Limits of US Military Power

[Matt25]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4488099.stm

Iraqi insurgency ‘undiminished’
** The most senior officer in the US armed forces, General Richard Myers, says Iraqi insurgents have lost none of their capacity to stage attacks. ** The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff said there were 50 to 60 attacks a day, the same level as one year ago.

       He said it is too early to judge whether a recent surge in violence amounted to a concerted campaign.           

       The BBC's Pentagon correspondent says US optimism felt after the success of the Iraq elections has dissipated.

Speaking of the insurgents who have waged a campaign of violence since the invasion by coalition forces in 2003, General Myers said: “I think their capacity stays about the same. And where they are right now is where they were almost a year ago.”

The last week in Iraq has seen a welter of attacks, with dozens dead in suicide bombs and a civilian helicopter brought down outside Baghdad.

       But the general insisted it is too early to say whether a new concerted campaign of violence by insurgents is under way.

The BBC’s Adam Brookes at the Pentagon said it was clear that the optimism, euphoria even, that gripped America’s military leadership after the success of the Iraqi elections in January, has now dissipated.

The view from Washington is that success in Iraq now depends on the new government in Baghdad and whether or not it can entrench itself and become a cause that Iraqis will deem worth fighting for, our correspondent said.

 

[FightingFat]

It is incredible that despite all the deaths, all the violence, all the killing and dying, it seems to have no affect on the campaign of violence, it appears to be all in vain.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

FightingFat:

It is incredible that despite all the deaths, all the violence, all the killing and dying, it seems to have no affect on the campaign of violence, it appears to be all in vain.

Rome wasn’t built in a day. America is still trying to figure out democracy and we have been at it for 225+ years now. Add to the complications is a religion that can be interpretted to allow for brutal beheadings and suicide bombings all in the name of God. Does anyone have a viable alternative?

 

[wabrams]

Scott_Lafrance:

Rome wasn’t built in a day. America is still trying to figure out democracy and we have been at it for 225+ years now. Add to the complications is a religion that can be interpretted to allow for brutal beheadings and suicide bombings all in the name of God. Does anyone have a viable alternative?

Here’s an alternative: stay the heck out of the middle east. If you read in history book about a Western power going there, it always turns out the same.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

wabrams:

Here’s an alternative: stay the heck out of the middle east. If you read in history book about a Western power going there, it always turns out the same.

The world is becoming an awefully small place, and I don’t think that isolationism is a viable alternative anymore. Our enemies are well-funded, extremely patient, and willing to die for their cause. How many in America can claim the same thing? The only way to keep our enemies out is to build a 30’ tall wall around the entire US, and as we saw from 9/11, even that won’t work.

 

[gilliam]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4488099.stm

Iraqi insurgency ‘undiminished’
**The most senior officer in the US armed forces, General Richard Myers, says Iraqi insurgents have lost none of their capacity to stage attacks. **The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff said there were 50 to 60 attacks a day, the same level as one year ago. .

He also said:

WASHINGTON,

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

Iraqi insurgency ‘undiminished’
**The most senior officer in the US armed forces, General Richard Myers, says Iraqi insurgents have lost none of their capacity to stage attacks. **The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff said there were 50 to 60 attacks a day, the same level as one year ago.
.

I agree it depends on the new government. Always had (we are not there as occupiers but liberators, so it has always depended upon the new democratic government).

But to get things straight, he also said:

WASHINGTON,

Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said all the trend lines in Iraq show progress. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke during a Pentagon press briefing along with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The chairman said that progress is measurable on the political, economic and security fronts. The Iraqis have held elections and are forming a government, he said. “It, by all reports, looks like it’s going to be one that involves all sects and ethnic groups in Iraq, so it will be a balanced government, which gives you some hope that when they get into the development of their constitution, that that’s going to be a good process,” he said.

The insurgents have very little stock in Iraq, Myers said. Many local citizens are turning in the insurgents. He said that it was local Iraqis who turned in the 10 men arrested for shooting down an Mi-8 chopper that killed 11 people April 21.

“Almost any indicator you look at, the trends are up,” he said. “So we’re definitely winning.”

Rumsfeld reinforced Myers’ statements, but emphasized that it is the Iraqis and not the coalition that will ultimately defeat the insurgents.

“The Iraqis will do it not through military means solely, but by progress on the political side, and giving the Iraqi people a sense that they have a stake in that country; that they’re going to be protected by a piece of paper called a constitution, for the first time in their lives; and that that paper will protect them and, therefore, they are willing to stay together as a single country and have reasonable confidence that their rights and their circumstance will not abused by any of the other elements in the country,” the secretary said.

Economic progress will work against the insurgents, especially when the Iraqi people see clearly that the insurgents are actively working to retard economic growth and destroy the infrastructure.

“The Iraqis will prevail in the insurgency also because over time, it will become clearer and clearer that the insurgents have no plan; they have nothing other than killing people,” Rumsfeld said. He said the insurgents are simply interested in power and returning the Iraqi people to the “ideal” life of the Caliphate, or single Islamic rule.

Finally, the Iraqis will prevail against the insurgency “because the insurgents are a mixture of unlikes,” Rumsfeld said. The former regime Baathists just want power back. The terrorist followers of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi want to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages. The criminal element has still other objectives. “At some point, there will be a division,” Rumsfeld noted.

Myers said there remain many challenges ahead, and combating an insurgency takes a long time. He said the coalition and Iraqi government must remain patient and steadfast against the enemy.

 

[Matt25]

I think that Mr Rumsfeld has proved himself to be over optimistic in the past and seems to still maintain that outlook. If US military and political leaders had predicted at the time of the invasion that several years later there would be 400 insurgent attacks per week and no functioning democratic government in Iraq then I would be more confident in their current predictions.

The only way to keep our enemies out is to build a 30’ tall wall around the entire US, and as we saw from 9/11, even that won’t work.

Just in case you had forgotten Iraq was not involved in the September 2001 attacks. The difficulty supporters of the invasion have in telling the difference between al Qaeda in 2001 and the Iraq Baath Party regime in 2003 is another reason to question their ability to make sensible judgements about the Middle East. They are often knowledgable about oil though.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Matt25:

I think that Mr Rumsfeld has proved himself to be over optimistic in the past and seems to still maintain that outlook. If US military and political leaders had predicted at the time of the invasion that several years later there would be 400 insurgent attacks per week and no functioning democratic government in Iraq then I would be more confident in their current predictions.

Just in case you had forgotten Iraq was not involved in the September 2001 attacks. The difficulty supporters of the invasion have in telling the difference between al Qaeda in 2001 and the Iraq Baath Party regime in 2003 is another reason to question their ability to make sensible judgements about the Middle East. They are often knowledgable about oil though.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

http://www.w3bdevil.com/forums/STFU-PRP-WithUsOrTerrorists.jpg.

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

I think that Mr Rumsfeld has proved himself to be over optimistic in the past and seems to still maintain that outlook. If US military and political leaders had predicted at the time of the invasion that several years later there would be 400 insurgent attacks per week and no functioning democratic government in Iraq then I would be more confident in their current predictions.

Sorry, Rumsfeld is hardly over optimistic, if he were, Myers wouldn’t have had to correct him yesterday and explain to the press that we are indeed winning this thing, no matter what your measurement.

On the daily attacks, they are talking about an outside number of 50 attacks a day. 7 x 50 = 350 not 400. (I keep hearing 35 attacks a day though, which would only be 245 attacks). Of the 350 attacks, 175 don’t do damage any buildings or people. That leaves 175 that might do some damage to something. The difference today from last year is that whe these attacks occur, often, people report the criminals. All this in a country the size of California. Too many? yes. Too many for us to handle. Hardly.

 

[Matt25]

The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff said there were 50 to 60 attacks a day, the same level as one year ago.

7x60 is 420 I was rounding the figure down not up. At the time of the invasion was the US public led to believe that more than two years later around 60 attacks a day by insurgents would be occurring in Iraq? Similarly were they led to believe that the coalition of the willing would be smaller not bigger?

If the US predictions two years ago were so fantastically wrong then why should an intelligent person place any faith in them today?

 

[FightingFat]

I saw this on the BBC today; news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4462745.stmIs this what we want for our brave men & women? Is it a sacrifice we are willing to make? To what ends and for what purpose?