> Robert wrote: > We had two big problems in Vietnam- first, our use of standard (i.e. WWII) > military tactics in the face of a guerilla war. Second, the Communists offered > an alternative government that was very appealing to many Vietnamese. >
We have the exact same problems in Iraq: 1.) We're using standard military patrols to clear out an area, but then not securing the area so the enemy repopulates the area. This was the exact problem we had with Vietnam. 2.) The Americans are offering secular democracy while the insurgents (amongst others) are offering a Muslim form of government. There really is no difference here besides location and enemy - the high level principles are the same. That being said, I'd agree that the US forces (not the British!) are doing a great job of fighting an urban war however I don't believe their current mission is capable of winning the war. In a nutshell, Mr. Rumsfeld has chosen, or been told, not to increase troops levels. Most probably because it was assumed we could get by until the Iraqis took over. It looks like that's a bad assumption, but the reasons for not increasing troop levels haven't changed so what we're left with is a half-assed approach. We can hope, as you point out, that we kill them but the last estimate from the Pew Global studies was that there was over a billion available, probably terrorists in this decade. That's a lot. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:169512 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
