I think whose side they're on is pretty obvious. The only question is what to do about it.

Since the first carbomb in The Haymarket I have noted that Leftists blogs/bloggers have, almost as one, poo-pooed the coverage. Any one that does pay attention is a "fear mongerer" or "pants wetter"

darkly, they suggest, the fact that these bombs "failed" is proof that maybe it was really a CIA/Mossad blackops operation to "scare" the Brits into staying in the bumpersticker war on "terra".

It would appear our biggest obstacle to success in Iraq or against Islamist terrorism in general is our so-called fellow citizens.

Such knowledge wearies me.

It seems that the people who are now in charge of trying to complete this war don't seem much more cheerful than the press. If you compare what they are saying now with the triumphalism of 2003, it's like night & day.

Unless you believe their statements are being edited by the press as well; and they haven't been able to get their protests out.

Do you think the NYT is actually holding our top generals prisoner, and only letting them out to give unconvincing press releases?

Neal,

Guerrilla warfare is always tough. Its object is not military victory. It is demoralization of their enemy.

Interesting to see that you have been defeated. I guess in your case the guerrillas know what they are doing.

Neal: "Unless you believe their statements are being edited by the press as well..."

LOL. You wrote that as a joke, right? Right? Because I have to tell you that, indeed, the press edits everything. They actually (Really!) have people called "editors" who, you know, edit stuff.

What's more ironic is your apparent belief that editors do not insert their biases into their jobs. You would be wrong if you actually held that belief, and there are numerous studies that document the widespread liberal editorial biases of the US (and UK) press.

No military power can defeat an insurgency supported by a strong percentage of the indigenous population and supplied with limitless military equipment smuggled across porous national borders. Vietnam is an excellent case in point. The Vietnam War was lost long before the American withdrawal: you had a corrupt and dictatorial Christian regime that oppressed the majority Buddhists in order to maintain control. Laos, Cambodia, and China all served as access points in Vietnam; Iran funds the Shiites, Turkish Kurds help the north, and Syria (coupled with Saudi Arabian extremists) supports the Sunnis. Despite the fact that you have 3 well-supplied movements resisting the so-called "government" in Baghdad, the war on the ground is not any easier because al-Maliki's regime is just as corrupt as Saddam (the only difference is that the brutality is left mostly to individual ethnic/religious groups, or members thereof who have infiltrated government army and police). Check the statistics on money lost or misspent if you don't believe me. Tens of billions of dollars have disappeared or, at best, achieved substandard construction with shoddy materials in many instances. If we couldn't pacify South Vietnam (a nation of 16 million people) with half a million troops, you must be dreaming to believe that 150,000 American troops can secure a nation of 24 million citizens.

I'll say it here: WE CANNOT WIN THIS WAR. I was saying that before March 2003 and I'm repeating it now. Yes, thousands of American troops have suffered death and injury for little thanks and no accomplishment. That's an unattractive truth, but it IS the truth. The only worthy monument to their sacrifice is to protect those who have been spared physical harm; every soldier deployed has already experienced emotional/psychological trauma on an incomprehensible scale. Feel free to disagree with me, but if you think Iraq can be saved I want your address so I can send the recruiters over.

I'd also like someone to explain to me how our new skinhead recruits are supposed to win hearts and minds...

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?site_area=1&aid=197

Aaron,

The Southern Poverty Law Center's source for this information is.... ?

(btw, they aren't exactly a balanced, unbiased source of information)

Aaron,

I'd take your views more seriously if you knew your history.

1. By 1974 the Vietnam War was won. The insurgency was defeated. You can look it up.
2. In 1975 North Vietnamese Divisions attacked the South. Our Democrat Congress in its infinite wisdom declined to support our ally. Say we have a Democrat Congress now that declines to support our ally. Get it?

The purpose of an insurgency is to demoralize the opposition. I see that you are easily demoralized and defeated. My condolences.

Well I can't understand why any one in his right mind would want to give Iraq to the head choppers. It would be as morally wrong as giving South Vietnam to the Communists.

I do understand your position. Your morale is low and your morals have followed. Again. My condolences.

saw a PBS frontline about the fall of the Inca to Spanish Conquistadors.
Sorry Aaron.
The Inca had an insurgency supported by a strong percentage of the indigenous population and supplied with limitless military equipment smuggled across porous national borders.
Then the Spanish military power crushed it.

Aaron loved that link dude.

on the page titled
Active U.S. Hate Groups in 2006, they list
Black Separatists
Christian Identity
General Hate
Klu Klux Klan
Neo-Nazi
Neo-Confederate
Racist Skinhead
White Supremist

Sheesh
Hey where are the Russian, Italian, Marxist, Maoist, Mechan, Atzlan, MS-13, Ecoterrorists, Unions,
and, last but not least, Islamo-Facists, listings?

I tink someone has a bit of a bias.

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" - he's lying!

M. Simon,

I simply see no reason to believe that the factions in Iraq will be willing to settle for a share of the available pie. Whatever the payoff for peace, there just seems to be a little bit more for trying to get more than your "fair share".

And with everyone in the neighborhood having a dog in the fight, there will be plenty of people willing to fund any instability.

I think we will be in Iraq for a long time. When they first invaded, my first out-of-the-blue thought was "15 years". That would make it until 2028.

We shall see.

M. Simon,

I simply see no reason to believe that the factions in Iraq will be willing to settle for a share of the available pie. Whatever the payoff for peace, there just seems to be a little bit more for trying to get more than your "fair share".

And with everyone in the neighborhood having a dog in the fight, there will be plenty of people willing to fund any instability.

I think we will be in Iraq for a long time. When they first invaded, my first out-of-the-blue thought was "15 years". That would make it until 2028.

We shall see.

Bad arithmetic: I meant 2018.

Only 11 years to go.

Neal, do you decades of experience as a military planner and/or have intimate knowledge of the mid east and/or our contemporary military and/or direct control over allied forces in the region? Why "15 years?" That is a specific number, and you must have a rationale for choosing it.

Neal says,

I think we will be in Iraq for a long time. When they first invaded, my first out-of-the-blue thought was "15 years".

I agree. Although it wasn't apparent to me at the time once guerrilla warfare develops it takes a long while to eradicate.

The Spanish are still suffering from the guerrilla warfare used against Napoleon. ETA. Almost 200 years later.

10 to 20 years is around what it takes to fix a guerrilla problem so 15 years is not a bad guess with aprox. zero information.

skh.pcola,

As I said, 15 years was what popped into my mind. Factors that played into it:
- Kurds wanting their own area, and probably going to be supported by the U.S. Immediately implying headaches for Turkey, who have been "discouraging" their own Kurds from even thinking about the word "Kurdistan": They've been trying to beat them into accepting the label "mountain Turks". So Turkey would be a player.
- (Sunni) Arabs being supported against the Kurds by Syria - another close neighbor.
- Sympathies between the Sunni Arabs and the Palestinians.
- Iran: I didn't even think about (Shi'ite) Arabs being specifically associated with Iran. I just knew that Iran would be interested - very interested.

I have no specific expertise, except having hung out for a bit with some Middle-Eastern friends (both Muslim and Jewish) in graduate school. However, it seems like a few late-night conversations sensitized me to some factors and issues that escaped the neocons running the DoE during the start-up to this catastrophe. You would think that the professionals would be aware of issues that would occur to a rank amateur.

Although to be fair to the "they will welcome us with flowers" crowd, I do have a track record with War-on-Iraq predictions. During Gulf War I, I was watching CNN (so was everyone else, and for the first time; I had an idea about buying the stock, but never acted on it; stupid) and talking to a friend who was a major in the Army Reserve. Obviously, he had vastly more military experience than I did. But I disagreed violently with him about the likely course of events. At one crucial period, he was saying, "The obvious thing to do is just to wait it out: Saddam's tanks will simply stop working, because the sand will destroy their gears, and the sanctions are preventing them from replacing the parts." My prediction: "First dark night."

I was right.

Because I wasn't paying any attention to the military tactics (I didn't know enough, anyway), but I was paying attention to the politics. And I could tell that Bush Sr. didn't think he'd be able to hold his coalition together for another 6 months. So he would go in as soon as possible, before the weather made conducting a war too difficult.

Sometimes, politics is more important than facts. At least, people sometimes act that way.

NJK,

Well we were welcomed with flowers at first. Then when we couldn't fix everything all at once, we got a backlash. It looks like the balance is being restored.

We shall see.

BTW in the aftermath of WW2 the same dynamic played out in Germany. Not quite as severely nor for as long. However we had more troops then.