Three years into the Sunni insurgency in Iraq everyone... still believes that eliminating insurgents will eliminate the insurgency.
They are wrong.
There is a difference between killing insurgents and fighting an insurgency.
This man deserves a gibbeting!
[In the past 3 years], we have fought insurgents with airstrikes, artillery, the courage and tactical excellence of our forces, and new technology worth billions of dollars. We are further from our goal than we were when we started.
That's because liberals and the MSM have tied our hands behind our back with their objections to torture and God's gift of universal freedom.
Counterinsurgency is about gaining control of the population, not killing or detaining enemy fighters.
Dead populations are the easiest to control.
A properly planned counterinsurgency campaign moves the population, by stages, from reluctant acceptance of the counterinsurgent force to, ideally, full support.... The counterinsurgent must be ready and able to kill insurgents-- lots of them-- but as a means, not an end.
Huh? If they can't accept democracy at gunpoint, I say we just pull the trigger.
Counterinsurgency is work better suited to a police force than a military one. Military forces-- by tradition, organization, equipment and training-- are best at killing people and breaking things.
Police organizations, on the other hand, operate with minimum force.... They are accustomed to face-to-face contact with their adversaries, and they know how to draw street-level information and support from the populace.What is the suggestion here?
The United States needs a professional police organization specifically for creating and keeping public order in cooperation with American or foreign troops during international peacekeeping operations.
We are not the world's policeman! Do not tie our hand behind our backs. We must have both hands free to kill enough evildoers to win this war. It's a matter of WILL!
Crucial to the success of this force is that the American people thoroughly discuss and understand the organization and its mission.I already know all I need to know. You're trying to sell weakness to the American people, and weakness only emboldens the enemy.
Forcing the round peg of our military, which has no equal in speed, firepower, maneuver and shock action, into the square hole of international law enforcement and population control isn't working. We need a peacekeeping force to complement our war-fighters, and we need to start building it now.International Law? I knew it. This guy's on Kofi Anan's payroll. Right, Rick? Rick?
To deny... reality... is too much of a stretch, even for a Bush partisan like myself. Facts are facts and if the Administration had confronted many of the problems-- insurgency, militias, disenchanted populace, the extent of foreign assistance to the insurgents, and sectarian factionalism to name a few-- it may be that a different outcome to the war could have been salvaged.Et tu, Right Wing Nuthouse? Et tu?
For if there is a victory to be had in Iraq...---
[We] need more troops-- a lot more at least temporarily. Order must be brought to Baghdad and its environs and to do that we would need... 50,000 more Americans to both police the area and ferret out insurgents and the death squads.
For that to happen, the President would have to admit he and Donald Rumsfeld have been wrong all along...
I love the residual naivete behind those "if... then" statements. "Well, it coulda worked if... (begin long list of things that this administration is incapable of doing)."
And if you believe that winning in Iraq is still merely a matter of "will", then you should rest assured: this President has said that "we're not leaving Iraq so long as [he's] President".