Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[yesman065]

Pretty selective quotes there tw - I see its the "same ole same ole" with you.

How bout these two from the same article?
"In the last few weeks US forces have captured two big insurgent centres, Ramadi and Baquba, which was the main stronghold of al-Qaeda."

"In Baghdad for example, June was the lowest month for sectarian deaths in a year."

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

How bout these two from the same article?
"In the last few weeks US forces have captured two big insurgent centres, Ramadi and Baquba, which was the main stronghold of al-Qaeda."

Well, Yesman065. Had you been learning from so many military sources posted here, then you can tell us the significance of those 'captures' of towns that were not even 'occupied by the enemy' last year.

You tell me. What is the strategic significance of that capture? And why, after that capture, does Gen Petraeus talk about decades of military operations? Do you really think that is coincidence?

Yesman065 - you clearly thought your quote was significant. Good. Fill us with your wisdom. Your post must have grasp of why Gen Petraeus has expanded his quote from nine years to decades. Show us how you somehow know something beyond what military experts and even Gen Petraeus are warning. Please tell us why your quote is so significant because you know what you have quoted - a detail - is so more important. Tell us why the 'cature' of two towns in a province that once had no warfare is now an example of "Mission Accomplished"?

Little hint. Your reply must explain the difference between a tactical and strategic objective. Be very careful in your answer to that question: What is the strategic signficiant of that capture?

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

"In Baghdad for example, June was the lowest month for sectarian deaths in a year."

Body counts were also a measure used to prove we were winning the war in Nam. If you first learn some basic Military Science concepts, then you knew body counts have little relationship to accomplishing a strategic objective.

In Nam, America killed everyone in N Vietnam three times over. What did that prove? It proves that those grasping for something to show progress will even be foolish enough to use body counts as a measure of strategic accomplishement.

Meanwhile, what do 'biblical' philosphies of guerrilla warfare dictate in response to a conventional army offensive? Did you not learn that so well proven concept of guerrilla warfare? Did you not hear quotes directly citing American frustration in every Nam era movie - ie 'Full Metal Jacket', 'Platoon', etc? Did you just watch those movies for entertainment - or learn from the fundamental points that explained why America was defeated in Nam?

Yesman065 - only fools would make the same 'body count' mistake performed even in Nam. But again, it goes right back to a simple question. What is the strategic objective of Americans in "Misson Accomplished"? Why do so many now retired Generals keep saying that America has no strategic objective in Iraq? Or do you also ignore the most important point in those reports?

Body counts. There is little relationship between victory in a battle and body counts. So Westmoreland rationalized that Nam was a completely different war - did not conform to basic military doctrine. Therefore Westmoreland who measured battles by body counts was decisively defeated. Yesman065 - you know have lessons of history to learn from - and still you look at body counts? Somehow you are trying to say Iraq is somehow becoming safer? These are a long list of damning question that Yesman065 will have to ignore. Yesman065 - prove me wrong.