That group [Al-Qaeda] and its affiliates, "are the greatest source of spectacular attacks. We fully expect al-Qaeda in Iraq operatives to lash out and stage spectacular attacks." --Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner _______ Fears of a Tet Offensive in Iraq The U.S. commanders in Iraq seem to sense some new horror for the country is near. On July 7, Gen. David Petraeus predicted that insurgents would lash out with spectacular attacks in the coming weeks, as the clock runs down on time ahead of the September progress report due in Washington. And yesterday Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the commander of U.S. forces in southern Iraq, echoed the fear when talking to reporters in the Green Zone. "We're concerned about some kind of Tet offensive that's going to affect the debate in Washington," Lynch said, harking back to the pivotal 1968 push by communist forces in Vietnam. full article
thats the problem with telling enemies exactly what you are going to do, i.e. timetables. Its a stupid and reckless military policy, too bad it was being used as a political tool
it's the whole point of the article: "We're concerned about some kind of Tet offensive that's going to affect the debate in Washington," Lynch said.
granted, announcing when a report will be due is different than military operations, but i think the general idea is still there. With that report having an effect on what america does over there from here on out, then why wouldnt they try to cause as much damage as possible before the report is due to try to effect its outcome and thus america's next move?
Except though if the surge strategy is successful in Iraq shouldn't it be able to deal with a "Tet" offensive?
maybe, but wasnt the "surge" specific to a few areas? i dont know if the surge was inteded to counter a wide spread coordinated attack, rather offensive operations in select areas. Whatever the case, a tet-like offensive reasonably well coordinated would be ugly.
All the arguments about democracy, and the American people and how they are a horrible hinderance to the proper conduct of the war effort are nearly exact paraphrasals of things that were said by Erich Luddendorf. Seriously, you guys need to reevaluate the relationship between the people and the government. This is not a kingdom. The government exists to fulfill the will of the people, not the other way around. You can't just look down your nose and dismiss that because you don't like it. If it offends you that the conduct of the war is subject to the will of the great unwashed rabble, then move to Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe does whatever he likes, no matter what the people think.
I think at this point it is inevitable that there will be a major push by the insurgents/ al Qaeda -- if this happens before we pull out I think we will almost be forced to escalate the war there. We can't lose this war in spectacular fashion pushed out in a large offensive where we are rescuing people off rooftops at the last possible moment -- again. What a disaster.
Yes, but it's not stupid and reckless to engage in a war when your commanders tell you that you don't have enough forces and when your intelligence tells you that you'll get involved in a quagmire and when your enemy is in a different country????
The Tet Offensive, as a military operation, was a total failure. The Viet Cong ceased to exist as a viable military power in the wake of this disastrous operation. The only positive effect it had for the Communists was the political fallout in America. Likewise, the only thing the Iraqi insurgency could hope to gain by trying to launch a major offensive against US troops in Iraq is to help push the pullout agenda in America. There is no way the US military can be defeated in Iraq, it can only be defeated on capitol hill. I would hope that we don't allow that to happen, but it isn't really up to just me.
This kind of dementia used to be funny but now is sad. Not becuase you say it but because there might be others who actually believe this, which hurts our security and kills people. Yes if you define the bar as infidel armies driving the US army into the Persian gulf, then there is probably no way that they will be defeated. If you define the bar as what hte war was intended to do, or even lower it a great deal, then not only is defeat probable but it actualy already happened. I can only imagine the joy that reverberated through basso's heart when he read the words Tet offensive though. I bet it will inspire him to go on a patriotic posting rampage!
If you define defeating the military in any way that has anything to do with the military, there is no way that the Iraqi insurgency can defeat the US military. They can't rout them. They can't kill them. They can't take territory away from them. All they can do is set off bombs and hope that the politicians in America pull them out. There can be no military defeat in Iraq, only a political one.
...and if you don't make up a rigged definition of military (that ignores the definioton of stalemate) and define things in overall, rational economic terms (and I am not talking about $) there is no way you could call what is happening in Iraq as anything other than a defeat - in other words a situation that leaves us worse off. Your attempts to distort by limiting the focus and making artificial definintions are deliberately misleading, though not surprising, and definitely not very intersting or worthy of further discussion. Though your faux hearfelt hope would be amusing...if it were actually amusing. THe only debate is whether or not it ranks as more or less sophisticated than an "I support the troops" bumper sticker.
yes, indeed, it is sad, but it was never funny, except, perhaps in the bizzaro world which you and batman inhabit, wherein defeat by any means is fine, as long as bush and/or republicans can be blamed. but in an asymmetrical war such as the one we find ourselves engaged in, the truth is the enemy's best weapon is the western media, who, with their liberal fellow travelers, unwittingly, or willfully as the case may be, take the side of our enemies. when you say you support "the troops", it took me a long time to realize you meant al queda. sad, yes, funny? no mas.
Once again I will bring up the point which you never respond to except to post their public spin on the situation. But you have yet to respond to the actual internal documents which go beyond the spin and shows what Al-Qaeda really wants. Then you, who has the same goal as Al Qaeda in Iraq accuse liberals against our troops being in Iraq as supporting Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq, just like you do. We have seen their internal documents showing that very point. Yet despite you and Al Qaedas similar goals, nobody accuses you of supporting them. You would think that you could afford your political opponents the same courtesy. I thought you were a believer that politics end at the water's edge, but here you are lopping people with a different opinion in with our nation's most dangerous enemies.
Yes you mean the bizarro world that 70% of americans inhabit. A strange bizarro world called reality. I'm going to give you advice - next time you feel like posting your standard "you're a terrorist!" in frustrated despair, just sit back, take a deep breath and write "I'm a giant douche". It will save us the trouble - and serve to bring you closer to this bizarro world called reality that we inhabit. Cheers.
