[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The strategy is forward deployment out of the bases, commonly known as the green zone.
The troops will patrol and garrison, along with the Iraqi’s in the areas where the insurgents operate. It is designed to kill the enemy and hold the areas.
The switch in generals and combat commanders is to be combined with more effective tactics. Less restrictive rules of engagement which the troops have requested far more then more then additional troops. This will allow then to provoke, engage and kill the enemy and destroy his supply channels.
Lastly Bush made clear that Iran and Syria are fueling the enemy with training and supplies. If they follow thru they will stop this by hitting training camps and supply depots in those countries that are near the border. This will send a clear message that we are ready to engage them militarily. If they don’t blink then this will intensify.
Two carriers will be in place shortly. Look for one more to redeploy suddenly. That will be a good indicator as far as I’m concerned.
The sub that just dinged the Japanese frieghter was also a signal, in my opinion. The message was we have attack subs, in the Gulf, deploy yours against shipping and we’ll sink them. Nobody practices deception better then the submarine force.
If this strategy is followed thru and the military executes it properly it will greatly reduce the effectivness of the insurgency by denying them shelter and supplies. At that point the Iraqi’s can deal with it.
The only question is if the Democrats will allow it time to work. Since they opposed the plan, before it was unvieled that is doubtful. However the stakes are high, the alternative are limited and the Democrats offer no credible alternative other then withdrawing which will have dire consequences in the long term.
Look at Sen. Durbin’s response. “21K troops isn’t enough but it’s too many to put at risk”. In other words, the Democrats will oppose any strategy offered by the President, even if it is one their leadership publicy supported weeks before, until Bush agreed with it.
Did anyone expect anything different?
Good explanation of the strategy, thanks for that.
However, to me it seems a bit too late for this. This rebellion is stronger than its ever been, and I don’t still don’t see us doing much more than causing more problems.
This is not a situation where we can win. Escalation in a violent occupation hasn’t worked as far as I know…India with the British, America with the British, Ireland with the British, Algeria with the French, Vietnam with the French, Vietnam with America…[/quote]
Irish
Those situations you mentioned, with the exception of the US and Vietnam, involved countries that wanted to occupy the weaker nation. The US wants to get out of Iraq but wants them to be strong enough to hold up and defend themselves. In Vietnam we had the ability to prevail but chose not to do so. Isolate the North, destroy the infastructure and continue to fund the South and you would have had two seperate Vietnam’s to this day. Similar to the Korean situation one would have advanced leaps and bounds and the North would still be a piecework shop for China.
Can this strategy work? Probably. Bush ackwoledged the failures and shortcomings and took steps to fix them. A lot will have to do with taking these guys on, in their backyard, and killing them. That will involve provoking them to fight. This may include Iran and Syria. They need to ship the warfighters back in and take the gloves off. Sounds like they are doing that.
I don’t know what will work. I know leaving and surrending to an insurgency led by Iran and the Jihadists will lead to more risk in the ME and at home. Most alternatives I have heard seem unworkable or simply designed to score political points. That will last until another massive attack hits the US. My two cents.