US General Promises Success in Iraq

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=72FC096A-3163-4401-B60FCEA06F0C7039

The head of the U.S. Central Command says he is sure coalition troops in Iraq will defeat insurgents trying to break the American will to stay in the country.
General John Abizaid says the major security threat in Iraq comes from some 5,000 Baath party members and loyalists to former ruler Saddam Hussein. He says the insurgents appear to have considerable training, supplies and money.

But he contends there is no military threat that can defeat U.S. forces. Thursday night, U.S. forces in Iraq continued a new operation against insurgents with a second night of strikes in and near Baghdad. Explosions were also reported in Kirkuk and Fallujah.

more

http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_266.html

Dean Rusk, U.S. secretary of state and General William Westmoreland circa 1968

As 1968 began, U.S. military leadership was still confident that a favorable peace agreement could be forced on the North Vietnamese. Despite growing calls at home for an immediate U.S. withdrawal, hawks like Secretary of State Dean Rusk and General William Westmoreland planned to keep the pressure on the North Vietnamese through increased bombing and other attrition strategies. Westmoreland claimed to see clearly "the light at the end of the tunnel," and Rusk believed that soon the shell-shocked Communists would stumble out of the jungle to the bargaining table. However, on January 31, 1968, the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong launched their massive Tet Offensive all across South Vietnam. In the first week of the offensive, countless Allied positions fell to the Communists, including the city of Hu‰, and for a short time, the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. By the end of February, most of the territory lost to the Communists was regained and the Viet Cong were destroyed, but the unexpected offensive had crushed U.S. hopes for an imminent end to the conflict. In Tet's aftermath, President Lyndon Johnson came under fire on all sides for his Vietnam policy. On March 31, he announced that the United States would begin de-escalation in Vietnam, halt the bombing of North Vietnam, and seek a peace agreement to end the conflict. In the same speech, he also announced that he would not seek re-election to the presidency. On May 3, the North Vietnamese agreed to meet American delegates in Paris for peace talks.

more

[Jacobin]

1. Ah, yes....this generation's General Westmoreland.....

I guess it was inevitable.

Rumfilled is Robert McNamara, except with less Brylcreme and more panache.

[loudnclear]

2. You bet. We will bomb every vacant warehouse until they surrender.

If we really thought the enemy was using the warehouse, why didn't we send our troops in? We are the badest at bombing from afar and killing everything within 20 mile radius.

[0007]

5. The goat shacks are next on the list!

.....and then the mut huts that harbor the sheep. Then on to bigger things! The chicken houses.....

[hang a left]

12. you guys are so funny!!!!!

[GAspnes]

16. I'm calling an immediate outhouse strike

I mean, let's get 'em where they live. Or something.

(Wait -- wasn't there a U.S. anti-tank missile test in the 80's where the missile skipped the target tank and homed in on the rotating fan blade in a nearby port-a-potty? We should re-activate that program immediately.)

[peterh]

15. maybe if Bill Maher had phrased himself in that fashion…

he might still be on regular TV….then again…:shrug:

[denverbill]

3. When I read the headline, I thought 'Vietnam'

I guess you thought the same thing:)

[saigon68]

19. It's IRAQ-NAM

It has all the earmarks of the original.

Complete with a Buffoon as President.

[cliss]

4. The Old David & Goliath story

Or Gulliver & the Lilliputians. I believe that sheer military strength and perceived superiority carries with it an equal amount of vulnerability.

In the lead-up to the war with Iraq, the US was clearly seen as an unmatched world power. A small country with a Tin-Pot dictator which had been crippled by a decade of UN sanctions was no match for the US.

So why are we, 7 months later, unable to extinguish the resistance fighters once and for all? Why did we "win" the war but lose the battle?

I believe that a grossly unbalanced fight is dangerous for the superior party. It leads to feelings of invincibility. A sense of superiority and arrogance. Since when is an american 21-year old, whose idea of warfare is a Nintendo Game, a match against a hardened 35-year old muslim who is fighting for his life, his country & his beliefs. And who is willing to die for them?

[NNN0LHI]

6. And who is playing on their home court? n/t

[htuttle]

7. "Charlie didn't get much USO. "

"He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R and R was cold rice and a little rat meat. He had only two ways home: death or victory."
-- Captain Benjamin L. Willard, Apocalypse Now

[wabeewoman]

8. As my mom used to say

'Pride goeth before the fall' and the arrogance of this group will guarantee they don't stop and learn from the lessons of the past. I don't recall in my lifetime an invader ever winning against the people of the country. It may appear they win but the battle just continues. The problem here is bush and cronies will not let go of the oil so other countries aren't going to help and the Iraqi people are going to fight the rape and pillage of their country. Only when we give up the oil and owning all the Iraqi businesses will there be progress.

[karlschneider]

9. Earlier I wrote "Abaziad sez Saddam worst military planner in history"...I

commented "It appears Saddam knows where Abazaid is, but Abazaid doesn't know where Saddam is..."
something like that. The prosecution rests.

:eyes:

[Jacobin]

11. Nailed it!!!!

Still grinning.

[sendero]

10. I'm immediately suspicious...

... of people who promise things that no man can guarantee to deliver. Right now, between the General and the Shrub and the rest of the bunch, we seem to be playing a game of "I have resolve dammit".

Let's just see where that leads :)

[gratuitous]

13. "No military threat can defeat U.S. forces"

I'd be willing to say that's probably true. But if you can't beat your opponent at checkers, you change the game, don't you? This isn't and really never was a classic military operation, with two opposing forces going at each other, matching weaponry, firepower, manpower and tactics. This is something else, and right now it isn't the U.S. dictating the terms and rules of engagement.

A day or two ago, it was "turning the corner." I figure in another week or so, we'll see "a light at the end of the tunnel." Military folks should be well aware by now how thoroughly screwed they are; the public is catching on, slowly.

[GAspnes]

18. "Not chess, Mr. Spock... Poker."

This isn't a chess match where you have 20 pieces and the other guy has 2. It's poker, where you bluff, and win, and fold when the other guy tells that he's got a winning hand. Eventually the more powerful player will give up and leave the table, out of frustration if nothing else.

[Fleshdancer]

14. you can't win

if you're not sure who your enemy is.

[markses]

17. The enemy has very deceitfully violated the Tet ceasefire

in order to cause maximum consternation...:eyes:

Light at the end of the tunnel...long hard slog...

[saigon68]

20. Been there Heard that

It seems like it was only yesterday