Roger L. Simon: Three words:

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Related, this Ben Stein piece, yet another 'coup' against yet another American president.

I think Crittenden is onto something here. As for th epolls, look at Rasmussen. I keep hearing that Bush is tanking, but his approval ratings over the past year have been steady. The last time I looked it was 42 a couple of days ago.

I think that when people were asked about more troops, they were responding to the way the questions were asked. Most people did not realize that this troops were going to be in Iraq anyway and that this was a bulge of troops, with some staying longer and some coming in sooner. And most people were thinking of more troops than 21,500.

But there is something strange about it too because for months and months people have complained that there were not enough people, now they are doing the opposite.

And the Senate just looks like oppurtunistic jerks who do not know or care about the division of power in our government. Let them vote a binding bill and get the two thirds needed to over ride or shut up.

However, I disagree (tentatively) with his view that insurgents are running for cover because they think Bush's plan will work. From Mao to the Sandinista's and up through current... insurgent tactics state clearly that you seize power when and where you can... then melt away when superior power comes to bear... then return when the superior power has left. We see this tactic in almost every major insurgency since Mao's China.

It seems to me that not only are polls a bad judge of how Americans feel (elections are a better judge), but that two weeks worth of news out of the war zone is a really bad set of data to use as an indication of anything.

I think Jules or anyone else who wants to comment on the insurgency should do some research on insurgencies (hell, the point I just made is in Mao's little colored book). If anyone's interested "The Sling and the Stone" by USMC, Colonel Thomas X. Hammes seems to shines quite a bit of light on the past four years and the current situation.

Of course, I could be wrong and this insurgency could be different from almost every insurgency since the 1920's. Maybe.

But the longer the insurgents stay gone the better the chances they will not come back or if they do, they will not be welcomed back. That of course is why the President ask for a few more troops, to hold the territory.

And you know what? Insurgencies rarely win. They may wreak havoc and kill a lot of people, but they rarely win.

But the longer the insurgents stay gone the better the chances they will not come back or if they do, they will not be welcomed back.

Well, that wasn't really my point... let's stay on topic. My point was that Jules considered a couple weeks of insurgent posturing to be a Good Sign that they're scared of Bush's plan... it appears much more likely (based on past insurgencies and previous actions by this insurgency) that they're simply following usual insurgent tactics. As to the value of Bush's plan, that remains to be seen.

That of course is why the President ask for a few more troops, to hold the territory.

I personally think its a long shot... but its better than running with one's tail between their legs. I think that commentary like Jules' may do more harm than good... since it may be providing false hope based on evidence that appears inconclusive at best.

And you know what? Insurgencies rarely win. They may wreak havoc and kill a lot of people, but they rarely win.

How do you define win, and what are you calling an insurgency? There appear many reasons why some insurgencies fail. The Sandinista, for example, failed several times for a number of reasons. They didn't have a clear message for people to get behind. They were up against the strong religious (catholic) background of the locals and they were considered 'elite' outsiders. However, as they got through these issues (and learned how to play international politics) they eventually won. This seems the case in most (but not all) failed insurgencies. I would point out that currently in Iraq, the insurgents do seem to have clear messages (depending on the ethnic/sectarian group), they appear well embedded with locals and their religion, and from the world news... I would guess that they've got a good handle on International politics.

I don't want us to lose in Iraq. However, I don't want us to simply throw a blindfold on and dance around waving flags. That sort of behavior seems to have done us no good over the past four years.

I support the troop boost simply because its all that Bush seems willing to do... and Congress would just pull down and out. I don't think it will work... I would guess that we'd need about 200,000 more troops and about 10 - 15 years to truly pacify the country. Unfortunately, Bush has blown all of his political capital, the republicans have lost their way and the Dems just want to go home and pretend nothing ever happened.

Sadly, I see frightening similarities between our situation now and empires fallen before us.I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not about to just chant "Go Team America" and not actually look at the data on the ground.

January 31, 2007: Three words:

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post