Most advanced military in the world is incapable of defeating a few thousand lightly armed Iraqis?

[NNN0LHI]

We have the most expensive military in the world and a few thousand Iraqis with no standing army, no air force, no navy, and after more than four years we are taking and inflicting more casualties now then ever before? Something just doesn't seem right here.

Don

[smoogatz]

1. Funny, it sounds familiar. Can't quite put my finger on it. Viet... something.

Huh. It's on the tip of my tongue...

[havocmom]

6. Vietganastan! The US and USSR both brought down by determined people

Might does not make right. Nor does it guarantee victory (whatever THAT is).

[KansDem]

2. Makes you think, doesn't it?

We've got a first-world military and a third-world government...

Not a good combination.

[bryant69]

3. If they would stand up and fight us they would be wiped up nearly immediately

We all know this. Or we should.

But they hide among civilians, and presumably we'd all be opposed to the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians to weed out those few insurgents in their midst.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pocoloco]

8. Presumably

How many of the 650,000 were civilians?

[smoogatz]

22. If they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear.

Therefore, if they're dead they must have been terrorists. The United States of America doesn't kill innocent women and children. Isn't that pretty much how it goes?

[NNN0LHI]

9. Then what do we have the trillion dollar military for?

Its rather useless isn't it?

Don

[frogcycle]

28. it's purpose is to fight the wars

that its existence deters.

not to supply policemen in someone else's civil strife

perhaps I overstate, but there is general agreement that the trillion-dollar military's rapid, overwhelming crushing of the soviet-supplied Iraqi military in Gulf War One had a pretty demoralizing affect on the Soviets, and others. They knew then that in a head-to-head (conventional) battle it would be "unilaterally assured destruction"

had we not pretty much decimated the personnel, we would pose a daunting threat to someone with designs on, say, invading South Korea as Iraq did Kuwait. We still have the air power and still have the tanks, could still mount a counterattack like GWI, but the people driving the tanks might be triple amputees.

And we could crush Iraq, if that was the mission. the 650,000 you refer to, if true, are a drop in the bucket to what would happen if we were to do to Iraq what Hitler did to London, or we did to most of Germany. And that is what it would take. "Smart" bombs or missiles that selectively take out military targets with only occasional civilian "collateral damage" are useless when there are no military targets.

Your point is pointless.

[The2ndWheel]

33. It prevents any other nation from building up arms

at a ridiculous rate. If the dead empires of yesterday, and the current military empire of today, didn't have similar interests, it would be a different world. That's the whole point of war though, to win. After WW2, which was a multi-polar war, we ended up with a bi-polar world. The SU crumbles, and we have what we have now. The only place left to go is a completely integrated world where everything is identical and all interests are the same, or the US falls apart and the world reorganizes itself around multiple centers of power all fighting for resources.

[smoogatz]

35. Not at all.

It's designed to take money from the American taxpayers and put it into the pockets of military industrialists. It works perfectly.

[Richard Steele]

10. They don't "hide among civilians". They -ARE- the civilians. They LIVE there, remember?

You really can't say they're "hiding" when they're
living in their own country, just like they were
before we invaded it.

[bryant69]

51. Yes but once they start to kill other Iraqis or American troops

than they aren't civilians, per se.

Bryant

[trumad]

18. And how would you fight against an overpowering Army?

It gorilla warfare 101. And it fucking works.

[bryant69]

50. It fucking works, eh?

And it's guerrilla war fare. Calling it Gorilla warfare might be seen as an attempt to dehumanize the Iraqis.

Bryant

[trumad]

62. Misspell on my part

and only you would make up shit like that.

[bryant69]

63. Well I'm unique.

Bryant

[smoogatz]

21. They don't fight fair, dammit.

I think that's pretty much what the British said in the late 1770's. I'm pretty sure they also said the following: How dare these dirty sons of bitches oppose being colonized by the most powerful country on earth? What the hell is wrong with these people?

[bryant69]

52. How many times did the American Revolutionaries behead their enemies

for publicity?

just out of curiosity?

I should point out at this point, that I do want us to withdraw from Iraq and I think Bush and his followers are evil for invading Iraq. But that doesn't make me like the insurgency any better.

One of the nice things about being a radical nihilist is that it doesn't bother you when both sides of the battle are assholes; since I rather believe everybody is an asshole I'm not surprised to find both sides of that conflict made up of, well, assholes.

Bryant

[smoogatz]

53. There was a fair amount of hanging and tar-and-feathering of Tory

sympathizers--does that count? Or is it just beheading that people find objectionable?

On edit: and of course the French, our allies in Indochina, were fond of beheading insurgents--both in Vietnam and Algeria. But that was okay because French people are white. Sort of.

[bryant69]

54. Oh yeah, I forgot. Anybody critical of the Iraqi Insurgancy must be a racist

Oh well, I'm already a racist, so a little more racism doesn't bother me.

Bryant

[smoogatz]

57. I don't think I said that.

There's no doubt that the several Iraqi insurgencies are incredibly brutal, as are the sectarian death-squads, etc., as are the 75,000 western mercenaries currently operating in Iraq, as is the U.S. military, even when it operates as it's supposed to. But you seemed to be trying to make the point that the "good guys" in the U.S. War for Independence were above torturing and killing civilians. You also seemed to think that beheading was a particularly exotic and Arab-specific form of violence. My point was that if you knew much about history, you'd know that neither of those things are true.

[bryant69]

61. I guess I misread this phrase

"of course the French, our allies in Indochina, were fond of beheading insurgents--both in Vietnam and Algeria. But that was okay because French people are white. Sort of."

But let's run this down.

The OP wonders why we haven't defeated the insurgency yet.

I note that the Insurgency is hard to defeat because it doesn't fight out in the open.

You compare them to the American Revolutionaries.

I dispute the comparison.

You accuse me of racism, or you point out that the Revolutionaries really are just as bad as teh Iraqi insurgents.

I accept the charge of racism.

You lecture me on oversimplifying the situation, and suggest I must not knowing anything about history.

Is that a fair summation?

In response to your latest post, I say, ok yes, I am oversimplifying. It's hard not to oversimplify when you respond in such a short post. I suppose I could clarify it by talking about all the insurgent groups, and Blackwater, and the Army and talking about how some of the insurgent groups are probably as pure as the driven snow while others blow up troops using suicide bombers and/or booby traps. But I'm bored with this already. It's a complex situation, and everbody knows that.

Bryant

[smoogatz]

65. The internet does seem to lend itself to reductive thinking.

I'm not sure why that is. Here's the run-down from my p.o.v.:

You said the most obvious possible thing about the paradox of fighting an insurgency. "If only they'd fight us the way we want them to, we'd win."

I pointed out that that's pretty much the standard line used by occupiers who are getting their asses handed to them by insurgents, and has been since at least the 1770s.

You said but but but the savage Iraqi insurgents behead people!

I said that all insurgencies use violence against (and intimidation of) occupation-friendly civilians as a weapon--even those insurgencies we agree with on ideological grounds. I also pointed out that European occupiers (with whom we agree on ideological grounds) have beheaded people they didn't like.

You accused me of accusing you of racism. Then you said yes, you are a racist.

I restated my earlier points, because you appeared not to have understood them.

You responded with further apparent misunderstanding, then said it was a complex situation (perhaps so complex it's beyond understanding, which would certainly let us all off the hook), then said you were bored.

Is that a fair summation?

But whatever. You seem not to have much to say on this subject that's thoughtful or interesting, and I have work to do. Off I go.

[bryant69]

66. I do like how you delete the Original post

From your summation; I was in fact responding to a question.

Oh well, have a good day.

Bryant

[smoogatz]

68. Oh, well then--that changes everything.

Snrk.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. That's what the Brits said about the American Revolutionaries.

And, which is what usually happened when the Americans tried to fight Brit style.

[Bandit]

56. You make it sound like there really is no war

only a law enforcement problem. Imagine if we used soldiers to do police work in America....Tell me again how many uniformed soldiers our troops have encountered...The military is designed for warfare not for police work. Criminals are not soldiers and neither are their wives and mothers and children but that appears to be who we are killing..

[NewJeffCT]

71. So, what incentive do the insurgents have to stand up & fight then?

If they knew they'd be wiped out in an open field head up combat?

To quote from the movie: "Pirates of the Caribbean"

Jack Sparrow: Put it away, son. It's not worth you getting beat again.

Will Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you.

Jack Sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?

[TahitiNut]

4. The military can't become Iraqi policemen.

It's an occupation, not a war. It has nothing to do with 'defeating' or 'winning' ... and everything to do with oppressing a population using personnel who don't even speak their language.

It's an abomination ... arguably the most shameful act of a country with plenty of shameful acts in tis history.

[havocmom]

5. Same issues that broke the USSR gonna be the end of America too

1) Greed --> putting the wealth/resources in fewer & fewer hands

2) Trying to occupy a people that doesn't want you occupying them.

There are two ways to win a war of occupation:

The majority of the occupied people actually want you there

You are willing to go in and exterminate an entire people

Nothing in between will work. If the people don't want you there, eventually, they will win or die trying. The whole enterprise is just the diversion from the heist, in this case, the US Treasury got robbed by a bunch of thugs in expensive suits.

[smoogatz]

34. There's also the small matter of Iraq's oil.

Which is worth something like 13 trillion dollars.

[havocmom]

39. Always thought part of it was cleaning the paper trail on 41 and others

who did lots of business with Saddam in the past.

The pressure to paint Iran as a target looks the same to me: oil, natural gas pipeline routes and eliminating the paper trail of 41 & company's stunts in Iran/Contra.

Since 43 so carefully shut the vault on Presidential Papers, one might do well to consider what else the gang is trying to hide. They can't shut vaults in Iraq & Iran, but they can sure as hell burn the evidence in a war or two.

[smoogatz]

43. It's the oil.

Iraq has an estimated 220 billion barrels in reserves, with much of the country still unexplored. Its oil fields are "young," in the sense that they've been minimally developed, given the sanctions regime of the 90's, etc. Iraq's per-barrel production cost is also among the lowest in the world, or would be if it wasn't so dangerous there. With oil prices running at $75-$100+/barrel, the potential return is enormous--well worth the $1-2 trillion the U.S. government is likely to invest. If you're the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, that is. All of the other stuff comes into play, sure--but the decision to invade Iraq was ultimately a very straightforward business decision, I'm pretty sure. $13 trillion is a hell of a lot of money.

[ljm2002]

36. Agree 100% with your analysis...

"There are two ways to win a war of occupation:

The majority of the occupied people actually want you there

You are willing to go in and exterminate an entire people"

This is one reason why it is so important to use language precisely. If we think of it as a war, we think in terms of winning and losing. If we think of it as an occupation, then we need to think in terms of winning hearts and minds. What we focus on informs the dialog that we have. While most refer to it as "the Iraq war", it was never a war. It was an (illegal) invasion followed by an occupation. We are long into the occupation phase, and it is clear that a large part of the population does not want us there. It is also clear that we have opened the hellgates of civil war in Iraq, and that too is expanding. And our choices are as you say. The truly sad thing is, I have heard with my own ears someone advocate levelling Iraq -- they suggested "turning the desert into glass".

Anyway: we do have another choice, which is to cease our occupation of Iraq. Enlist Middle Eastern and European countries to help with the transition -- if the Iraqis want that kind of help. If they don't want that kind of help then, fine, we leave them to it. It was never under our "control" anyway. I would also say that we owe them money, and lots of it.

Maybe an international group can help to rebuild Iraq and its economy and thereby stabilize the country. Sadly, it is almost a given that they will revert to some form of theocratic governance, similar to what happened in Iran after we meddled there.

Of course, you also nailed the real reason for all of it, which is the ongoing heist of the U.S. Treasure by a bunch of thugs in expensive suits. Thank you for stating it so concisely!

[havocmom]

40. Best choice would have been not to invade.

But, it was all about the heist. They don't have any concern about the fact that there is no way to 'win' an occupation.

Keep hoping there is some brass in the brass and they shut the war down while we still have some resources left.

Time to start making amends for the damage. It will take generations of good works to undo this one.

[Xenotime]

49. Agreed. This will bring America to it's end.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

55. I agree 100%. I made a similar comment on a thread last week. Why can't everyone see this?

[IWantAChange]

7. but Bush & Cheney said they will come to America to hurt us.....

I understand they are very strong swimmers and crossing the Ocean will be no problem whatsoever. Plus the fact that they have no sophisticated weapons to tow along makes it even scarier - especially if we don't have Republicons to protect us.

:wtf: :wtf:

[rockymountaindem]

11. This statement always kind of bugs me

I don't think it's the case. We could certainly defeat the insurgency, it would just take tactics that are against international morays, and also against international law, to do so. Heck, we could systematically level Baghdad with B-52s for a month. We could use poison gas on Fallujah. We could give our troops the freedom to fire completely at will in any situation with whatever weapons they have at hand. Of course, we aren't going to do those things and with good reason. However, I think it demonstrates a problem we've created in our own military in that it is still completely geared to defeat another modern army, not an insurgency. While that's still an incredibly important capability, I think that once this Iraq thing is over (if it ever ends :eyes: )we've got to ensure that the future US military will include more counter-insurgency capabilities. That's something that will take years to develop both technologically and tactically.

[NNN0LHI]

15. We did systematically level Hanoi with B-52s for YEARS

Dropped more ordinance on Vietnam than was dropped during all of WW II.

And we still didn't win that one.

Don

[rockymountaindem]

19. That's true enough

But we probably had a much better kill ratio in that war, if it's any consolation. I guess this all goes to show the inherent difficulty of supporting politically unpopular regiems, be they in South Vietnam or Iraq. Still, if Vietnam had been a total war like WWII the US could have attacked shipping heading into Haiphong harbor with subs, aircraft and mines. We wisely avoided that course, as it would have involved the desctruction of Soviet merchant ships and the killing of Soviet personnel. *That* would have been really bad, even though it would have gone a long way to strangling the VC's supply lines.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Yes. It's a non-sequitur.

"we have (insert noun here) yet we cannot (insert task here for which noun is unsuited)"

Our trillion dollar military is not a useful tool to "win hearts and minds" or "impose freedom". It is designed to destroy the industrial and military capacity of another developed country.

It is not well suited to impose peace on and among the people that the aformentioned destruction ruined.

[Zywiec]

20. I agree 100% RMD

The US military could defeat any nation on this earth if we ignored the Geneva conventions and fought like we did in WW2 and before. It's just not possible anymore. I'm sure everyone will line up to bash me and say we are already ignoring the Geneva conventions, but our troops are very professional. As someone said at the top, they are not fighting us, they are using hit and run tactics against us. Sure it works, and there seems to be no end to the number of nuts over there willing to blow themselves up.

We only have two options: fight a war like has been done for thousands of years, or bring all the troops home and leave it to the Iraqis. I'm voting for the latter because our military can't another year of this.

Cheers.

[rockymountaindem]

26. Good screen name/avatar combo, Zywiec!

Welcome to DU :toast:

[Marie26]

30. Honestly, I don't even think that would work.

Really, if the US starting engaging in genocide & massive war crimes, the entire population would rise against us. And there aren't enough troops there to really fight back if the entire country decides to kick us out. Sorry, IMO even the evil option wouldn't end the insurgency. The only thing that would stop the insurgency is a political solution & American withdraw. I don't really want us to get better at counter-insurgency tactics, because we shouldn't be occupying other countries anyway.

[butterfly77]

12. They are fighting the Iraqis, who he calls the insurgents...

so he will never win. Yes, some want to help there country but they are fighting each other and america. No matter how many soldiers he puts in it will do no good because they can't fight IED's.

[DinahMoeHum]

13. Very interesting piece here that will help explain why this is so.

The author is a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War: www.ivaw.org

"Hammers Can't Fix Computers - Why We Lost In Iraq" - Part 1
http://www.ivaw.org/node/568

(snip)
our military is designed to defeat another world power like the Soviet Union. The American way of war is what military scholars refer to as Second Generation or Attrition Warfare (2GW). Hereafter, I will refer to proponents of this style of war as attritionists. The idea in 2GW is to defeat other state militaries by killing the enemy and destroying their equipment. No thought is given to deceiving the enemy or undermining their will to fight, just to killing them with the most powerful weapons available. America loves to loudly proclaim that we have the best military in the history of the world, but it’s just not true. Our training is limited to a very specific set of methods, which are to be practiced without consideration to the enemy situation. Any attempt at introducing new methods is squashed. There are many reasons why, some of which will forever remain a mystery.
(snip)
The war in Iraq is what’s known among scholars as a Fourth Generation War (4GW). 4GW is war in which a state military, like ours, fights a non-state enemy, like the Iraqi resistance. It’s not just a guerrilla war because state militaries can use guerrilla warfare too. We fight the 4GW enemy in Iraq in a couple of ways, and none of them is at all effective. One tactic we use is combat patrols. What these boil down to is four to eight Humvees driving around, looking for enemy activity. The problem is that there isn’t any way to spot enemy activity, especially from inside an armored Humvee. The main weapon of the resistance is the roadside bomb.
(snip)
Our 2GW method of fighting is powerless to stop the attacks, because we can’t kill the enemy. In the course of three combat tours, my unit was attacked by hundreds of roadside bombs. You can count on one hand the total number of times we found the guy that attacked us.

There is much much more in this piece, and I guess the author is now working on a Part 2 right now, but I'll leave you with his final thoughts here:
The 2GW mindset of our military turns every Iraq deployment into one long, pathetic, tragic joke. I could go on and on about how completely pointless it is to have our 18-year old sons and daughters dying every day in Iraq and how the war was lost before it even started, but I think you’ll be better served if I stop here for now.
http://www.ivaw.org/node/568

:grr::grr::grr:

[The Magistrate]

14. The Reason, Sir, Is Pretty Simple

This is a political struggle with a military flavoring, not a straight up military fight.

Speaking of "a few thousand Iraqis" misses the important element of mass support and acquiesence short of actual armed participation. Just as behind every combat soldier in a conventional army stands a long train of support troops and civilian workers and even tax-payers that act to keep him in place on the line, behind every militant in arms is a long train of people who will shelter him, provide him information, keep their mouths shut about his presence and activities, and assist in many other ways. They will do this through some combination of agreement with his objectives and fear of the consequences of doing otherwise, but the exact proprtions in any individual involved do not matter much besides the fact of their acquiesence in his activities.

There are really only two ways to deal with a militant cadre enjoying such mass support: out-bid them for popularity among the people, or out-bid them for the title of who an ordinary person had better fear the most. In this situation, the U.S. is poorly placed to do either. Cultural differences and ingrained hostilities make the former nearly impossible, and a combination of cultural ignorance and political constraints make the latter an even greater impossibility.

[smoogatz]

27. Well said.

Though I might amend your last point to include the fact that we can only win the "most feared" award by being not just occupiers, but incredibly brutal occupiers. Which will make us even less popular in Iraq (if that's still possible), alienate our few remaining allies abroad, place our military in an even more dangerous and morally repugnant position by forcing them to commit war crimes, cost us the few remaining shreds of moral authority we might still retain in the "war on terror," and would still not in any way guarantee "victory," unless victory is defined as sticking it out long enough to pump 220,000,000,000 barrels of oil, which appears to be the Bushco plan.

[sutz12]

16. That's why it's called assymetrical warfare... nt

[HereSince1628]

23. It's called urban combat on friendly territory.

It's the insurgents' "force divider" for our "force multipliers."

Star Wars era technology is dandy on an open battlefield against a conventional army, but it's as useful as teats on a boar in this sort of combat.

[izzie]

24. Kutuzov would not fight Napoleon as he wanted and guess who won

I guess we need rules for these wars and how they will be fought. They are hardly sat. football

[Marie26]

25. Isn't that how insurgencies always work?

Israel in Palestine, US in Vietnam, the USSR in Afganistan - none of these superpowers were able to use firepower to end the insurgency by the local population. I remember, early on in the Iraq war, one general asked when superior military power has ever been able to stop insurgents that used guerrilla tactics. I couldn't think of one example, can you?

[leftofthedial]

29. defeating the insurgency is not their mission

their mission is to preserve the state of anarchy, which at present ensures maximum profits for crony capitalists

the neocons also still apparently believe that if they persist in calling the illegal occupation a "war," that it confers political benefit to king george.

[Selatius]

31. Ho Chi Minh remarked on this issue:

"You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win."

He was remarking on the fact that Vietnamese were more determined to evict foreign occupiers out of their homes and off their land more than the foreign occupiers were willing to hold onto the land.

These Iraqis want us gone with the kind of conviction that dwarfs the American conviction to win militarily.

There can be no military victory short of mass genocide to extinguish the insurgency and the population that supports it, and nobody is going to support that kind of indiscriminate killing without being convicted of war crimes.

[smoogatz]

38. We killed 3-5 million in Indochina from 1960-1975.

I'm not aware of any Americans doing time for war crimes.

[gravity]

32. I disagree

The US can defeat the Iraqi insurgency if it was an all out war, and we wanted to set up a totalitarian regime.

The problem is that the US is trying to win the hearts and minds at the same time. We are trying to create a democracy and have a friendly relationship with the Iraqi people. This puts our troops in a tough situation and the insurgency takes advantage of this with their guerrilla tactics.

Plus our leadership and planning is poor, which just makes these problems worst.

[trumad]

41. Kind of like the Brits and the Soviets? Eh?

[smoogatz]

45. And us, circa 1960-1975.

[smoogatz]

44. So what's the answer, gravity?

[gravity]

59. I say it's a loaded question

[smoogatz]

64. Most interesting questions are.

[Selatius]

70. Go home and accept that you won't crush the insurgency.

Or you can ditch the democracy facade and adopt Hitlerian or Stalinist tactics in subjugating the population.

[porphyrian]

37. Doritos - we keep making more.

If they weren't our enemy when we showed up, it doesn't take long for us to change their mind.

[Bigmack]

42. Anybody ever think...

that maybe the US is just not cut out to be an Empire?

From the Philippino Insurrection to Iraq... it just looks like the US doesn't have whatever it is to control local populations.

We can break a lot of shit, and win Big Wars, but we just don't seem to be able to subdue a small, local population very well.

Maybe the US should find another gig.

[smoogatz]

46. What about Germany and Japan?

[Bigmack]

69. I said ...

Win Big Wars. Can't subdue small local populations. WWII qualifies as Big War.

We may even have gotten lucky with Germany and Japan. They were already used to top-down management - historically and culturally. I've always pondered why both countries fought tougher than hell, then all opposition stopped when they surrendered.

[Xenotime]

48. Maybe they aren't as "advanced" as we have been told.

[Igel]

58. But there isn't a single enemy, and most of the spectacular

attacks aren't directed at the US, but at Shi'ites. Many of the low-level attacks aren't directed at the US, but either at Shi'ites or at Sunnis. This doesn't mean there aren't attacks against US forces.

AQ, whatever its origins in Iraq, seems to specialize in grandiose bomb attacks against Shi'ites and anti-ISI Sunnis. Chlorine, car/truck bombs, even some suicide-vest models, a fair number of them foreigners. Stopping them means checking every car on Iraqi roads. The ISI also pulls off some of the more stunning conventional attacks. More than a few take their families on jihad. It's particular hobby is going to wherever the Coalition says it's achieved some sort of peace: both to disgrace the Coalition, as well as to continue to rile things up. If people don't hate each other and engage in war, how's a virtuous Salafist to show he's a man and not a girl? Plus it puts pressure on weak-kneed "peaceful" Muslims not to engage in the righteous slaughter. After all, what's AQ's Islam without blood sacrifice and hatred?

The Muslim Scholars Association's dudes do some suicide bombing, but many more sniper and IED attacks. They get out a bit in Baghdad, but their asses have pretty much been whupped there. Many "secular" Baathists have mostly thrown their lot in with them, mostly because they believe Sunni Islam is best, esp. when down by the superior Arabs. They're seen as honorable defenders of the "true" monotheist Arab ummah, and even if a Sunni wants to turn them in, the Sunni knows that he and his family will be killed. Intimidation and death threats work, even if it does count as war crimes should an army do it, and where MSA clerics--or ISI clerics--reign, it's bad news. The MSA has its share of foreign jihadis--I won't grant them the dignity of saying they're actually on a proper jihad by calling them mujahidiyn.

More than a few Sunni tribes have taken to fighting tribes that support the ISI fellows. Mostly out of self defense, having previously taken on some AQ foreigners or seen themselves attacked for not being "pious" enough to join the ISI party. They fight using mostly snipers, far fewer suicides among them.

There are almost certainly secular Baathists still out killing the ideologically impure. It's hard to spot their handiwork in the mix, however: They very much look like the MSA in practice.

Then there are the Shi'ite paramilitary groups, mostly doing low-level stuff--drilling holes in Sunnis, joining Sunnis in terrorizing Christians, oppressing women--although they get in a few IEDs every now and again, and some street battles. There are a bunch of them, and sometimes they fight each other. Since they are civilians as well, it's hard to find them: And if you turn them in, as a Shi'ite, you've betrayed *your* ummah and might well wind up having your daughter raped or your son killed. Again, no great moral sophistication here. No one seriously doubts that they don't have foreign help, just help of a more sophisticated nature--not just money, but also training and supplies.

Then there are the criminal gangs, differing from the above only in not having top-level political and religious power as their primary goal. They just want money and low-level control over areas or services. Some are Sunni, some are Shi'ite, and they all find it convenient to just make sure their tactics are chameleon-like enough so that their victims don't stick out as victims of criminality.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. The insurgents, like the Vietnamese, understand war.

They understand that the tonnage of bombs dropped, the overwhelming superiority of arms and technology, the "body counts", the assurances of victory, the "surges", the replacement of failed generals, do not victory make.

They also understand the importance of world opinion which, though not liking the insurgency, is hostile to the American invasion and subjugation of a sovereign country by force. Whatever support America may have had has been completely undercut by the brutality of the occupation and the obvious failure of the "democratic" government that was installed.

Further, they are counting on the American peoples' impatience and weariness of an unending war that produces only causalities and the bankruptcy of our economy.

They are winning, not because of superior firepower, but because they outthought us and are far more patient and flexible than the Americans who have more hubris than brains.

"I guess every generation is doomed to fight its war...suffer the loss of the same old illusions, and learn the same old lessons on its own." - Phillip Caputo

[supernova]

67. Traditional standing armies

who are trained in classical warfare techniques traditionally don't do well with guerrilla warfare tactics. We pulled the same tactics on the British. That's how come we are an independent nation now.

Vietnam and Korea did the same.

Moqtada al-Sadr (sp?) and his follwers and other assorted waring factions are doing the same in Iraq. And the results will still be the same. :-(