Comments on: Insurgencies Rarely Win But Their Opponents Often Lose

By: the evangelical outpost

the evangelical outpost — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:21:27 +0000

How We Lost the War (And Will Lose the Next One Too)...

A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll asked who was winning the war in Iraq. Only 16 percent believed that the U.S. is winning the war. Slightly fewer, 15 percent, believe the anti-U.S. insurgents in Iraq are winning. An overwhelming 66......

By: MinorRipper

MinorRipper — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:19:59 +0000

Reading that article was a complete and total waste of time. I have learned that insurgencies sometimes succeed, and sometimes they don't. Brilliant. How on earth did this 'journalist' get his job??
http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:22:51 +0000

blake: The American War for Independence wasn't an insurgency. It was, mostly, a conventional war between uniformed state armies observing the understood rules of the day. There were some elements of guerrilla warfare and even some low-grade terrorism, but that was ancillary to the main fight.

By: blake

blake — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:05:11 +0000

strange to hear an american military scholar talk about the ineffectiveness of insurgencies given the revolutionary history of the united states. the simple existence of this country is a testament to the contrary.

By: legion

legion — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:13:22 +0000

Bush can ignore the will of the people as expressed through the November elections and confirmed by poll after poll, but he cannot withstand the effects of a broken army.

Cian, Regrettably, it is entirely possible that Bush can bully or bribe people into not admitting the Army is broken for a couple more years. At least the recent elections give me some hope that the American people won't buy the GOP's guaranteed line of "It's the Dems' fault" come Jan '09 when they lose the White House too - I think they'll remember that Iraq has been run exactly the way Bush has wanted to run it from Day 1...

By: cian

cian — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:40:55 +0000

James,

650,000 troops have served in Iraq so far, and of that number over 170,000 have served 1+ tours. The 'surge' will be made up by extending the tours of those already in the country and by cutting short leave time for others in the states. Bush can ignore the will of the people as expressed through the November elections and confirmed by poll after poll, but he cannot withstand the effects of a broken army. The American public is long past the point where an inspiring speech will change anything. The facts are clear- 20,000 more troops is not a realistic response to a civil war of this ferocity. The Iraqi army has long been infiltrated by Shia militias and will not turn up when it is their districts to be cleared. The end game here will read more dead Americans and no progress other than whatever new lies the present administration can come up with.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:06:26 +0000

What's worse IMO the discussion of the surge is a distraction from the real, vitally important question: what then? Can anyone imagine circumstances under which both political parties aren't running against Bush in 2008? (I said this in 2003 but was pooh-poohed at the time) Or that we won't be trying to figure out how to disentangle ourselves from Iraq? I can't. But we'll continue to have interests in the region and Iraq-as-failed-state will adversely affect those interests and an Iraq divided into three autonomous or semi-autonomous states doesn't do a thing to improve that. What do we do to secure those interests? Is that possible?