The Persistence of Memory

This post at Daily Kos links to a Newsweek article about the latest news from Iraq, which, to put it diplomatically, is FUBAR'ed in a way that almost does injustice to the term FUBAR:

It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces in August--the worst monthly average since Bush's flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two" insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and fighting--a step up to phase three.

Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S. troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them "no-go areas." "We could go into them any time we wanted," he argues. The preferred term is "insurgent enclaves." They're spreading. Counterinsurgency experts call it the "inkblot strategy": take control of several towns or villages and expand outward until the areas merge. The first city lost to the insurgents was Fallujah, in April. Now the list includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, where power shifted back and forth between the insurgents and American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security force there [in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."

Kos goes on to point out that he and Steve Gilliard both foresaw the possibility of a protracted campaign back in the days when the warbloggers were braying "Mission Accomplished" --and one particular Jackass (no pun intended) announced

"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."

Well, they brought 'em on. But then I thought to myself, "Hey, wait a minute. Wasn't there a military exercise in 2002 that, while not getting all the details correct, portended one hell of a lot less rosy scenario than the one Bush promised?" Turns out, my brain cells were functioning correctly.

Here's a link to The Guardian UK's article on Operation Millenium Challenge. Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper, the nominal commander of "the enemy," i.e., Iraq, ran circles around "the good guys," to the extent that the rules were changed to ensure he lost.

Unfortunately, in a real war, you can't change the rules in the midst of combat.

Now, to be sure, Van Riper's tactics are in many ways different from the actual strategems used by the Iraqi resistance, but the point is quite clear: the US is not invincible. And the situation on the ground in Iraq at this point favors the insurgents. No, that's not playing into the hands of the enemy--just the opposite. It's taking a very hard look at the facts and not letting emotion hold sway over intellect.

This is why the Bush team is doing their best to package the debate on Iraq in the simplest possible terms--us versus them, if you don't believe us, then you must love Saddam, etc. However, Iraq is NOT easy, and no matter how much paper you use to cover up the festering sore that it's become, you can't hide the fact that soldiers are dying, Bush was lying, and the US (and the world) are worse-off because of this foolhardy invasion. Adding insult to the injury is that it wasn't like there weren't warnings--Bush just chose to ignore them.

Just like he ignored his guard service. Just like he ignored his business failings.

Who's gonna bail him out this time?