[queequeger]

Ok, I can't quote specific parts of your post without throwing my back out. I think my computer almost pooped trying to load that bad boy.

Most of the things you stated were correct, i.e. mismanagement of the war from the start. I could go through and nit pick the few errors, but what you're saying is largely true. What I am saying is that there were not enough troops to secure the border, Rumsfeld sent out specific directives to not stop rioting because he needed the men to search for those fabled WMD, and also because of the WMD hunt our soldiers were not able to tie down the conventional weapons and protect the power grids. This affected not only the insurgents capabilites to fight but because we ignored the plights of the iraqis it caused them instant distrust. These serious detriments to the effort were caused somewhat by mismanagement, but it would have difficult for even the most intelligent commanders to perform with the lack of troops, and had we followed military recommendations they would have been avoided.

BTW, the ingress of foreign fighters? Even that is mostly a myth created by the same incompetant American liars. America created the insurgency that is almost 100% homegrown. There are almost no Al Qaeda of foreign fighters. See Frontline's The Lost Year. Appreicate why America created an insurgency. Appreciate why Al Sadr with no army in 2003 is so powerful today.

I think at this point I should let you know what I do for a living. I'm an arab linguist employed by the US Air Force, I collect and analyze both minute details and large amounts of data in relation to counter insurgency efforts. I have been working in operations related to OEF for about 2 years now, with 2 years of training before that. I can tell you first hand, both through personal collection and larger reports, that while al-Sadr is the primary mischief maker(as I've previously mentioned) and is almost entirely locally manned, no one's lied in saying that AQI and most groups in the north are manned from out of country sources in vast majority. Anyone who tells you different is absolutely and unequivocally wrong.

That is the classic and futile military solution. You are using the exact same lies that Westmoreland used in Nam. It completely confuses tactical victories with winning a war. Your post is another classic example of the same Vietnam lies that concluded with "I see light at the end of the tunnel". Even a poltical solution must begin before any military action.

You keep saying this, but I can't recall a single in-country counter insurgency that didn't rely heavily on military presence to quell violence to allow these political proceedings to continue. Yes, tactical victories do not equate to strategic ones, I'm aware of that. You're also right in saying that a 'military solution' isn't possible, but you're wrong in saying that it can only be solved 'politically.' The two are intertwined at their base, and are like love and marriage. No military movement leaves the active parties vulnerable and terrifies the people, no accord process and all the military does is fight at random and piss more people off.

The reason 'more troops' was a bad idea in vietnam is because they HAD enough men, they were just operating like a sledgehammer and therefore causing more strategic harm with every tactical victory. We have painfully learned to STOP operating as such (we still aren't very good, but we at least understand the 'less is more' concept), but now we are sorely undermanned.

...and 'containing a war and letting it burn itself out' pretty much just counts a large portion of the innocent civilian population as acceptable losses. I think that's some cold shit.

If you're interested in learning more about our exact fuckups in Iraq, since you've deemed it necessary to all but call me an ignorant idiot because I didn't watch your god damn youtube video, you could start with Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. I would be more than happy to go through my bookcases to find a few of my more choice books that relate to CI warfare in a general sense, but they're kind of buried, so I won't unless you're actually interested. I'll watch the thing as soon as I get a chance, k?