CNSNews reporting:
The Jan. 20 attack on U.S. forces in Karbala was coordinated, sophisticated and well-timed – and now it looks like two Iraqi generals may be behind it, Fox News reported on Thursday. A convoy of SUVs drove through an American che…

Followed by Pablo who wrote: “….if they’re not fighting, and therefore neither controlling neighborhoods nor protecting any segment of the populace from any other, they’re not the strong horse.”

Pablo has it right.

If the Shiite militias refuse to fight and lie low then they surrender the initiative and are no longer capable of controlling events. They become irrelevant.

If the coalition uses the time wisely, the result will be an entrenched Iraq government, with all the appropriate and necessary security protocols in place, and the Shiite militia leadership without a cadre.

In other words, once they get to Iran and Syria, they might not be able to come back.

Only a completely unexpected response will change the playing field. US military must act creatively. Don’t leave the country. Retreat from the cities and regroup. Allow opposing militias to grow bolder in confrontation with each. Then flatten them both, for instance. Military must find a way to bring the militant factions face to face with US military power. US cannot defeat an enemy that chooses not to fight.

We can use the lull to train the Iraqi army and dismantle some of the militias’ supply lines and financial infrastructure and supply lines, but there’s no way to destroy an enemy under western rules of engagement if he won’t fight:

In this case, you can’t even find him if he’s not fighting. But if they’re not fighting, and therefore neither controlling neighborhoods nor protecting any segment of the populace from any other, they’re not the strong horse.

The majority of the sectarian problems continue to exist because the IP/IA haven’t been able to take control in the affected areas, partly because they’re also a sectarian mess. If there’s a sincere effort to clean that up, it can be done. If Maliki is indeed in the tank, and doesn’t get tossed out, then we’ve got a problem. But if the short term result is that the bloodshed stops, I’ll take it. That will have to be attributed to someone, and who is that going to be? Ideally, it’s the Iraqi government.

This may be a time for the Sard boys to lay low, but it’s also a time for the government to consolidate it’s power.

They’ll play nice for awhile to prop Maliki up and give Bush an opening to declare victory and withdraw, then they’ll come back and resume command.

Bush will be long gone before we withdraw from Iraq.

It was the scene in Apocalypse Now….. after all the madness, near the end of the movie, after Martin Sheen killed the Col., and was flipping through his papers, he came across a note, written in red ink (blood)…

The best lesson to be learned from that movie about fighting this war is how Kurtz operated. He suddenly executed government Viet Cong spies, threw the ROE out the window and went after the VC ruthlessly. “The Viet Cong knew his name now, and they were scared of him.” That’s why the US military has to have Kurtz “terminated”, he impugns the morality of their compassionate warfare.

…sometimes what may feel good doesn’t really make any sense.

honora on February 1, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Since you brought it up, this is one of the problems with liberalism.

“Drop the bomb…… kill them all…”
Sorry, I think it is just time to let these people know we are serious and this gray area between the good guys and the terrorists is just not going to be tolerated anymore.

PinkyBigglesworth on February 1, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Who then is left to be the vanguard of democracy in the middle east? For that you need, you know, people.

I understand the frustration but sometimes what may feel good doesn’t really make any sense.

We must open up on the terrorists NOW, kill them where they stand.

but there’s no way to destroy an enemy under western rules of engagement if he won’t fight:

The ROE must change, no matter how many troops we have over there…they must be allowed to fight the enemy.
.
Not just react, but to be proactive. IMO, success depends on it.

We are identifying the leaders, recruiters, financiers, and those supplying logistics support, and shelter. Every day we get a bit stronger, as does the Iraqi army, and every day the militants get a bit weaker. We ARE winning.

RE:

but there’s no way to destroy an enemy under western rules of engagement if he won’t fight

We do not need to destroy them, we need to convince them to give up the fight.

If the militias think they can wait until we leave Iraq, then don’t leave.

The only reason the democrats have a complaint about our troops in Iraq is the casualties. If there are no casualties, no violence, and peace breaks out, the democrats loose their only reason to ‘cut and run’.

It was the scene in Apocalypse Now….. after all the madness, near the end of the movie, after Martin Sheen killed the Col., and was flipping through his papers, he came across a note, written in red ink (blood)…….

“Drop the bomb…… kill them all…”

Sorry, I think it is just time to let these people know we are serious and this gray area between the good guys and the terrorists is just not going to be tolerated anymore.