I also see I've missed joab's 'rebuttal'...
Which is a round about description of the terrorists operating in the area.
Judges? Wrong.
A terrorist is someone who attacks civillian targets in hopes of using fear to further his political goals. An insurgent is someone who repels what they see as an invader with force.
If you can't understand the difference...at least you're in good company. Ever read Art of War? Remember the part about 'know thy enemy'?
Then why did you type this
Quote:
Moreover, once the people actively turn against the terrorists they leave them exposed and give us intel.
and now say that there is no number that would represent "actively turning against the terrorists"
I say there is no number because there
is no number. Nobody's going to proclaim "we will have won this war when we have captured or killed precisely 3,223 terrorists". Don't be dense.
We will have won this war (or as close to 'winning' as possible) when the terrorists
cease to be able function.
Take our own home-grown terrorists; the KKK. We defeated them, yet they still exist. And we did not to kill or capture a specific number to win.
Then I will translate it into simpler terms for you. Once the leadership is depleted the less experienced minions will attempt to carry on the fight. Or how about if the queen and bishops are taken you can still attempt to mount a defense using peons.
Which is exactly why I cautioned you not to carry that analogy too far. You're still thinking in terms of military heierarchy and they're *not* equivalent. Terrorism requires only rudimentary leadership. A pawn can lead very effectively in their organization. You will *never* defeat a terrorist organization by decapitation. Success requires separating them from their support base.
the insurgency was being hurt by, among other things, the U.S. military's program to train Iraqi security forces, by massive arrests and seizures of weapons, by tightening the militants' financial outlets, and by creating divisions within its ranks.
I do have to lend this some credence, but Zarquawi wasn't in charge of the insurgency. The insurgency will only die when they accept the government.
Here's an appropriate analogy for you. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Here's another one: Death throes. Just as invalid, but easier to spell.
The frequency and severity of the attacks are a very good indication of the strength of the insurgency. It shows what kind of funding they have, how much money, how much supplies, how motivated they are, and how organized.
They're
increasing and have been for the last 3 years. You need to come up with a better explanation for this fact if you're going to claim we're winning.
You did read that part about the Iraqi security forces being involved in a large number of the raids right?
Not good enough. They need to be heading up all of 'em.
All. We need to be nowhere within sight of these raids.
The last thing an Iraqi civillian wants to see, the one thing that angers him like no other, is somebody busting down his door and waving a gun around....and it's an American.
Don't you see how much that sets them off? How upset would you be if some foreigners kept bringing their fight into your house, or your neighbor's house, or getting blown up on your street?
What's he going to do when he decides he's had enough? He's going to help the insurgents. If you anger him enough, maybe he'll join the terrorists.
When Abdul gets a gun in his face, he'd best see an *Iraqi* on the other end of it if you expect us to win this thing.
The trick is to capture and kill terrorists at a faster rate than you're creating them.
Happily, Khalizad has offered us a way to accomplish this, not that we're smart enough to take it.
BTW, you're right. Looking back, I referred to this as a 'timetable' and that is incorrect. 'Roadmap' is a much more accurate description. But hey, heard it here first, right?
That would be as opposed to unconfirmed accusations. Call Dan Rather he may be able to explain the difference now
Hahaha Snarky
Lookie here....I know this is hard for you to understand, but believe it or not, some Iraqi rug salesman sitting in his bombed-out tenement with no running water and no electricity doesn't see the war in the same light as some guy in a Peterbilt ballcap in his La-z-boy watching O'Reilley.
Your opinion and your calls for 'confirmation' mean precisely squat in the future of this war. What matters is
Ahmed's interpretation. You think he's gonna wait for 'confirmation' before he decides to volunteer to plant explosives for his cousin, Habib?
NO. American war crimes shouldn't even be questionable or 'unconfirmed' in this war. They'd better be
unquestionably nonexistent. The only way you do that is by getting the Americans with guns
away from the civillians. Let the Iraqis do that stuff. It goes over better with the locals.
There you go again stating that something must be true because the Pentagon has not deemed it necessary to inform you on the issue. How do you know that they have not begun turning in the interrorgency. How many of those raids were conducted on civilian intelligence
And there
you go trying to draw a pattern with no crayons (again).
I *know* it ain't happening because I *know* how willing this administration is to disseminate classified info in the press when it's politically advantageous and I *know* that if we
were pulling in truckloads of terrorists they'd make sure we all *know* about it with a giant press conference and pictures.
This is not happening, ergo your pipedream remains sadly that.
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.
