual tonight.

I'm sorry we have humiliated you and your wannabe military knowledge by being correct about Iraq at every turn: about not invading, about the tactics, the profiteering, the human suffering, the debacle -- everything -- and that all your smug inside baseball and predictions about Operations and milblogs have just turned to ashes in your mouth. I don't know what to do about that. We can't help being right. But desperate attempts on your part to wring semantic points out of convoluted arguments that misstate our position just make you look bad.

Unfortunately for you, Bushian logic dictates that your tactics are those of a desperate dead-ender and that the rest of us are on the verge of victory.

Our trolls seem to be missing some important points from the article:

Bombing populated areas may kill or injure innocent civilians.

Many Iraqis are part of tribal societies. Kill one of their own, and they want to kill you and several of your family.

So bombing insurgents may lead to more Iraqis turning into insurgents.

Doesn't this seem counterproductive in the long run?

(Why bring up Clinton so much, unless you're hoping against hope that Iraq will turn out as well as the Balkans did? They've still got problems, but everyone here would sure as hell rather live in Bosnia or Kosovo than Iraq.)

They are dropping that ball out of Phantasm. You remember this one:

http://www.anchorbay.co.uk/phantasm/images/PhantasmSphereClosed.jpg

Neo:

Interesting link - the NSA has been alerted - I also noticed the "Feingold censure motion" at the bottom of that page. How did that work out for your side, when Frist offered multiple opportunites to VOTE on it, and the Democrat leaders turned him down?

Librul:

Was it counter-productive in Japan circa 1945?

Was it counter-productive in Japan circa 1945?

Excellent point.

Just not for this discussion.

Why is that, floop - the title is "Bombs Away" - did we drop nukes in Iraq while I wasn't looking?

It's typical for the anti-war types to howl about American casualties that are the inevitable result of pinpoint ground actions, while at the same time wailing about the innocents on the ground that die in Clinton-style air wars.

And it's typical of tbrosz to continue to cheerlead for this clusterfuck, as long as he doesn't have to serve, and the President insists on paying for the war with a tax cut.

As an aside, I'd hazard a guess that far fewer civilians die in Clinton-style air wars than Bush-style air wars. Which is, of course, what all this is about.

tbrosz loves to quote the statistic about the C-17 and the M1 tank. So what? A heavy tank is excellent for destroying Soviet armor but of limited use in counterinsurgency or in small-unit action in a populated city.

tbrosz' reflexive water carrying for this mendacious, incompetent and corrupt administration is only one example of why you just can't trust Republicans with national security. Shame on you, tbrosz.

I've been saying this for weeks. The Dems have stared into the eyes of their enemy, and they not only blinked, but they closed their eyes, laid on their backs, spread their legs wide and handed a container of pre-warmed lube to him and whispered "be gentle, I'm a virgin."

Oh, please, OBF, this characterization is hardly accurate.

The Dems have done what you described far too often to be charitably described as "virgins."

Mar 14, 2006 9:00 pm US/Eastern

More U.S. Troops Moving Into Iraq

(CBS) March was supposed to be the month when the U.S. commander in Iraq made a recommendation to pull more troops out of Iraq. Instead, he has asked for more troops to be sent in.

With 133,000 American troops already in Iraq, an armored battalion of about 700 soldiers kept on standby in Kuwait is beginning to move north toward Baghdad. U.S. officials say Gen. George Casey asked for more troops because of a convergence of events, and danger, surrounding the third anniversary of the American invasion.

Huh. The Pentagon is moving an over the horizon force into Iraq to respond to contingencies. Go figure.

Don't they know tbrosz thinks this is just madness?

Why is that, floop - the title is "Bombs Away" - did we drop nukes in Iraq while I wasn't looking?

Sorry, did you drop bombs in Japan after the occupation by US troops in 1945?

No?

Then that situation would be somewhat different from this situation, wouldn't it.

That situation, in which a country surrendered and was then occupied.

As opposed to this situation, in which US troops are dropping bombs on an occupied country as part of anti-insurgency operations.

I'm sorry, I can't make it any clearer than that, actually.

For further information, look up 'Strawman' in a dictionary.

floopmeister:

Every situation is different than another. Here are the points that Librul believes "trolls" seem to be missing again:

Bombing populated areas may kill or injure innocent civilians.

More died on August 6 and 9, 1945. Gen. MacArthur took some time even after that to get things in order.

Many Iraqis are part of tribal societies. Kill one of their own, and they want to kill you and several of your family.

Have you heard of kamikazi pilots?

So bombing insurgents may lead to more Iraqis turning into insurgents.

Maybe - if so, we will have to kill or otherwise defeat them too - see me in 60 years for the final judgment.

Have you heard of kamikazi pilots?

Have they been attacking the Pacific Fleet again? Dirty Japs! What will we do now kaptain amerika?

Hey floop, Karl doesn't meet the minimal coherence requirements to qualify even as target practice. Drop him.

Many Iraqis are part of tribal societies. Kill one of their own, and they want to kill you and several of your family.

Have you heard of kamikazi pilots?

Yep, you're an idiot.

Since when was Japan a tribal society? It was feudal - at least up until the opening of their society to the outside world and its rapid industrialisation.

Are you seriously trying to argue that kamikaze pilots, sworn to die for a divine ruler representing the nation, are equivalent to tribal members following the logic of a blood feud?

Next you'll tell me all the members of al Qaeda are in the same tribe.

Do you realise how silly this makes you sound?

So bombing insurgents may lead to more Iraqis turning into insurgents.

Maybe - if so, we will have to kill or otherwise defeat them too - see me in 60 years for the final judgment.

You've already lost this war, boyo. I'd spend my time thinking up ways to blame liberals for the defeat, if I were you, rather than spouting strawmen.

Hey hang on - you're not the actual scarecrow from Wizard of Oz, are you?

"If I only had a brain..."

Brooksfoe - yeah, but it's a slow day at work and it's nearly 5pm, so...

With regard to bombing, it would be nice if we could get a clear sense of how good the targeting information is, and how often it kills innocent bystanders. Judging from the images from Baghdad hospitals during "shock and awe", even attacks on targets you've had months or years to gather intel on often lead to dead families or kids with no arms. (Obviously these images were never shown on American TV news, but if you were lucky enough to get one of the networks that actually had cameras in Baghdad during the invasion, Al-Jazeera or a couple of intrepid European freelancers, you saw what actually happened. Of course Al-Jazeera pulld out after a smart bomb got dropped on their offices, killing an onscreen reporter on the roof. The same day, another Arab channel got bombed too. Both bombings were "targeting errors". I love how the war's defenders say the targeting procedures are virtually infallible and cause no collateral damage - except when they drop a bomb right on an Arab TV bureau, in which case it's an unfortunate targeting error.)

I digress...Judging by the fact that 40 years later we still can't get a clear admission that US shelling and bombing in VC-controlled areas killed huge numbers of innocent civilians, it seems unlikely that we'll ever learn anything clearly about what the bombing today is actually doing to Iraq.

Apparently our military leaders still don't believe we're fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq. Either that, or they simply don't know how so they're using air strikes instead. Or else they've given up and are just trying to hold things together until they finally get the word to withdraw.

Muqtada al Sadr is also wondering about the state of the mission:

BAGHDAD: Radical Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr yesterday blasted US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for keeping US troops in Iraq while saying they would not be used in case of civil war.

“May God damn you. You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you won’t interfere,” Sadr told a news conference.

“What’s the point of you staying here if you can’t even protect or help people?”

Generally it seems these airstrikes are used to hit targets identified on the ground.

Unfortunately, it only takes one guy with a gun firing out a window five minutes ago for them to level the whole building.

...Nevermind who else might be in the building.

Do you realise how silly this makes you sound?

Unfortunately for all involved, Hebephrenic Schizophrenia prevents Cheney ("Karl") from recognizing this at all.

If there hadn't been so much media stationed in New Orleans and the Gulf coast in the aftermath of Katrina, the Bushistas would probably have gotten away with saying that Katrina was, that in its last throes, that we're winning the war on flooding etc.

I think if anyone looked very hard, they'd find out why people like Hillary Clinton (and quite a few other Democrats in Congress) are happy to stay in Iraq while public support is collapsing. Perhaps someone should.

I've been saying this for weeks. The Dems have stared into the eyes of their enemy, and they not only blinked, but they closed their eyes, laid on their backs, spread their legs wide and handed a container of pre-warmed lube to him and whispered "be gentle, I'm a virgin."

There are two parties in the USA - the Plutocrats and the Patsies. The first exists so the rich get richer, and the second exists to defuse democratic revolt against the policies of the first.

Our advantages are in firepower and information.

How much information do you need to bomb a city? Is it likely to get up and walk around when you're not looking?

Frankly, the insurgents must love this tactic. You're being chased by the US Army - you run in someone's front door, run out their back door and five minutes later their house gets flattened by massive airpower, killing a family of innocents, and motivating an entire tribe to join in the fun.

What and who the hell are we bombing?

Commander Kevin Drum, a noted expert on military tactics, is planning military strikes from his cushy location at the Laguna Nigel Country Club.

I wonder if Commander Kevin Drum is consulting with that other notable military genius, General Matthew Iglesias. General Iglesias, of course, plans military strategy from a croissant and espresso deli in Westchester County.

Someone calling himself BigRiver, whose qualifications include...nothing, as far as anyone knows, has taken it upon himself to decide who can and can't express an opinion about whether bombing works well at ending insurgencies. He doesn't actually attempt to prove that bombing can end insurgencies, of course; that might require some evidence and some thought.

Windhorse:

Unfortunately for you, Bushian logic dictates that your tactics are those of a desperate dead-ender and that the rest of us are on the verge of victory.

Are you sure the word "victory" is what you're looking for? A bit revealing, isn't it?

Funny. I don't feel desperate. As for military knowledge, I'm not an expert, but compared to some others here, I do pretty good.

Do you really consider the force moving up from Kuwait to be analagous to any kind of a quick-response force? When are they due in Baghdad, and if they were responding to specific terror attack, how long would the attackers be gone before they got there?

Wise words. I have nothing to add these... so I'll repeat them so that the 34% who are delusional Americans can continue fly the flags from their pickups and hail the commander and thief.
--

Ron Byers:
Am I the only person wondering how America lost its way? This war is as pointless as it is endless. Nobody seems to have any idea of an end game. Our leadership hasn't got a clue. The Democrats should be screaming bloody murder, but aren't. They cower under their beds afraid of a President with a 36% approval rating and no plan. The people are out front of the elected officials, but neither the press nor the officials seem to notice. Iran is on the horizon. That's just what we need. Yeh, right.

Has anyone considered that some of the wrath of local citizens might be reserved for the militants and terrorists who forcibly take refuge in people's homes while under fire?

The number of local tips leading to insurgents and terrorists has been steadily increasing.

The end game has to be local. In that the elected representatives of each community has to decide to abandon their militant elements and come together.

They have to come to a consensus that reflects their relative power without the US around for the US to leave without further violence.

In this case, the US should stay well away.
Until militant Sunni's and Sadr's boys discredit each other relative to moderate Sunni's and Shiite's by attracting collateral damage onto their supporters.

Besides, this is Sadr remember? You use to claim he was an Iranian pawn, Now he's calling for help.
Good sign.

For anyone who's interested in how we could have avoided the deadly period of directionless incompetence at the beginning of the occupation, the papers that came out of the State Dept's long consultative process with experts and Iraqi expatriates over how to reform a post-Saddam Iraq are here:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/state/future_of_iraq/

Would've been nice if the Pentagon had bothered to read them. The chapter on "Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration of Paramilitary Forces" in the Defense Policy section is particularly well written and interesting.

He [Gen Whitley] added that Phase IV "did not work well" because the concentration was on the invasion. "There was a blind faith that Phase IV would work. There was a failure to anticipate the extent of the backlash or mood of Iraqi society."

There was no "failure to anticipate". Cheney and Rumsfeld never really bought the neoconservative hype - they just wanted Saddam out, and Chalabi in. Chaos served that agenda. There is documentary evidence that neoconservative analysts were predicting an insurgency in Iraq after an invasion several years before 2003.

End game is just around the corner, and I don't mean Iraq, which will be a continuing crisis for some time, not to mention strategic failure. We must make sure Americans have not died in vain for lies, and that those responsible are held accountable by the freest people this modern world has ever seen. The dead-enders defending failure and deception in the name of patriotism should reread the history of liberty, deny the centralized surveillance authoritarian Fear State, regain their ideals, and stand up for them.

Major combat operations are over.

Polls show that American servicemen largely believe that Iraq was responsible for the September 11 attacks, and many Iraqis continue to attack and kill our soldiers. They are the enemy. Bombs away!

They remain stubbornly ungrateful for our gift of invasion and shoving prepackaged democracy down their throats at the point of a gun. Bombs away!

The only sane thing to do would be to admit this was a mistake and pull out. Only someone completely out of touch with reality, of course, could expect such sanity from this administration.

hey they're just doing what they do best. Never mind that its ineffective, it makes the commanders feel good...its down right sexy for them blowing the shit out of innocent people, turning cities to rubble. Hell its better than shooting the elderly in the face.
.

These are war crimes committed against civilian populations. The men who ordered these bombings should be put on trial for war crimes. Plain and simple.

When are they due in Baghdad, and if they were responding to specific terror attack, how long would the attackers be gone before they got there?

uh... they're not supposed to be responding to "specific terror attacks" - that's what the Iraqis are for. i mean really, how could you forget about the dozens of Iraqi brigades? our troops might be needed to stop the country from disintegrating into total civil war, but the Iraqis are going to have to learn to police their own country - you're not signing us up to be their police force, are ya?

oh, and McA, kindly limit your troop deployment fantasies to your own countrymen.

Kevin, you've been scammed. Those quotes surely were picked from on old WWII era newspaper.

Exhibit A from First Draft:

“Yet another reason why US forces should be removed from Iraq immediately: our "commanders in the field" are willing to wipe out an innocent family of eleven in order to capture a single insurgent.

Eleven people -- most women and children -- were killed when a house was bombed during a U.S. raid north of Baghdad early Wednesday, police and relatives said.
The U.S. military acknowledged four deaths -- a man, two women and a child -- in the raid that they said netted an insurgent suspect in the rural Isahaqi area, about 50 miles north of the capital.
''The killed family was not part of the resistance; they were women and children,'' Ahmed Khalaf said. ''The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death.''
Police Capt. Laith Mohammed, in nearby Samarra, said American warplanes and armor were used in the strike, which destroyed the house. The 11 people inside were killed, he said. “

Problem is, all of the bush worshipping war loving cowards won't enlist.

o_b_f: The Democrat voter base is getting more and more pissed, and the Democratic politicians are growing more and more passive, impotent, and irrelevant.

So many are covert Republicans anyway. Take Lieberman and Landrieu...please.

“It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people.” - Gore Vidal

"It's typical for the anti-war types to howl about American casualties that are the inevitable result of pinpoint ground actions, while at the same time wailing about the innocents on the ground that die in Clinton-style air wars."~Tbrosz

Heartless war- and death-loving bastard.

It's bad enough when bloviating politicians from Washington second-guess military strategy.

Gee, Paddy, bloviating politicians started this "war".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060315/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_violence

Building allies, one body at a time . . .

"Bombs don't beat insurgencies" - Kevin.
"Car-bombs beat Democrats" - Jay

Stephen Kriz has the absolute gall to call for our military leaders to be charged with war crimes because of some bombing runs in a war zone yet we have heard not one single call from that brain dead moron for the murderous Islamic Jihadists to be charged with crimes when they shoot school children in the back and blow up commuter trains in London and Madrid. Great example of why so many people do not trust Democrats to do anything except fester in their own feces.

BTW, the Iraqi military and security forces combined with the mullahs and the Iraqi government have successfully thwarted a major up-rising which is a turning point towards success. Put that in your pipe and smoke it because that fact does not loom well for the Democrats in '06 or '08.

I don't often directly disagree with Kevin, but the statement "bombs don't beat insurgencies" struck me as too typical of post-Vietnam liberal thinking, particularly in the drawing of wrong lessons depeartment.

In Vietnam, the vast majority of our bombs missed everything. Those that connected caused the great majority of Viet Cong and NVA casualties.

In Iraq, we are bombing more in recent months because we are getting more leads on worthwhile targets. If you don't believe that killing insurgents ultimately defeats insurgencies, you ought to have a gig on the History channel, where idiots prattle on about how insurgents who fight via guerilla warfare tactics "always" win.

If that were the case, the Roman Empire never would have been established and I wouldn't be living near a Native American casino, because the Muckleshoot tribe would have never lost the land on which my house is located. It would still be a pristine field of wild rye and blackberries.

The U.S. Marines and Army did a remarkably good job of suppressing the Phillipine Rebellion 1899-1905 and a revolt in Nicaragua a little later.

Last I heard, the Sandinistas in El Salvador had to give back most of the properties they expropriated for themselves. Is the IRA winning in Ireland? The Boers in Africa fought a classic insurgency against the British and were put down hard by absolutely brutal tactics by the British army, which became a factor in German resentment of Britain leading to World War One.

Barring major intervention by Iran, what we are really seeing in Iraq is things settling down to a wary stalemate. Eventually the American air activity should taper down as well, probably fairly dramatically in the next few months.

All bets are off if Iran tries to sneak major military units into Iraq, of course.

To some extent, the problem seems to be linguistic. "Profit" is synonomous with "winning" in many languages, e.g. vinst in Swedish. Certainly the dumping of ordinance on Iraqis has been profitable for our defense contractors. And with the old stuff being cleaned out, their possibilities for building and selling more ordinance to the Pentangon just keep on improving. For GE, Raytheon, MD, etc. Iraq has been and remains a "winning" proposition.

The more interesting issue behind George Bush's claims that we are winning in Iraq is not what he means by "winning", but who he means by "we".

To tbrosz about 6 feet up.

Why do you keep asking for a Democratic solution? Unless we are looking at the exact same thing in 3 years, it's completely irrelevant. The Bush solution is all that matters.

All questions of what tactics work aside-- Does it indicate that we are making progress when the number of airstrikes is increasing (three years in a supposedly autonomous country that we occupy) ?

Hard to do much rebuilding when you're still dropping bombs.

It would be interesting to know what the targets are.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICK/is_4_14/ai_75578180

"To put it simply, air control meant substituting aerial bombardment for the traditional ground-based punitive expedition. Airplanes could reach the object of the expedition (e.g., the tribal headquarters or main village) very quickly. Airplanes had an impressive amount of firepower and the capability to inflict serious harm upon rebellious natives. Since disruption and destruction were the goal of a punitive expedition, a small force of airplanes proved cheaper and more efficient since it could inflict as much damage as a large and cumbersome ground-force expedition."

Yes, we're reliving the British occupation, step by step.

yet we have heard not one single call from that brain dead moron for the murderous Islamic Jihadists to be charged with crimes

that's probably because it's so fucking bloody obvious that it should go without saying.

uh... they're not supposed to be responding to "specific terror attacks" - that's what the Iraqis are for

cleek is exactly right, an over the horizon force is obviously not meant to respond to terrorist attacks. Either that's shameful misdirection or humiliating lack of military knowledge, take your pick.

No, it SHOULDN'T go without saying cleek. It needs to be said everyday by everyone on this planet. These extremists are running around killing innocent people everyday and nobody on this planet has the balls to call it for what it is - MURDER. These people are not fighting an occupation, they are not freedom fighters nor do they represent Islam. They are murderers and if every single nation and person on this planet rose up to defeat it, we could save lives by the thousands. But no, too many people are too politically correct, too scared and too interested in political posturing for their own selfish purposes. That is what is so fucking bloody obvious.

Ah, missed all of that inspiring military expertise of our resident military authority, General Cratogeomys from the Geomyidae command.
Our resident Yellow-Faced Pocket Gopher used to walk past the ROTC marching drills when he was trying to become a Golden Gopher. By osmosis, he learned so much in military tactics. Now, that he burrows in California, playing with the Salinas guys from the Thomomys bottae branch, he comes back from hoarding to explain why he knows so more than General Zinni.

Where is Bill Murray when you need him?

Once a pest, always a pest.

These extremists are running around killing innocent people everyday and nobody on this planet has the balls to call it for what it is - MURDER.

you are either lying or crazy.

. But no, too many people are too politically correct, too scared and too interested in political posturing for their own selfish purposes

sing it, kettle.

" . . . nobody on this planet has the balls to call it for what it is - MURDER."

Bullshit. It's done all the time, and if you were literate, you'd know this. You're just throwing up chaff to distract from the real discussion, which is whether we are any better when we murder a dozen innocents every time we kill one terrorist.

Smarter trolls, please.

The morons chime in right on cue. The minority fringe of the minority party who have yet to see a car bomb they wouldn't surrender to are now saying that they know the difference between murdering and defending, except for Joel, of course I don't expect anything from that human feces. You are all a bunch of hypocritical liars to boot in that you continuously blame the deaths at the hand of extremists on the US for "illegally invading" their peaceful country. That is a fact you can not run from, though you run from everything else so why should I expect anything different.

How about if we consider all of the people in Iraq as detainees in Gitmo struggling for their freedom. Now there is a scenario that the Democrats might actually fight for.

BAGHDAD: Radical Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr yesterday blasted US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for keeping US troops in Iraq while saying they would not be used in case of civil war. “May God damn you. You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you won’t interfere,” Sadr told a news conference. “What’s the point of you staying here if you can’t even protect or help people?”

It's a sad day indeed when a violent imam like Al-Sadr sounds far more reasonable, rational and sane than the US Secretary of Defense.

By the way, as long as Al-Sadr is always identified as "radical cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr" in news reports can we also start to refer to "radical President George W. Bush" or "radical Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld"?

I realize that it is an exercise in futility to point out a fact that does not fit the "Cut-and-run-Feingold" agenda but Kevin might read this story. Aside from the misleading headline, note later in the story where it says "
"Troops were engaged by enemy fire as they approached the building," said Tech. Sgt. Stacy Simon, a military spokeswoman. "Coalition forces returned fire utilizing both air and ground assets."

Notice the "air and ground assets" comment ? The Air Force is circling high above so ground pounders can call in JDAM munitions when they find a nest of insurgents. Naturally AP asks the Iraqi insurgents for their version and emphasizes it. However, you can find the truth if you look hard enough.

Now you can return to the regularly scheduled moonbattery.

tbrosz: Funny. I don't feel desperate.

That will be because you haven't been in Iraq yourself for the last three years, you contemptible coward. You're loving this, as long as it's other Americans who have to do it and not you.

But it doesn't really matter what twists and turns you put on the war you wanted, in March 2006. What counts is whether you were predicting any of this in March 2003. And you weren't: your story has changed every month for the last three years, from "cake walk, out in six weeks" to "no problem, three years is just fine". I bet you're not desperate. Like a lobotomy patient, you live in the eternal present, and Oceania has always been this way.

So were cowards Jay BFD don't bitch at us you guys wanted war, Presto Grand Wizard Bush gave it to you enjoy it. We'll sit around the campfire pass around a dobie and enjoy our first ammendment rights. So piss off mate.

They are murderers and if every single nation and person on this planet rose up to defeat it, we could save lives by the thousands. But no, too many people are too politically correct, too scared and too interested in political posturing for their own selfish purposes. That is what is so fucking bloody obvious.

This sanctimonious and maudlin post just begs the question:

What the fuck are YOU doing about it?

Answer:

Like most Chicken Hawks - NADA.

FYI - All the people can rise up all they want, but it won't mean shit if the Iraqis won't fight for themselves. Our troops would be home right now if all those Iraqis who yearned for freedom from Saddam would rise up and fight those terrorists and insurgents. But they aren't. So we continue to do their fighting for them. And will continue to do so until those Iraqis take matters into their own hands.

I'd like to thank Kevin Drum and all the lefty posters here for reminding me why I don't like the Demcratic party.

Kevin "Cat blogging" Drum is a metrosexual country club blogger in Orange County, but he thinks he knows more about military strikes than the generals actually on the ground. Most of the lefty posters in here will listen to loud-mouth Washignton poiticians but sneer at the generals actually in Iraq.

And these morons wonder why Americans don't trust them on national security issues?!

I trust the generals on the ground.

You Dems can have your loud-mouth politicians (Kennedy, Murtha) who bloviate from thousands of miles away.

". . . except for Joel, of course I don't expect anything from that human feces."

Very impressive, Jay. Did you have to remove your finger from your nostril in order to type that?

Smarter trolls, please.

oh Jay, if you were any dumber, you'd have to wear a helmet.

"I'd like to thank Kevin Drum and all the lefty posters here for reminding me why I don't like the Demcratic party."

Save it, PW. Nobody here gives a flying fuck why you don't like the Demcratic [sic] party.

Smarter trolls, please.

And these morons wonder why Americans don't trust them on national security issues?!

Rasmussen (2/06):
"Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President."

Oh boohoo Paddy whack doesn't like the lefties, Does that mean your not gonna make this months mortgage payment for me? No, then you can piss off too! Freaking conservatives whiny victim crybaby motherf*ckers.

They are murderers and if every single nation and person on this planet rose up to defeat it, we could save lives by the thousands.

So when are you enlisting and heading over to Iraq? Oh, that right, you're just another cowardly pussy chickenhawk who doesn't have the balls to fight for a cause he supports.

I never thought we should have invaded, and I think we should get out. I can't think of any better way to support the troops than not sending them into a no-win situation and getting them stuck in the middle of a civil war.

Oh, and how are those oil revenues doing at paying for this debacle? Three years and still nothing, except BILLIONS from us. Great use of our tax dollars.

Naturally AP asks the Iraqi insurgents for their version and emphasizes it. However, you can find the truth if you look hard enough.

from CNN: "A U.S.-led raid on a suspected site of terror network al Qaeda in Iraq killed 11 civilians -- including five children -- according to Iraqi police"

so, the police are the insurgency ?

(CNN) "A U.S. military spokesman said a suspected insurgent, two women and a child were killed."

at 3 civillians for 1 insurgent, the country should be pretty much unpopulated by the time the insurgency's gone. that'll be nice - for Iran.

I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. These questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.