Rummy says insurgency could last decade

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

And while I'm at it, I heard a report on the news this morning that "we" and the Iraqi "government" have met with the insurgents.

 

True?

 

I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists?  Or are "insurgents" who use terroristic tactics not "terrorists" unless they specifically make that claim?  They're certainly terrorizing people...

 

So why would we negotiate with terrorists?  And if we are, why these terrorists and not other terrorists?

369024[/snapback]

 

Of course, the fact that there's about a bazillion different groups fighting in Iraq and one of them - the Sunnis - is one that both the Iraqis and the US want involved in the democratic government is completely irrelevent...

[Reuben Gant]

make that claim?  They're certainly terrorizing people...

 

So why would we negotiate with terrorists?  And if we are, why these terrorists and not other terrorists?

369024[/snapback]

 

I think a distinction must be made between talking to them, and negotiating with them. Whatever information you can learn from them is beneficial for our forces.

An apt analogy is with someone who is a kidnapper, or phoning in a bomb threat - if you keep them talking they are not hurting anyone at that moment, and you may learn enough from them to intercept their next move.

[boomerjamhead]

I think a distinction must be made between talking to them, and negotiating with them. Whatever information you can learn from them is beneficial for our forces.

An apt analogy is with someone who is a kidnapper, or phoning in a bomb threat - if you keep them talking they are not hurting anyone at that moment, and you may learn enough from them to intercept their next move.

369035[/snapback]

 

I'm all for torturing them.

[Wacka]

Let's see- We've been in Bosnia for a decade- no peep from the libs of course- that was Clinton's war.

 

It's my opinion that we will have a permanent base or two in Iraq, just like in Germany.

 

Were talking to the terrorists- telling them we are not going to stop until they are dead!

[CoachChuckDickerson]

so how are you uncoding Rummy's statement?  Did you find an official Donald Rumsfeld Decoder Ring in a box of Cracker Jax?

368883[/snapback]

 

Mine came inbedded in my block of government cheese.

[Ghost of BiB]

Mine came inbedded in my block of government cheese.

369067[/snapback]

 

That's not really cheese.

[Reuben Gant]

Let's see- We've been in Bosnia for a decade- no peep from the libs of course- that was Clinton's war.

 

369062[/snapback]

 

What should the liberals be peeping about?

[/dev/null]

Mine came inbedded in my block of government cheese.

369067[/snapback]

 

dude, don't eat the gubamint cheese

[blzrul]

Of course, the fact that there's about a bazillion different groups fighting in Iraq and one of them - the Sunnis - is one that both the Iraqis and the US want involved in the democratic government is completely irrelevent...

369029[/snapback]

I'm well aware of the Silly Sunnis, who boycotted the vote and then got po'd that they're under-represented. I said INSURGENTS not SUNNIS.

[Wacka]

I'm well aware of the Silly Sunnis, who boycotted the vote and then got po'd that they're under-represented.  I said INSURGENTS not SUNNIS.

369178[/snapback]

Six of one half dozen of the other- they both want to kill us.

[Lemur King]

Rummy said it because he's a seriously straightforward and direct speaker.

368873[/snapback]

 

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.

[UConn James]

I remember Cheney saying recently on CNN that the insurgency "is in its last throes" and that their "back has been broken." I guess one of them was Off Message. Sorry Dick, but I think Sgt. Rummy is right.

 

BiB, I'm just going to ask b/c you have a lot of good answers... What are we staying there for in such numbers? I think the Afghanistan model was one that worked pretty well. Personally, I don't think staying another month or another six years is going to have much effect on what is going to happen when we actually leave. What remains besides training Iraqi police and national guard?

[Reuben Gant]

I remember Cheney saying recently on CNN that the insurgency "is in its last throes" and that their "back has been broken." I guess one of them was Off Message. Sorry Dick, but I think Sgt. Rummy is right.

 

369198[/snapback]

 

Good Point. Wasn't a follow up question for Cheney...."how long does a last throe last?"

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm well aware of the Silly Sunnis, who boycotted the vote and then got po'd that they're under-represented.  I said INSURGENTS not SUNNIS.

369178[/snapback]

 

Suddenly, they're different?

 

Christ, you're an idiot.

[OGTEleven]

Then, why do you think he waited until now to say this?

I think he is usually on message, but maybe it has something

to do with the President's talk tonight. The talk of turning

this over to the Iraqi's is sounding very much like Vietnamization

during the LBJ days, but that is a sidepoint.

368917[/snapback]

They probably waited for now to say this because if they said it any earlier, there would have been less supoport for the war. Who do I blame for this? I don't blame Rummy and the admin, or the dems either, but the general populace and to a certain degree the press. This insurgency should have been painfully easy to predict (not all the details maybe, but definitely the general theme). I'm sure it was predicted to some degree, but if it was publicly predicted it would have made it more emboldened and also made the US citzenry less supportive because the war would be lasting longer than a season of "Lost".

 

Personally, I think the war was one of the best of a series of bad options in the ME. There were no good options, but standing pat would have ensured an ugly world for a century. This does not guarentee a pretty world, but it gives us a chance. There is a lot more work IMO, but we have to become incrementally prepared for it because that is our nature. It is not a positive attribute.

[Reuben Gant]

They probably waited for now to say this because if they said it any earlier, there would have been less supoport for the war.  Who do I blame for this?  I don't blame Rummy and the admin, or the dems either, but the general populace and to a certain degree the press.  This insurgency should have been painfully easy to predict (not all the details maybe, but definitely the general theme).  I'm sure it was predicted to some degree, but if it was publicly predicted it would have made it more emboldened and also made the US citzenry less supportive because the war would be lasting longer than a season of "Lost".

369203[/snapback]

I think Bush Sr. and Scowcroft predicted exactly this in 92 as to why they didn't go to Baghdad. If I remember correctly when asked about Sr.'s remarks, the party line was 9-11 changed everything.

 

 

 

Personally, I think the war was one of the best of a series of bad options in the ME.  There were no good options, but standing pat would have ensured an ugly world for a century.  This does not guarentee a pretty world, but it gives us a chance.  There is a lot more work IMO, but we have to become incrementally prepared for it because that is our nature.  It is not a positive attribute.

369203[/snapback]

I tend to believe that the administration believed this. But this means the whole war was for tactical purposes rather than any of the publically stated justifications

[JimBob2232]

We are there as long as Iraq wants us there. As soon as Iraqs government tells us to leave we should leave. Until that point, I support us being there.

[Ghost of BiB]

I remember Cheney saying recently on CNN that the insurgency "is in its last throes" and that their "back has been broken." I guess one of them was Off Message. Sorry Dick, but I think Sgt. Rummy is right.

 

BiB, I'm just going to ask b/c you have a lot of good answers... What are we staying there for in such numbers? I think the Afghanistan model was one that worked pretty well. Personally, I don't think staying another month or another six years is going to have much effect on what is going to happen when we actually leave. What remains besides training Iraqi police and national guard?

369198[/snapback]

 

Just my opinion, but in much the same manner that there are different fights going on from the Iraqi/insurgent side - we are prosecuting more than one fight. There is assisting the Iraqi government (which is still in diapers, doesn't even have a constitution yet) and their security forces (same) with establishing both forces and security to handle their own issues. Part of that is whatever talks were going on with the sunni insurgents. Say what you will, but some negotiation is going to have to take place to meld them into the system. I draw a loose parallel with Palestine. They have a moderate faction willing to work things out - but a militant element that just can't be reckoned with.

 

The other fight, and once again IMO the larger issue is in combating and defeating the other elements, most notably the Zarqawi organization. This fight for the most part just happens to be on Iraqi soil, and in my mind has very little to do with the Iraqi situation overall (although I'm sure they find it pretty annoying). "Joe Sunni the recently disenfranchised pissed off guy" is generally not that big a threat to OUR national security. Some of these other characters are, and at least are confined to an area where we can go after them. I think a large portion of our ground forces have this task more in mind than policing Iraq. You are watching a visible part of the global war on terror in action. It just happens to be in Iraq.

 

Also, no one knows how to run a supported operation like the U.S. Going back to the Iraqi stability thing for a moment, they might be getting their stuff together with police and National Guard, but it's still primarily our C4I, recon, aviation and logistical support that's leading the show. It will take years to get them to the level where they can support those kinds of services themselves.

 

Afghanistan is/was a different situation. Not much urban area, not much in the way of population centers to control and often just about impossible terrain. One can do it with less resources.

 

I think, if you see some real successes against the outside terrorist operations you will begin to see a reduction in US involvement. The terrorist guys are pretty well stuck, now. Although they came in under the pretext of helping the insurgency, the Sunnis are pretty well tired of their crap. There are probably still quite a few middle management Baath/Sadaam people tied up with them (they were all along, but hey - didn't fit the news mantra in 2003) but through attrition and splintering these ties are weakening in so far as anything with the "insurgency" goes. The non-military efforts in that direction are just as important as putting steel on target. Hopefully, it will all come together sooner than later.

 

A terrible measure of success is when things start blowing up in places like Dubai or Bahrain. That means the bad guys are giving up on engaging in Iraq, and are heading for secondary targets.

 

I haven't kept up with this too closely over the last few months, but that's my take. Anyone else feel free to jump in.

[Reuben Gant]

Just my opinion, but in much the same manner that there are different fights going on from the Iraqi/insurgent side - we are prosecuting more than one fight. There is assisting the Iraqi government (which is still in diapers, doesn't even have a constitution yet) and their security forces (same) with establishing both forces and security to handle their own issues. Part of that is whatever talks were going on with the sunni insurgents. Say what you will, but some negotiation is going to have to take place to meld them into the system. I draw a loose parallel with Palestine. They have a moderate faction willing to work things out - but a militant element that just can't be reckoned with.

 

The other fight, and once again IMO the larger issue is in combating and defeating the other elements, most notably the Zarqawi organization. This fight for the most part just happens to be on Iraqi soil, and in my mind has very little to do with the Iraqi situation overall (although I'm sure they find it pretty annoying). "Joe Sunni the recently disenfranchised pissed off guy" is generally not that big a threat to OUR national security. Some of these other characters are, and at least are confined to an area where we can go after them. I think a large portion of our ground forces have this task more in mind than policing Iraq. You are watching a visible part of the global war on terror in action. It just happens to be in Iraq.

 

Also, no one knows how to run a supported operation like the U.S. Going back to the Iraqi stability thing for a moment, they might be getting their stuff together with police and National Guard, but it's still primarily our C4I, recon, aviation and logistical support that's leading the show. It will take years to get them to the level where they can support those kinds of services themselves.

 

Afghanistan is/was a different situation. Not much urban area, not much in the way of population centers to control and often just about impossible terrain. One can do it with less resources.

 

I think, if you see some real successes against the outside terrorist operations you will begin to see a reduction in US involvement. The terrorist guys are pretty well stuck, now. Although they came in under the pretext of helping the insurgency, the Sunnis are pretty well tired of their crap. There are probably still quite a few middle management Baath/Sadaam people tied up with them (they were all along, but hey - didn't fit the news mantra in 2003) but through attrition and splintering these ties are weakening in so far as anything with the "insurgency" goes. The non-military efforts in that direction are just as important as putting steel on target. Hopefully, it will all come together sooner than later.

 

A terrible measure of success is when things start blowing up in places like Dubai or Bahrain. That means the bad guys are giving up on engaging in Iraq, and are heading for secondary targets.

369228[/snapback]

That I think is a very good analysis from the standpoint of US exposure, but

they are spending a lot of time killing each other over there too. I wonder if

"insurgent" is the best word because it is such of an abstraction that it covers both those shooting at US soldiers, and those bombing Mosques.

 

How do you evaluate whether an insurgency (for lack of a better word) is getting stronger or weaker with means other than body counts? If body counts are the measure it seems from a US standpoint the insurgency is as strong as last year.

[Ghost of BiB]

That I think is a very good analysis from the standpoint of US exposure, but

they are spending a lot of time killing each other over there too. I wonder if

"insurgent" is the best word because it is such of an abstraction that it covers both those shooting at US soldiers, and those bombing Mosques.

 

How do you evaluate whether an insurgency (for lack of a better word) is getting stronger or weaker with means other than body counts? If body counts are the measure it seems from a US standpoint the insurgency is as strong as last year.

369232[/snapback]

 

I fully agree that "insurgency" is a bad word.

 

I think it comes down to whos bodies we are talking about. The AQ minded folk are playing two games. Attacking non-believer forces and disrupting any kind of organization that will get in the way of a fundamentalist Islamic takeover. The targeting of civilians to me, once again IMO is a sure sign that their strategy is failing. The Sunni resistance was for the most part going after the government and Shia institutions. Zarqawi is going after just about everybody, in the hopes of creating fear and uncertainty. In so many words, the insurgency from that level is failing. But, it doesn't look like it in terms of body parts in the streets.

 

We looked at Iraq as an opportunity for another moderate Muslim state. They look at it in terms of another rung towards the top of the Caliphate ladder. They're losing the fight - but this isn't happening quickly.

 

The level of killing may be the same or even greater, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the success or failure of strategic goals this early in the game. As was mentioned before, there are still a lot of folks wandering Bosnia.