| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Bill Roggio ("The 4th rail") 's take on the iraqi war |
| 2005-06-20 |
| Since this is a blog, only link is provided; very interesting analysis on the escalation in Iraq and what it may lead to. Perhaps a bit too positive, as it use negative data numbers to predict success? Still, quite enlightening. Read it all. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #13 how about reality. The true god doesn't give virgins to murdering cowardly scum. Joke's on you jihadi boy |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-06-20 19:13 |
| #12 Isn't there something else? Dropping bacon drippings all over 'em? Bacon flavored napalm. |
| Posted by: Dow person 2005-06-20 18:56 |
| #11 Isn't there something else? Dropping bacon drippings all over 'em? Something that would give the would-be 'martyr' pause to reflect. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2005-06-20 17:45 |
| #10 You guys a team? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-20 17:13 |
| #9 What kills a would-be martyr's chance at his 72 virgins? Premature detenation. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-20 17:08 |
| #8 What kills a would-be martyr's chance at his 72 virgins? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2005-06-20 16:23 |
| #7 Unfortunately, I don't think we are killing them fast enough. We seem to be killing them at a rate of several hundred a month. They can keep this up indeffinately. On the other hand the American public may be losing heart. One of the problems with allowing the Jihadis sanctuary in other countries is that they get to dictate the tempo. They can pull back whenever they've lost too many folks. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2005-06-20 13:19 |
| #6 That was an interesting read: thankyou! I think it overlooks one thing: the honour-shame and religious fanatacism cult though. With honour-shame, residents may not make a logical choice. Logically stability under the new government is preferrable to chaos under militants, but a sense of pride in the 'independence' of militants may make them choose the illogically. second, the forces of religious fundamentalism are holding sway over large numbers of people. While Saddam was a hated strongman who frequently purged his forces and governed by terror, he kept the Islamofascists in check. It is possible that by giving the people democracy the islamofascists may simply win a huge victory and thus we lose even as we have won by making Iraq a stable democracy. |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-06-20 12:15 |
| #5 72 virgins in paradise do not procreate new replacements here on earth and I do not think the Jihadist are leaving samples at a sperm back in Mecca. |
| Posted by: Jong Cravirong9792 2005-06-20 12:05 |
| #4 The only three assets the *worldwide* enemy has is some money, hot bodies, and diffusion. Since their money supply is fairly fixed, their only escalation option is to commit more and more personnel in more and more concentrated efforts. Eventually they will run out of willing dummies. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-06-20 10:52 |
| #3 Bobby: Think 1945 in the Pacific - Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Hiroshima, Nagsaki, game over. That's right. Okinawa, the final battle fought against the Japanese, involved the highest US KIA sustained during the Pacific War. Several months before that, Iwo Jima held that honor. Wars generally die out with a bang, not a whimper. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-20 10:05 |
| #2 A5089: Perhaps a bit too positive, as it use negative data numbers to predict success? Actually, he doesn't use those numbers to predict success - he states that they don't mean that the enemy is winning, merely that he is escalating. Roggio's point is that every war involves escalating combat until one side can no longer sustain it. Until then, casualties on both sides will continue to accumulate. Another point worth noting is that in war, conventional or guerrilla, casualties tend to ratchet up until one force is effectively destroyed. In Vietnam, US casualties ratcheted up until the destruction of the Vietcong the Tet Offensive, after which Vietcong attacks, and US casualties, dropped off precipitously. The other point Roggio makes is that the enemy isn't having much success trying to export his war to the US. Our adversaries have their hands full trying to expel the American infidels from Arabia. And that was the whole point of the Iraq invasion - partly to warn Muslim leaders of the consequences of funding plausibly-deniable terrorist attacks against Uncle Sam and partly to provide a location in the heart of Arabia to slaughter the Muslim holy warriors who want to kill Americans. The rest of it (WMD's, freedom, etc) was the kind of diplomatic hypocrisy we wage to counter the diplomatic hypocrisy that our foreign adversaries wage against us. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-20 10:00 |
| #1 Summary: They can't beat us militarily. Escalation always happens in war, but we do not need to escalate - they do. When escalation stops, the war is over. (That's the most telling bit .... Think 1945 in the Pacific - Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Hiroshima, Nagsaki, game over.) Blowing up civilians will not win their hearts and minds, and even if they do drag the country into civil war, they still don't win, 'cuz no one will be able to govern it. But read the whole thing. As he says at the end, the big variable remains how long the bad guys think it'll be until we back out. So thank you, Senators, AI, and MSM for encouraging them. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-06-20 09:50 |