Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

General Petraeus and the surge have been a success, not that you would know that from the media coverage, which has been, to say the least, sparse.

If so successful, then where is this political settlement? What is the purpose of war? Taking and solving that conflict in a negotiated settlement. Petraeus' success is tactical - as he predicted. Petraeus (and the US) cannot create a strategic solution - again as he predicted.

These basic military concepts have been explained repeatedly. What Petraeus has accomplished - a tactical success - is what the US Army also accomplished in Nam. US Army won most every battle and lost the war. Numerous tactical successes without a strategic success - that was Nam. As the 1965 book "Making of a Quagmire" demonstrates, a strategic success was not possible in Nam.

If Petraeus has achieved a strategic victory, then where is that political settlement? Or where is that political settlement ongoing? Various factions realign themselves while major Iraqi powers keeping their ammo stored and dry. When Sahdr says to lay low, then suddenly America is winning? When Sadr's Mahdi Army goes offensive for maybe a month, then suddenly America casualties increase to pre- surge numbers. So America is winning only because Sadr's Mahdi Army is waiting to take power? How is that a victory? Its not for the same reason that ‘light did not exist at the end of that tunnel’.

Petraeus achieved tactical success as predicted; but not a strategic victory. No military victory exists when the purpose of war - to take a dispute to the negotiation table - is not happening. Nobody is negotiating with Maliki. Major Iraqi forces are bidding time until time to strike (to take power) is ripe.

Concepts never taught to enlistedmen. Concepts learned in history from virtually every previous war including Nam. Petraeus stated same before the 'surge' began. He (and the US) cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only achieve tactical success; make a strategic solution possible.

Those who never learned these basic military concepts have confused tactical success with a military victory. Deja vue Nam. Confusing tactical and strategic success resulted in body counts, "The Boys in Company C", and "we have met the enemy and he is us". No political solution means no military victory.

Furthermore - no phase four planning also means no military victory. "America does not do nation building" - the wacko extremist mantra - means no phase four planning was possible. Just another reason why strategic victory is not possible AND why a justified war in Afghanistan was also being lost.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

If so successful, then where is this political settlement? What is the purpose of war? Taking and solving that conflict in a negotiated settlement. Petraeus' success is tactical - as he predicted. Petraeus (and the US) cannot create a strategic solution - again as he predicted.

These basic military concepts have been explained repeatedly. What Petraeus has accomplished - a tactical success - is what the US Army also accomplished in Nam. US Army won most every battle and lost the war. Numerous tactical successes without a strategic success - that was Nam. As the 1965 book "Making of a Quagmire" demonstrates, a strategic success was not possible in Nam.

If Petraeus has achieved a strategic victory, then where is that political settlement? Or where is that political settlement ongoing? Various factions realign themselves while major Iraqi powers keeping their ammo stored and dry. When Sahdr says to lay low, then suddenly America is winning? When Sadr's Mahdi Army goes offensive for maybe a month, then suddenly America casualties increase to pre- surge numbers. So America is winning only because Sadr's Mahdi Army is waiting to take power? How is that a victory? Its not for the same reason that ‘light did not exist at the end of that tunnel’.

Petraeus achieved tactical success as predicted; but not a strategic victory. No military victory exists when the purpose of war - to take a dispute to the negotiation table - is not happening. Nobody is negotiating with Maliki. Major Iraqi forces are bidding time until time to strike (to take power) is ripe.

Concepts never taught to enlistedmen. Concepts learned in history from virtually every previous war including Nam. Petraeus stated same before the 'surge' began. He (and the US) cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only achieve tactical success; make a strategic solution possible.

Those who never learned these basic military concepts have confused tactical success with a military victory. Deja vue Nam. Confusing tactical and strategic success resulted in body counts, "The Boys in Company C", and "we have met the enemy and he is us". No political solution means no military victory.

Furthermore - no phase four planning also means no military victory. "America does not do nation building" - the wacko extremist mantra - means no phase four planning was possible. Just another reason why strategic victory is not possible AND why a justified war in Afghanistan was also being lost.

What the hell is wrong with you? No personal attacks? you are slipping... no "TheMercenary this bla, bla, bla..., no "TheMercenary that bla, bla, bla..., you really should go back to making mail bombs Ted, Tom, or whatever your name is...

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What the hell is wrong with you? No personal attacks?

Again TheMercenary posts mockery to avoid reality. No strategic objective means no victory. Deja vue Nam. The US won most every battle - tactical victories. But lost the war. Why? As the Pentagon Papers and a long list of other sources make so obvious - no strategic victory means an unwinnable war. "A Bright and Shining Lie" should one choose to learn from history.

Military operation must move the conflict to a negotiating table. When the US went to that Paris negotiating table, Le Duc Tho even provided Kissinger with N Vietnam's secret assessments of the future. US had no strategic objective. The Vietnamese objective was clear, obvious, and (we now know) took less time than even the North estimated. Vietnamese objective was reunification of their nation. America's were body counts, 'search and destroy', etc - nothing that creates a strategic victory.

Too complex for TheMercenary is Petraeus's statements. He can achieve tactical victory. America cannot achieve a strategic victory. Worse, Iraq's government wants to reassess their entire American agreement. Not negotiations with various insurgents - the many parties in that civil war. Instead, Maliki's government wants to limit the Americans. America's objectives are not consistent with an Iraqi solution. No viable strategic objective? So where is this light at the end of a tunnel? From the NY Times of 13 Jun 2008:

... talks with the United States on a new long-term security pact were deadlocked because of U.S. demands that infringed Iraq's sovereignty.

"... we found that the U.S. demands hugely infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq, and this we can never accept," Maliki said ...

The United States and Iraq are negotiating a new agreement to provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq after Dec. 31, when their United Nations mandate expires, as well as a separate long-term agreement on political, economic and security ties between the two countries.

Not discussed is a fundamental definition of victory in "Mission Accomplished". Not discussed in those negotiations and completely ignored by TheMercenary. Well published facts that TheMercenary has difficulty grasping. TheMercenary confuses tactical victory with military victory. That difference why armies have officers who better understand the difference.

As one Captain said (quoted in network news broadcasts), "I can win every battle but cannot win this war". He is officer material; understands why an army can win every battle and still lose the war. No strategic objectives, means no strategic victory, means "no light at the end of the tunnel". Deja vue Nam - or why TheMercenary cannot challenge let alone understand the concept. But then TheMercenary always attacks the messenger when reality contradicts his political agenda. No wonder he loves the mental midget president. Birds of a feather ...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

TheMercenary ...bla, bla, bla....TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla....TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla, bla ...TheMercenary...TheMercenary ....TheMercenary ....TheMercenary......bla, bla

I knew you couldn't resist. Way to go. Did you actually say something of importance?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

blah blah blah

And again the concept of military victory is too complex for one who worships George Jr. So TheMercenary. What color is George Jr's feather of the day? Do you wait for Rush Limbaugh to tell you or do they fax you the schedule?

Strategic objective? Too complex for extremists is even a simplest question: When do we go after bin Laden? No wonder 'strategic objective' is so difficult for TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

bla...TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla...TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.

Like I said there Willis, put up or shut up. So far you have produced no response. Should I consider that a weak attempt at a personal attack?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Should I consider that a weak attempt at a personal attack?

tw now duplicates how TheMercenary routinely posted.

It was only one paragraph. TheMercenary can only understand sound bytes. Typical of anyone so dumb as to still openly support George Jr, extremism, and fear a simplest question: When do we go after bin Laden? Why does TheMercenary fear to answer that question? Oh. Rush Limbaugh has not yet told him how to respond.

Yes, so dumb as to not apologize for supporting the scumbag president. So anti-social as to even approve of torture and Guantanamo. Well documented facts about someone who even lied about his service record. Funny how lies and extremism go hand in hand. Funny how such people cannot read beyond one paragraph. It was one paragraph. So TheMercenary almost understood it. Could George Jr also understand it. Birds of a feather …