This is an excellant article contextualizing what many have already said. read up.

Why the Strong Lose (http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume4/january_2006/1_06_3.html)

....Perhaps worse still, conventional wisdom is dangerously narcissistic. It completely ignores the enemy, assuming that what we do alone determines success or failure. It assumes that only the United States can defeat the United States, an outlook that set the United States up for failure in Vietnam and for surprise in Iraq. Custer may have been a fool, but the Sioux did, after all, have something to do with his defeat along the Little Big Horn.

Military victory is a beginning, not an end. Approaching war as an apolitical enterprise encourages fatal inattention to the challenges of converting military wins into political successes. It thwarts recognition that insurgencies are first and foremost political struggles that cannot be defeated by military means alone-indeed, that effective counterinsurgency entails the greatest discretion in the use of force. Pursuit of military victory for its own sake also discourages thinking about and planning for the second and by far the most difficult half of wars for regime change: establishing a viable replacement for the destroyed regime....

Jest lookit the "greatest" warrior of all time...


That Genghis con...



More killin' 'n capturin' of other's territories than ever before or since...



Yet how LONG did his empire last?




And what BECAME of Mongolia?



Uh, no MARSHAL Plan fer THEM...




It wuz all jest SHERIFF ya WANNA, after they wuz "assimilated"...



But neither the Russians OR the Chinese are in the mood fer sharin' much with THEM...




www. great-post, my-guerrilla-friend .edu




------------------------------------------------------------

Some of my prior observations of Dubbya's Mongolia visit posted on anuther site once:





CAUTION, Mr Bush! Mongolian dawgz is NOT... < In_Odder_Words > 11/17 11:49:49

...pets!



"When staying at somebody's gär then stick to the following minimal rules regardless how friendly people may appear to you:


1) Check carefully whether your potential host is capable at all of accommodating another guest. In order to find out, you can check for the number of family members, the situation of the animals, etc.

2) Never stay longer than one day.

3) Never refuse ceremonial offerings of tea even if it is salty, etc.

4) Roll down the sleeves of your shirt/coat no matter which temperature it is. If it is summer and you (and Mongolians) wear a t-shirt, then pretend to roll down your sleeves symbolically when being offered food and drink.

5) Never accept any offering of food, drink etc. with your left hand. Both hands is best.

6) If there is only a well, not a river nearby, never abuse it as a bathtub. Water in general and wells in particular are precious in this country.

7) When bringing your own food or drink never forget to offer it to everybody. Never attempt to munch your biscuits secretely. If you can't resist eating your own biscuits then wait until you are on the road again.

AND, FINALLY (Odder's favorite)... TEN:


10) Perhaps last in this list, but not least: Show due respect to the dogs and animals of your host. The dog will only respect you if advised by his master to do so. Mongolian dogs are no pets!


Bush in Mongolia, PART II... < In_Odder_Words > 11/18 14:24:47

Bush warns Mongolia about corruption in government


"I will say on your TV screens, there should be no corruption in government, that one of the foundations of any government is the ability for the people to trust the government, itself," the president told Mongolia's Eagle television.


Bush called Mongolia "a friend."

(On an Odder note, Mongols themselves refer ta Mongolia as "a country"...)


PICTURES OF MONGOLIA HERE!!!


Mongolin Khan Men Wrestle With Their Decision Over Bush's Corruption in Government Comments (they had been lookin' forward ta some Halliburton contracts fer themselves)


http://www.thomwise.com/gallery/album04/BoysB



Mongolian Dinner For Three at an Ulaan Bator Resaurant


http://www.thomwise.com/gallery/album04/Plate



WHAT BUSH MAY SEE IN MONGOLIA BESIDES ROCKS, DIRT, 'N SAND:



Bush will see performances of Mongolian throat-singing and horse-head fiddling


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-13-bush-asia_x.htm




I've searched in vain fer actual photos of Bush hisself in Mongolia, but evidently they've been blacked out...


Bush in Mongolia, PART III... < In_Odder_Words > 11/18/05 17:23

Laura Bush greets Dubbya as he walks thru the front door of the White House: Hello, Darlin', did you enjoy your trip to Mongolia?



Dubbya shrugs: That's like askin' if I enjoyed a trip to some parkin' lot...



Laura: Did things not go well?



Dubbya: Well, I've yet see a commitment of more than the 160 troops they were gonna send to Iraq...They've only actually SENT 131...

They had the nerve to ask if I fergot Poland? So I tried to bribe 'em with an offer of a two-weeks-all-expense-paid R&R to Crawford, Texas for every free, dumb fighter they send to Iraq for more than a year, but clearly they weren't interested...




Laura: Did you actually show them any PICTURES of Crawford, Texas, dear?




Dubbya nods: Yep...




Laura: Well then, all I can say is, I TOLD you not to do that...





Dubbya shrugs: Would you like to see a picture I took of Mongolia while I was there?



Laura: You took a picture?




Dubbya nods...




Laura looks at the picture: All I see is a goat? Where's Mongolia?




Dubbya: Uh, behind the goat somewhere...






Uh, that's all I got fer now...




Ya might ask Woodward if HE'S got anythin'....







Toodles, from yer Odder friend...





;)

How does that jibe with the news that overall attacks in iraq are down and that AQ is gradually being kicked out of Iraq by the sunni?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/international/middleeast/12insurgent.html?oref=login

In town after town, Iraqis and Americans say, local Iraqi insurgents and tribal groups have begun trying to expel Al Qaeda's fighters, and, in some cases, kill them.



And that AQ having recognized the failure of their efforts in Iraq is relocating to Afghan?

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=58262006

British intelligence sources have told The Scotsman Islamic radicals sympathetic to al-Qaeda see Afghanistan as their new frontline and are starting to shift the focus of their anti-western campaign from Iraq.

Hope for the defeatists looking more like the desert rain.

Only in the media does AQ win.

Special Bonus video - Bush's Iraq Update
http://www.wimp.com/update/

Now that's a substantive response if there ever was one!

Not a response, I just found it and wanted to stick it somewhere fast.

I have been saying this for a while now though many of those who disagree with me claim otherwise....Terrorists are killing innocen Iraqis while other Iraqi patriots are fighting for their country against the US:

Insurgents and Al Qaeda clash in Iraq
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/12/africa/web.0112iraq.php

Only in the media does AQ win. Don't forget within the American government as well. If AL Q hates freedom and the Government resonds to their attacks by removing our freedoms...don't the terrorists win? If AL Q's goal is to cause fear and paranoia and the media rambles on endlessly about how you may die in a variety or terrorist attacks...don't the terrorists win? And if Americans allow their freedoms to be stolen by the government because of said fear-mongering by the media and politicians...don't the terrorists win?

The one they showed on letterman last nite was even better.

Waldo -
The need for such stability operations has been reinforced in the Iraq War, which, once again, has exposed the limits of conventional military power in unconventional settings. Operation Iraqi Freedom achieved a quick victory over Iraqi conventional military resistance, such as it was, but did not secure decisive political success. An especially vicious and seemingly ineradicable insurgency arose, in part because Coalition forces did not seize full control of the country and impose the security necessary for Iraq's peaceful economic and political reconstruction. Operation Iraqi Freedom followed not only three decades of determined US Army concentration on conventional operations but also over a decade of steady cuts in active-duty US ground forces, especially Army infantry.21 Most stability and support operations, however, including counterinsurgency, are inherently manpower-intensive and rely heavily on special skills-e.g., human intelligence, civil affairs, police, public health, foreign language, foreign force training, psychological warfare-that are secondary to the prosecution of conventional warfare. Forces postured to achieve swift conventional military victory thus may be quantitatively and qualitatively unsuited for post-victory tasks of the kind that the United States has encountered in Iraq.
The US will fail should they continue on the route they started...

Hey Waldo Is this sufficient?

Report: Army could be near breaking point
Rapid troop rotations threaten institution, Pentagon-sponsored study says

WASHINGTON - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a “thin green line” that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

More for Waldo -

U.S.: Insurgent Attacks in Iraq Increased by 30% in 2005
In Iraq, the U.S has admitted that insurgents carried out over 34,000 attacks during 2005. This marks an increase of nearly 30 percent over the previous year. Despite the spike, U.S. officials have attempted to put a positive spin on the news. A military spokesperson said the numbers "tells me the coalition and the Iraqi forces have been very aggressive in taking the fight to the enemy."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/24/1516246

what happens exactly when the military "snaps" guerilla?

And the significance of these attacks (doesn't define what an attack is does it) is what precisely?

If you somehow think this supports your case then you should be able to show how this increase in the number of attacks has led to something tangible for the enemy, shouldn't you.

should we hold our breath for that one.

In important news residents of Ramadi and Samarra have banded together to chase out AQ.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/01/dispute-over-federalism-resurfaces-and.html

Al-Qaeda is apparently being chased down and confronted by Iraqis in Anbar and Samarra according to a report from al-Sabah. Mohammed al-Ubaidi is a citizen of Anbar who took part in a battle against al-Qaeda fighters said that people were enraged by the attacks that kill civilians in Anbar and other provinces and therefore have decided to form squads from the residents to rid Anbar from the foreign terrorists. The reports mentions that several tribes’ sheikhs had a meeting in the home of a sheikh of the Dulaim tribe where they pledged to fight al-Qaeda and throw them out of the province. There are also news that some 120 al-Qaeda members have already fled outside Iraq after a series of battles between their cells and the residents of Ramadi and other towns and suburbs of Anbar. According to the same report, similar measures are being taken by the residents in Samarra and have succeeded in forcing foreign terrorists out of their city.

The notion that 'they're winning' is like trying to carry water in a bucket full of holes.

the only thing attacks are good for is politcal pressure back here. they wont destroy our military with a few IED's. the attacks fuel the useful idiots like 500lb guerillas anti war/ anti american campaign. If they never reported these attacks in the news they would have zero effect. lets face it, an IED is not exactly the battle of the bulge.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
..... It assumes that only the United States can defeat the United States, an outlook that set the United States up for failure in Vietnam and for surprise in Iraq. Custer may have been a fool, but the Sioux did, after all, have something to do with his defeat along the Little Big Horn.....
In other words, refusal to credit their enemies? "I'm number one!"

Yes, that makes sense and it explains the superior, “down your nose” attitude even when they lose. Yes, I think that is true. For example, it’s not often that the U.S. gives the Vietnamese credit for beating the pants off the Americans. They’d much rather blame their failures on ”faulty intelligence”. Hmmmm, that’s beginning to sound very familiar.

Originally posted by Catch 3
For example, it’s not often that the U.S. gives the Vietnamese credit for beating the pants off the Americans.

Apparently you aren't well-versed in military history if you believe they "beat the pants off the Americans".

They’d much rather blame their failures on ”faulty intelligence”. Hmmmm, that’s beginning to sound very familiar.

Please stop.

So wait first you claim:
How does that jibe with the news that overall attacks in iraq are down and that AQ is gradually being kicked out of Iraq by the sunni? which you say proves that the Americans are winning. Then when I show you hard evidence that attacks are up you respond with this shit:
nd the significance of these attacks (doesn't define what an attack is does it) is what precisely?

What is war exactly? What is winning exactly? What is losing exactly? "What is the meaning of 'is'?" Gimmie a fucking break. You could at least have the balls to recognize what I posted instead of pretending to on some philosophical BS...

Your 'attacks' number is one that includes 'attacks' onUSF, ISF, and iraqi civilians.

The attack numbers i have used are attacks on USF only.


And with the incredible rise in 'attacks', USF causualties last year were down by a third. How can that be? What does it mean?

In other words, most of those attacks were a) impotent b) directed at ISF which makes sense as they have been taking a greater role in their own security c) attacks on civilians. The inference of course is that the enemy knows contact with USF is fatal so they choose soft targets like civilians or attempt to intimidate ISF (to little avail).

Keep trying. :hitout:

Right and what was the point of the US invading Iraq?...

WMD? Failure
Terrorists? Failure
Saddam? Thats 1
Iraqi freedom? Failure (so far)

Originally posted by Evakian
Apparently you aren't well-versed in military history if you believe they "beat the pants off the Americans".

Please stop.
.... and what was it I said about America not admitting that the Vietnamese kicked the shit out of them? Thanks for proving my point, Stanley! :slap:


The truth really stings you more than most people, doesn't it.