Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

China & North Vietnam were already red states.

These were the first two dominoes: 1949 and 1954. Remember there was some undercurrent of blame-gaming over "who lost China" for many years.

[tw]

From the BBC of 9 Jul 2007:

US Iraq chief warns of long war
The head of US forces in Iraq, Lt Gen David Petraeus, has told the BBC that fighting the insurgency is a "long term endeavour" which could take decades.

In less time, the United States built arm forces almost from scratch, fought wars on almost every continent, and won all those wars. In more time, the Iraqis still don't have an useful Army? It says so much about a leadership (and his supporters even here in the Cellar) who are so much in denial AND who cannot even define a strategic objective.

... Gen Petraeus's efforts, which might have saved the day for the Bush administration if they had been introduced three, or even two, years ago, may well have come too late.

People who actually support the troops have been saying that for how long? "Mission Accomplished"? There was no insurgence until America created one. That even defined by lessons in any first year course in Military Science.

Are we finally seeing light at the end of a tunnel? Depends on whether we threaten Cheney with impeachment or support the troops by implementing what those with minimal knowledge understood as the only viable solution - Iraq Study Group.

Notice how extremists among us avoid any mention of that ISG report and its withdrawal. Same people also fear to touch the other damning questions - "When do we go after bin Laden?"

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The Domino Theory was validated by the results, even if the results did not go as far as was feared at the time: China, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam all fell to communism.

China and Cambodia are now doing quite well without America imposing wars in their region. Vietnam is the second fastest growing economy is East Asia. Laos is something like the 35th fastest growing economy in the world. Clearly they are doing worse since Americans stopped spending $million a day on war there – according to history as rewritten by Urbane Guerrilla.

Funny how those Domino fell mostly better for their people – which Urbane Guerrilla forgets to learn.

Urban Guerrilla again rewrites history for a political agenda. Since George Jr said it, then Urbane Guerrilla also knows we are winning “Mission Accomplished” – the war that was supposidely won 4 years ago. Did Urbane Guerrilla forget that reality – or rewrite it. Urbane Guerrilla was an enlisted man 1st class for twenty years. Therefore he knows more than everyone about basic military principles and history. Clearly the military genius Urbane Guerrilla must rewrite history so that we will not be deceived by reality.

UG - you make this too easy. Can't you at least show some imagination when you rewrite history?

[TheMercenary]

An individual countries rank in growth rate is not a measure of the health of their economies nor how well their people are doing over all in relation to growth.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Here you see tw's delusional mental masturbation in its full glory. Foolish tw, have you never noticed that no one applauds your perorations?? And did you notice my speaking of the reversed domino effect hardly more than a paragraph down?

[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.

[piercehawkeye45]

That statistic doesn't have much merit though.

The month of May had the largest amount of civilian deaths since the war began.

The number of civilians killed in Iraq jumped to nearly 2,000 in May, the highest monthly toll since the start of a U.S.-backed security crackdown in February, according to figures released on Saturday.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL241131.htm

There was a drop in June, but what does that mean? Since there was a spike in May it is hard to believe that the deaths are going to be consistent and many deaths many be going unreported.

However, the figures cannot be verified independently, and many deaths are believed to go unreported.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6260084.stm

Then, if you look at the recent news, you will find that some of the most deadly days of the war have occurred during the last few days.

June 8 - Estimated 150 dead.
July 7 - Estimated 73 - 105 dead.

(List of US Casualties by month and other stats)

I find it really hard to believe that anything is progressing in Iraq.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw's setting up quite the straw man here with his peroration about body counts. He thinks we don't know better than to use body count to assess anything!

It is these poor choices of argument that suggest to me tw is severely wanting in political acumen and talent. Too, we can also rest in confident expectation that tw will disgrace himself, through a want of common sense and an overdeveloped penchant for rhetoric.

[piercehawkeye45]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT (this link will probably run out by tomorrow, 7/11/07)

A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reforms, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.

Some say it is still early to determine what is happening and we should wait until September but we have to start looking at alternatives now.

[yesman065]

TW - as usual you missed the point - What I was referring to was your innate ability to selectively choose only negative quotes from an article in an attempt to support your point of view - The woute nor subject matter were not the issue at hand. You are always so quick to attack opposing points of view and manipulate information in a VERY transparent attempt to make yourself look smart that any valid point you may have had gets lost.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by yesman065

TW - as usual you missed the point - What I was referring to was your innate ability to selectively choose only negative quotes from an article in an attempt to support your point of view - The woute nor subject matter were not the issue at hand. You are always so quick to attack opposing points of view and manipulate information in a VERY transparent attempt to make yourself look smart that any valid point you may have had gets lost.

Don't waste your time.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

TW - as usual you missed the point - What I was referring to was your innate ability to selectively choose only negative quotes from an article in an attempt to support your point of view ...

And again I repeat - all those questions posed at you are necessary to appreciate why what I posted was the KEY fact in that article.

Go back many years to see my posts that worried about "Misson Accomplished" becoming exactly what we now have. You call it negative? Well then why have those negatives become reality?

The 'capture' of those towns only demonstrates a blunt reality. Same stories were reported in Nam. But I suspect David Petraeus is doing something very smart. My posts are suggesting to you a much larger picture. Do you see it?

Can a private see the war being won? Not without grasping a bigger picture. In a post that you find so negative, I may be reporting a much larger story that may the rescue of the US Army from another Nam. That last sentence made your eyes big - if you start grasping big picture.

But if caught looking only at petty little details - ie the capture of two towns or body counts - then you have no idea that a bigger picture even exists.

Those questions are not debating points. They go right after what you must comprehend to then see a bigger picture:

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?

Your post must have grasp of why Gen Petraeus has expanded his quote from nine years to decades.

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?

what do 'biblical' philosphies of guerrilla warfare dictate in response to a conventional army offensive?

None of these questions were posted to argue. They were posted to get you to appreciate a bigger picture that is neither negative nor positive. To appreciate why I reported fundamental mistake after mistake made even in violation of first year military science concepts. To appreciate how much worse "Mission Accomplished" really is.

Do you think I was just playing politics criticizing the disbanning of the Iraqi army and police? Not for one minute. I saw a major looming disaster. Guess what. Everyone now sees that disaster - but years later. Did you even for one minute think pre-emption was a formula for something different from disaster? That is the mistake so common among 'big dic' thinkers. Did you see a disaster looming because we abandoned containment in favor of pre-emption? Why not. Were you looking at the big picture - or viewing from a Private's perspective.

To gain from this thread, answer those questions. See a bigger picture - not petty politics that were never in that post. Daily news reports do not yet report the massive numbers of dead - resulting massacres that are yet to happen but that may be inevitable using our current tactics - no strategic objective. Just another reason why my posts years ago were so forboding. Again, do you see what Petraeus is really saying?

Appreciate that "Mission Accomplished" is already unwinnable. Appreciate why "Misson Accomplished" could mean a second defeat in Afghanistan. Appreciate a larger significance in "When do we go after bin Laden?" How? Start by answering those requoted questions.

"When do we go after bin Laden" is not just some cheap shot at the wacko extremists. It is a much larger question about everything we are doing - Deja vue Nam. Our current actions have no possiblity of victory. What is one major symptom of the malaise - a mistake being made at the highest (strategic) levels? "When do we go after bin Laden?"

Your post argues about size of dirt particles in a response to post that discusses geology of an entire island. Those questions are not debating points. Stop wasting time with body counts. Those questions beg you to appreciate a bigger picture - by answering them.

Tell us why the 'cature' of two towns in a province that once had no warfare is now an example of "Mission Accomplished"?

[yesman065]

1) Significance - I guess if you don't see it, there mustn't be any. He explained his timetable and why he gave it so there is no reason for me to answer a question based upon an article YOU cited and apparently selectively read.
2)See above - The general explained himself just fine - no need for me to infer or make assumptions - that's your game.
3) My reply need not do anything YOU demand - who the hell are you to tell me what I can and/or cannot post.
4) What the hell does that have to do with anything? Never mind I really don't care what you think. You mind is like a steel trap that was left out in the rain.
5) No one said it did - except you. "Mission Accomplished" was discussed ad nauseum long ago and the only one who continues to misinterpret it is YOU.