Stealing al Qaeda's Playbook

[Beestie]

What you are referring to goes back a lot further than Vietnam. Any overwhelmed force will resort to tactics other than direct confrontation - nothing new about that.

But I will give you this - you are dead on about the fallacy of attempting to make the fight against Al Qaeda a ground war. Its a big planet - there are more places for them to hide than we can search and following the ultra successful campaign in Afghanistan, they are an army of ghost soldiers with no home base. But, as usual, you insulate yourself from criticism by failing to either take a position on the intent or offer an alternative. Criticism is easy. Constructive criticism is another matter.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

But, as usual, you insulate yourself from criticism by failing to either take a position on the intent or offer an alternative. Criticism is easy. Constructive criticism is another matter.

Al Qaeda International is trivial. Based upon American response to an Arab company running American ports, I suspect most Americans are running afraid of their own shadow rather than understand what is and is not a threat. For example, 11 September occurred because so many FBI investigations and other source that tried to expose it were quashed ay a George Jr administration that all but denied terrorism existed. George Jr did not even read his own PDB warnings. In that first year, the George Jr administration was still 'fighting' with a cold war mentality including a silly China Spy plane incident and promoting an anti-ballistic missile system that does not work.

Currently, the real problem is extracting ourselves from another completely different Al Qaeda, et al problem in Iraq. Not only did I warn of this problem before the Mission Accomplished war was started. I also defined two exit strategies - both of which are superior to our current strategy. Where has anyone here offered another exit solution? Notice the one who most strongly here opposed the war using facts now demontrated to be accurate, who predicted what would happen if we stayed too long, also provided solutions for exiting.

To repeat the two options. One: tell the Iraqis that mom and dad are no longer paying ‘room and board’ in six months. IOW we are leaving. They have had plenty of time to learn. Now they must take over their own life. It is the sink or learn how to swim option. An option that becomes less viable every month we stay.

Or two: 1/2 million soldiers in Iraq right now to solve the problem. We currently have woefully too few boots on the ground – no matter how many times George Jr’s spin doctors hype lies to the contrary.

I foresaw this insurgency noting we would only have about 6 months to one year to earn our keep. Defined was what would happen when we did not have plans for the peace (George Jr administration did nothing for seven months after declaring Mission Accomplished). Defined was how an American presence after one year would only inspire an insurgency which is why we had to solve it and get out then. And last I have defined the only two workable military options.

BTW, latest Pentagon’s military analysis of Iraq. Whereas Iraq once had many battalions capable of independent action, well, after Fallujah, that number dropped to one. Now the latest Pentagon analysis puts the number of independently operational Iraqi battalions down to ZERO. This will continue as long as we and not they do all the work - just like in South Vietnam. Exactly like in Vietnam.

Defined by me repeatedly is that we are making the same mistakes as in Vietnam including the “no smoking gun”. The solution in Iraq is to not play into the insurgents hands. The worst thing we could do in Vietnam is exactly what we are also doing in Iraq.

But again, I have offered workable solutions. Where are yours? American operations in Iraq currently is a loser’s option - as I openly fretted about here years ago AND as is become painfully obvious.

Do you really understand what the insurgency is about? Next post cites a must read report from Frontline. Notice that the situation in Iraq is nothing like the George Jr administration proclaims … just like in Vietnam.

Meanwhile, International Al Qaeda is too hyped up by those who don't first learn why they were ever successful. It was no accident that the George Jr administration drove this nation's Number One anti-terrorist investigator out of government service. He died in the south tower of the WTC because he knew where a future attack was coming. Its also no accident that Richard Reed could not even give himself a hotfoot. Or that a terrorist in the Phillippines was exposed because he accidently started a fire in his hotel room. Al Qaeda International is only a problem when the little people in government are stifled by mental midgets who don't even read their PDBs.

[tw]

Time Magazine's Michael Ware is (I believe) an Australian who runs the Baghdad Bureau. His insight and his regular contacts with the three different types of insurgents is far more revealing than news summaries. It clearly supplements and expands on what xoxoxoBruce posted in his CNN / West Point article.

For example, Brits basically negotiated for control of the few Iraq provinces they are responsible for. Learn who took control before Americans and Brits got there. Not reported is that the Brits don't even try to control one of their four provinces. Appreciate how many different insurgencies control what, how inspired they are, and how difficult it is to fight an enemy that simply hits and runs. Of the so many accounts that are based in actual face to face interviews, Michael Ware is the "must read".
INSIDE THE INSURGENCY from PBS Frontline of 21 Feb 2006.