Do you think the US leadership understands the subtle distinction between fighting an insurgency...?

Question

Do you think the US leadership understands the subtle distinction between fighting an insurgency versus fighting insurgents?

It may seem a trivial difference, but if it is unrecognized, the US is doomed to defeat in Iraq. Those who wish to not repeat history should (have) read "A Savage War of Peace" by Horne or any of Trinquier's commentaries on the French experience in Algeria.

OK, answerer 1 completely avoided the question. As for Bin Laden, he was right...the US UPPED AND LEFT the righteous (and perhaps long) battle in Afghanistan to go on a misadventure in Iraq that is *completely* unrelated to Bin Laden. I guess in your simple neocon world any two Muslims with a hatred for America must be sleeping together, right?

Mfitz...Horne wrote his text in the 1950's...so it was a tad hard to predict the outcome of Russians in Afghanistan, etc.

Oh, not at all. Should you be bothered to pick up Trinquier or Horne's writings, you would think you were reading about current events. If you have read these writings, please feel free to tell me your impression...with details ;-)

Answer 1

Ya know I've read a lot about military history from the last 200 years and I can't really think of any successful counter-insurgencies other than the ones that governments enact on their local population. Once an insurgency is started, it seems like a sure-fire way to force out extra-national influence.

I'd like to see an example of an insurgency that was really defeated without the invading army leaving eventually. TVs and internet aid the insurgent cause so the victory is even swifter nowadays...

Some people in the military leadership realize what they need to try to do, but some still think of it as a conventional war too. As far as the civilian leadership, they seem to be completely confused by whats going on. I think they all expected an easy victory and little to no resistance.

They used nationalism to sell the war to the U.S. public, and they forgot to account for the power of Iraqi nationalism. Its a double-edged blade.

Answer 2

You asked for answers to your open questions so here goes. On my desk at work I have two dictionaries of biology. One defines macro and micro evolution, the other does not. The one with a definition says it is evolution "above" the taxonomic species level - which I take to mean differentiation at levels between Felidae and Canidae (cats and dogs) or perhaps lower, such as between foxes and dogs. One useful definition of "species" at least as far as the animal kingdom is concerned is a distinction between two groups of otherwise similar organisms which are unwilling to breed together or cannot do so and produce fertile offspring. Thus donkeys and horses are different species since mules are usually infertile. Another example is Rhagoletis pomonella, the North American maggot fly, which was diversified from a hawthorn variety into varieties which infest apples and pears. attempts to cross breed the apple and original hawthorn varieties fail 19 times out of 20, se you could say they have formed different species - or almost. Obviously among plants the situation is somewhat different. However biologists at present have heritage systems of taxonomy, based on anatomy or merely appearance. This system has been under constant revision as new information comes in Until recently, they had no means of investigating the ultimate genetic makeup of any organism and if that investigation eventually become cheap and quick there are likely to be massive reorganisations.

Answer 3

Funny some libs who actually visited Iraq feel that the surge is working and should be given an honest chance/
But maybe Bin Laden was right when he said that the American people are weak and do not have the will to fight a long war.

Answer 4

I believe they know full well the not-so-subtle difference.
I also believe we are fighting insurgents and not an insurgency. I come to this conclusion based on the success of the elections, the number of Iraqis willing to risk their lives in joining the pro-democracy military and militias in Iraq and the fact that the insurgents are targeting innocent civilians.

Answer 5

i believe they have not got a single clue as to what to do with this situation and our military are doing the best they can to do the b-s mission they have been handed to them. i believe our military can handle the mission given to them...and that is what they are trained to do. follow orders and depending on the officers in charge really get the job done. i believe the troops on ground and the likes of general petreaus knows what he is talking about saying that it could take til 09 to complete the mission and with a lot more troops on ground as well....but the suits in d.c. haven't got a clue...no matter how often they have a security enforced visit to see only the nice secure parts of town likely during a curfew restricted time period. i just think this is a lost cause and no one knows wtf is going on and the troops are just following orders and advising the suits in d.c. what they need in order to get the mission accomplished that have been given/ordered to them.

Answer 6

Everyone failed in Afghanistan, including England and the USSR, until we ousted the Taliban. Did Horne mention that?
FYI, Horne's 1950 text is moot and outdated, which is my point.......

Answer 7

Ok . . . you've played Risk a few times and now you're a military genius. Where were you back in '03???? You could have SAVED us all!!!