Iraqi violence down

[Ibby]

Possibly, possibly not, tw.

Why don't you find the chart and show us, so we can actually compare information, rather than rely on your word?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Possibly, possibly not, tw.

Not just possible. Well documented. What did the misguided American commanders complain about so often? The enemy would not stand and fight. So commanders even inflated body counts to the point that everyone in Vietnam was killed three times over.

After Tet, Vo Nguyen Giap moved to his next strategy that kept Americans off balance. He consolidated control in the countryside while conducting 'hit and run' attacks on exposed American and S Vietnamese units. His strategy even negated the American strategy based in massive artillery concentrations. Americans even proclaimed victory when a convoy finally reached Khe Sanh. This was also proof that the enemy was being defeated while ignoring the enemy had moved elsewhere. Exactly what happens in an insurgency - Nam or "Mission Accomplished".

No one needs charts. That reality was well documented in history. Americans were so frustrated by casualties and an enemy that would never 'stand and fight' as to even take their anger out on villagers. Demonstrated by another event: the American massacre upon My Lai. Attacks diminished to almost nothing which was promoted in the "5 o'clock follies" into "we are winning" or "light at the end of the tunnel". All that while, Nam was slowly being lost as more S Vietnamese supported a nationalist movement against the American puppet government.

What was ongoing as violence decreased from 1968 through 1970s? Nam was being lost. Does decreased violence mean anything is being won? Only if we ignore what the Wall Street Journal demonstrates in Baghdad. Little reason for continued violence in most of Baghdad. Most of Baghdad has now been conquered. No wonder maybe 5 million Iraqis are refugees in and outside of Iraq.

The only measure of victory is achieving the purpose of war - a political settlement. No political settlement is occurring. And soon, the "surge" must leave. Purpose of that "surge" was to make possible a political settlement. The purpose never happened. The "surge" achieved a tactical victory - and not a strategic objective.

Deja vue Nam where the US military won every battle and lost the war. Welcome to why insurgencies are so successful especially when the conventional military power confuses 'less violence' with strategic objectives. Never take your eye off the prize. Diminished violence says very little especially when "the surge" must leave soon.