![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusMilitary releases figures: 50,000 insurgents killed or captured and we haven't made a dent in it. (Source: Drew Brown, Knight-Ridder Newspapers)
The Pentagon's estimated number of insurgents last year was 20,000. They still estimate it's 20,000.
Insurgents' ranks are being replenished as quickly as they are depleted, said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a research center in Washington, and the co-author of its Iraq Index, which tracks statistics in key areas such as security and economics.
Even during the election, the military's most optimistic take on Iraq is that the situation will remain the same. Stalemate.
The biggest difference between the US and the insurgents is that the US is having trouble recruiting replacement soldiers. All four branches of the military were below their recruitment goals. The Army was 35% short of its recruitment benchmark, while only the Coast Guard and Marines came anywhere close.
Meanwhile the insurgents seem to have a never-ending supply of recruits. Why?
Hatred of America throughout the region. There was a deep well of hatred before the Iraq war, and the war has fueled it.
The fact that we did a pre-emptive strike on Iraq has been deplored by countries throughout the world, including former allies. Countries in the region feel even more strongly. Unlike the US, where under a 1991 law the news can't publish photos from a war zone without vetting them through the military, the Arab news has been filled with images of the civilian carnage. The presence of American troops is magnetizing recruits from all over the Middle East.
Sixty percent of the foreign fighters captured were from Egypt, Syria, Sudan and Saudi Arabia, said Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, a military spokesman in Baghdad.
These people wouldn't fight Iraqis. But they want to fight America. While they fight the US they gain valuable combat experience.
The popular belief is that the insurgents are all from outside Iraq. In truth, the majority of those fighting the US are Iraqis: ...American military officials contend that foreign fighters make up only a small percentage of the insurgents in Iraq, [though] they consider them the most dangerous element.
Are we training our own future enemies?
We're unlikely to kill all these soldiers, so what happens after the war? Where do they go next? Do they converge on Isreal? Do they set their sights to retake Afghanistan? Once a movement is galvanized, the leadership tends to want it to continue. Most will give their troops a new target.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wildernessguru estimates based military analysis in Jane's that the most likely target would be Afghanistan.
The longer we stay, the wider the margin of victory for the insurgents, and the more training and combat experience we've given them.
We are losing this war.
It's a military truism that the ones who win a war are the ones with the will to win, not the ones with the shiniest equipment. Looking at the numbers, the insugents have the will to fight. As our soldiers die we have fewer and fewer men to put in the field.
The only way we could offset this difference is to bring back the draft. But that would galvanize the anti-war movement in the US like nothing else, at a time when it's already picking up steam. The Republicans can expect losses in the 2006 elections as it is. They cannot afford the political cost of a draft.
Additionally, you can't win against an insurgency with brute force. Superior numbers makes little difference. Insurgencies begin and continue through dissatisfaction in the population, and are driven by economic and political factors. 60% of Iraq is without steady electricity. There is raw sewage running in the streets. If people are unhappy with their lives and their government, an insurgency will continue until there are no more people left to govern.
What should we do?
I believe that a sudden troop withdrawal would be the best action to immediately end the deaths of US soldiers. But leaving with our tail between our legs might not be the most strategic choice. A clear victory will embolden the insurgents and give them momentum for their next move. A slow draw-down of US soldiers as they are replaced by trained Iraqi troops is the ideal and what the military aims to do, but it's not working. After two years, the US military estimates Iraq has only one batallion of soldiers.
We need to give the Iraqi government an ultimatum and force their hands to build their own troops. Their short-sightedness caused this mess, they should clean it up.
The bone-headed maneuver that saddled the US with Iraq's security.
The new Iraqi government fired Saddam Hussein's army with no replacement in sight, saddling the US with the entire security of the country. This move guaranteed that we would be in Iraq for a long time, and the fired Iraqi guard formed the insurgency we are now fighting. At the same time, Rumsfeld convinced the president that we could take Iraq with a skeleton force, so we did not have the troops in place to hold the country for the long-term or to protect the rebuilding efforts.
Slimebuckets at the feeding trough of US aid.
I loathed Saddam Hussein and his psycho son, but the current government of Iraq looks to me to be a bunch of slimebuckets. They were willing to lie and tell Bush whatever he wanted to hear to convince him to attack; they did end-runs around their opponents to force the approval of the current constitution; there is already widespread graft, corruption, and abuse of US aid.
Worst of all, they do not give a damn about the deaths of US soldiers and are not making any efforts to create their own security forces. The current Iraq government aims to keep us there for as long as possible at no cost to themselves. So long as the insurgency is fighting us, they are the hapless victims of the US even as they feast at the banquet of US aid.
US failed hopes of a foothold and oil interests in the area.
The US government needs to abandon its pipedream to have any control of Iraq. We've been used, and will continue to be used so long as we remain. We lost this war the moment we defied international law and set foot in Iraq.
The Pentagon's estimated number of insurgents last year was 20,000. They still estimate it's 20,000.
Insurgents' ranks are being replenished as quickly as they are depleted, said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a research center in Washington, and the co-author of its Iraq Index, which tracks statistics in key areas such as security and economics.
Even during the election, the military's most optimistic take on Iraq is that the situation will remain the same. Stalemate.
The biggest difference between the US and the insurgents is that the US is having trouble recruiting replacement soldiers. All four branches of the military were below their recruitment goals. The Army was 35% short of its recruitment benchmark, while only the Coast Guard and Marines came anywhere close.
Meanwhile the insurgents seem to have a never-ending supply of recruits. Why?
Hatred of America throughout the region. There was a deep well of hatred before the Iraq war, and the war has fueled it.
The fact that we did a pre-emptive strike on Iraq has been deplored by countries throughout the world, including former allies. Countries in the region feel even more strongly. Unlike the US, where under a 1991 law the news can't publish photos from a war zone without vetting them through the military, the Arab news has been filled with images of the civilian carnage. The presence of American troops is magnetizing recruits from all over the Middle East.
Sixty percent of the foreign fighters captured were from Egypt, Syria, Sudan and Saudi Arabia, said Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, a military spokesman in Baghdad.
These people wouldn't fight Iraqis. But they want to fight America. While they fight the US they gain valuable combat experience.
The popular belief is that the insurgents are all from outside Iraq. In truth, the majority of those fighting the US are Iraqis: ...American military officials contend that foreign fighters make up only a small percentage of the insurgents in Iraq, [though] they consider them the most dangerous element.
Are we training our own future enemies?
We're unlikely to kill all these soldiers, so what happens after the war? Where do they go next? Do they converge on Isreal? Do they set their sights to retake Afghanistan? Once a movement is galvanized, the leadership tends to want it to continue. Most will give their troops a new target.
wildernessguru estimates based military analysis in Jane's that the most likely target would be Afghanistan. The longer we stay, the wider the margin of victory for the insurgents, and the more training and combat experience we've given them.
We are losing this war.
It's a military truism that the ones who win a war are the ones with the will to win, not the ones with the shiniest equipment. Looking at the numbers, the insugents have the will to fight. As our soldiers die we have fewer and fewer men to put in the field.
The only way we could offset this difference is to bring back the draft. But that would galvanize the anti-war movement in the US like nothing else, at a time when it's already picking up steam. The Republicans can expect losses in the 2006 elections as it is. They cannot afford the political cost of a draft.
Additionally, you can't win against an insurgency with brute force. Superior numbers makes little difference. Insurgencies begin and continue through dissatisfaction in the population, and are driven by economic and political factors. 60% of Iraq is without steady electricity. There is raw sewage running in the streets. If people are unhappy with their lives and their government, an insurgency will continue until there are no more people left to govern.
What should we do?
I believe that a sudden troop withdrawal would be the best action to immediately end the deaths of US soldiers. But leaving with our tail between our legs might not be the most strategic choice. A clear victory will embolden the insurgents and give them momentum for their next move. A slow draw-down of US soldiers as they are replaced by trained Iraqi troops is the ideal and what the military aims to do, but it's not working. After two years, the US military estimates Iraq has only one batallion of soldiers.
We need to give the Iraqi government an ultimatum and force their hands to build their own troops. Their short-sightedness caused this mess, they should clean it up.
The bone-headed maneuver that saddled the US with Iraq's security.
The new Iraqi government fired Saddam Hussein's army with no replacement in sight, saddling the US with the entire security of the country. This move guaranteed that we would be in Iraq for a long time, and the fired Iraqi guard formed the insurgency we are now fighting. At the same time, Rumsfeld convinced the president that we could take Iraq with a skeleton force, so we did not have the troops in place to hold the country for the long-term or to protect the rebuilding efforts.
Slimebuckets at the feeding trough of US aid.
I loathed Saddam Hussein and his psycho son, but the current government of Iraq looks to me to be a bunch of slimebuckets. They were willing to lie and tell Bush whatever he wanted to hear to convince him to attack; they did end-runs around their opponents to force the approval of the current constitution; there is already widespread graft, corruption, and abuse of US aid.
Worst of all, they do not give a damn about the deaths of US soldiers and are not making any efforts to create their own security forces. The current Iraq government aims to keep us there for as long as possible at no cost to themselves. So long as the insurgency is fighting us, they are the hapless victims of the US even as they feast at the banquet of US aid.
US failed hopes of a foothold and oil interests in the area.
The US government needs to abandon its pipedream to have any control of Iraq. We've been used, and will continue to be used so long as we remain. We lost this war the moment we defied international law and set foot in Iraq.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-05 06:15 pm (UTC)I believe that a sudden troop withdrawal would be the best action to immediately end the deaths of US soldiers. But leaving with our tail between our legs might not be the most strategic choice.
Actually, there is no shame in that, nor is it necessarily a bad startegic choice. We tried gradual withdrawal in Vietnam, only to see escalation by the native Chinese led fighters. An ultimatum then packing everything up and going home will make the government walk doble step to agreements.
Worst of all, they do not give a damn about the deaths of US soldiers and are not making any efforts to create their own security forces. The current Iraq government aims to keep us there for as long as possible at no cost to themselves. So long as the insurgency is fighting us, they are the hapless victims of the US even as they feast at the banquet of US aid.
To be fair, we were used- but useed willingly. Bush & Co wanted to invade Iraq, wanted to have the American public believe in invading Iraq, and so fed lies and misdirection in order to feed that desire. M<Eanwhile, the people who really cause damage on 9/11 have, fo rteh most part, escaped .
no subject
Date: 2005-11-05 06:33 pm (UTC)Shame is irrelevant. Politically, we've handed over a victory to the insurgents one way or another. The choice is whether we give them a unilateral victory with parades or a slow trickle with frustration.
Regardless, we can't walk out. You don't seem to realize that a batallion is only 500 men. I'd give them one more year to build up their military with the understanding that they have to or else.
To be fair, we were used- but useed willingly. Bush & Co wanted to invade Iraq, wanted to have the American public believe in invading Iraq, and so fed lies and misdirection in order to feed that desire.
Agreed. But the focus of the anti-war movement has been on Bush.
The pro-war groups have been focused on "helping Iraq" without considering just who we're helping. Do they deserve it? No.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2005-11-05 10:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-06 07:37 am (UTC)I'm part of move-on, and it's really given me a way to get involved that fits easily into my regular life.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2005-11-06 10:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-06 06:25 am (UTC)And you know, I'm with you on the anti-violence, love, but damn! Why hasn't there been an assasination attempt on Bush yet? Just one good shot and whamo . . . we get Dick Cheney. Hmmn. Two good shots and we get Condoleeza or something. ::shudders::
How about a nice big bomb and blow them all to their promised land. :D
And if my husband gets drafted, I'll build the bomb myself.
Sing
no subject
Date: 2005-11-06 07:34 am (UTC)Let's face it, the Republicans follow him, but now they have to think about their own hides. He's only got three more years, the last of which he'll be a lame-duck president -- and next year Bush can't take any risks because of elections.
So... this was the one year where he could get anything done. And he didn't. Then we'll see what happens in 2006. If the Republicans are returned to office, then he'll be able to get something done in 2007. If either the Senate or the House is retaken by the Democrats...
...he'll be so hamstrung in 2007 and 2008 he might as well be stuffed toy in office. He has not won any bi-partisan allies whose favours he can call in for his waning years.
Icarus (smiling)