Hi frankw1900; Re: "1. I note that the Iraqi security folk have been taking casualties in about the same proportion as US forces. They don't appear to be ducking out."
I don't know what the numbers are. It would be a hell of a coincidence if this were the case. I would think that if US troops and Iraqi security were taking rounds at the same rate, the casualty rate for the Iraqis would be sky high because of inferior training, vehicles, and personal protection.
Re: "2. US intelligence is improving and the response to the insurgents is becoming more efficient. US forces are getting support from Iraqis, even in the Tikrit area."
I don't know where you have a source for this. Saddam is still apparently loose. Yesterday marked the bloodiest day in Baghdad since Bush declared the war over. If that is what "more efficient" means, I'd hate to see the alternative.
Re: "3. As the US general on the ground, Ornieda [sp?]..., said, the insurgents are more often now attacking civilian targets because attacking the military ones is becoming too costly. Iraqis are being tasked with protecting these targets and will get to be pretty good at it, I expect."
US combat fatalities have been growing as of late, so your statement that "the insurgents are more often now attacking civilian targets" is only true in the context of a wider insurgency. As far as protecting important targets, we've lost two Lt. Colonels so far this month.
Re: "4. I don't think the Vietnam analogy is sound ... There is no analogy here to the army of N Vietnam. The US military folk say they are prevailing over the insurgents and I'm sure they believe that on rational grounds."
The analogy to the army of N. Vietnam is the foreign terrorists. The military folk saying that "they are prevailing over the insurgents", yes, but that is in EXACT analogy to what they said during Vietnam. In that war, it was the publishing of the "Pentagon Papers" that revealed what the military truly thought of the situation. In Iraq, we have the webblogs of dozens of US soldiers, and Rumsfeld's leaked memo admitting lack of knowledge, at the highest level in the US government, of whether the number of terrorists is increasing or decreasing. In the face of that admittance, how can anyone say that the war is being won? On the other hand, it is essentially universal in the human species to claim that their side is winning when at war. Saying that you're going to lose has the effect of making ones soldiers quit fighting, LOL.
Re: "5. It's the US army which is training the new Iraq army and security forces and if they manage to instill modern US doctrine, and I expect they will, then the Iraqi forces will be certainly the match of the insurgents."
The basic problem is that the insurgents are recruiting from the Iraqi army and security forces. All we do by training those forces is pass on our own troops' advantages to the insurgents. Just because some Arab takes your money doesn't mean that he loves you.
Re: "6. The US has managed to get a lot of social stuff on stream, hospitals, schools, pensions and civil service salaries being paid, electrical power supply improved, water supplies and sewers improved, currency regulated. Life is improving for Iraqis although many are desperately poor. The timing is pretty good - world economy is improving again."
While these are wonderful and moral things, none of these things stop insurgents from shooting at foreign occupiers. The simple fact is that as all these wonderful and moral things have happened, US casualties and the insurgency have grown, not decayed away.
The problem with giving all these wonderful things to the Iraqis is that it is ineffective in making them quit fighting. Instead, it convinces them that we are kind hearted persons who do not want to fight. Winston Churchill didn't drop care packages from bombers on Germany in 1943 and neither should we. (I know that the neocons love WW2 analogies.)
Sure life is improving for Iraqis. Suppose that we get their economy up to the Saudi level. What do you expect then? It was wealthy Saudis that destroyed the WTC.
Re: "In six months the US could have well over a hundred thousand, maybe 125,000 or more, Iraqi army and security folk fielded."
If US losses are more or less equal six months from now, would you admit that the case is hopeless? I doubt it. Instead, you'll be saying that things will be just fine in another year.
-- Carl |
