One thing that worries me is that the defence guys are treating this like a regular war… and of course by the definitions of a regular war, we can’t be anything but winning.
However, this thing is not going to be won by whether or not we can subjugate a huge piece of land for some period of time, or withstand all the attacks and break apart any defined foe.
This thing will be defined by whether or not the forces can leave and what happens when they eventually get to do so…
One thing that worries me is that the defence guys are treating this like a regular war… and of course by the definitions of a regular war, we can’t be anything but winning.
However, this thing is not going to be won by whether or not we can subjugate a huge piece of land for some period of time, or withstand all the attacks and break apart any defined foe.
This thing will be defined by whether or not the forces can leave and what happens when they eventually get to do so…
Is there a measure for that?[/quote]
I don’t know that there’s an accurate “measure” for a prediction, but from looking at that al Queda memo I would think an interesting measure would be the amount of Sunni participation in the army and the police force. The more integrated those two units are, the less likely is any civil war.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
vroom wrote:
Damn, it’s been a year and a half, hasn’t there been any good news in all that time…
Yeah, I saw this coming - should have pulled up a more recent thread. Oh well.
At any rate, I think the captured intelligence from the Al Queda memo (and posted by centcom, that known “wingnut” website) is the most interesting stuff. They’re losing the war of attrition, and they seem to know it.
al Zarqawi is a little like Che Guevarra. A symbol, but a military failure (unless “success” is defined as killing women and children, setting off remote bombs and not knowing how to operate his machine gun).[/quote]
You and your pals assertions would be spot on if they were correct about what is really going on in Iraq.
