Upon my return to this legal wasteland I am informed of this.
Despite Recent Suicide Bombs, Violence Appears Calmer in BaghdadThat's comforting, calmer violence. It really shows progress when the violence becomes calme..... What the hell? Roll that sentence over in your mind a bit. Go ahead, don't be afraid. It took me one or two reads.
U.S. Troop Surge Met With Little Resistance From Militias
by TERRY MCCARTHY
Besides the oxymoronic nature of the two clauses I am still flabbergasted by the absolute audacity to use the phrase "Violence Appears Calmer". The next paragraph, however lets everyone know that the author of the article either:
A) has a really different idea of what calm is or
B) Is Full of Shit.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 6, 2007 — Two suicide bombers killed at least 149 Shiite pilgrims today in the town of Hillah south of Baghdad.From my understanding though the car bombs went off quieter and really did feel bad about splintering the bones and charring the flesh of their victims. Its gives me hope. We can use this calmer violence. Now as to the A&B options above, if you picked B you are certainly on target.
The pilgrims were making their way toward the town of Karbala, 60 miles south of Baghdad, for a religious festival due to start Friday. The bombers had mingled with the crowd when it stopped at a roadside tent, where they detonated the explosive vests hidden under their clothes.
This is in stark contrast to the last big U.S. push into Sadr City in 2004, which led to fierce street fighting with heavy casualties on both sides.Herein lies the sad tale of limited power projection. Sun Tzu writes about striking where your enemy is weakest, so we can expect to see a rise in violence in all the usual place Baquba etal. Why because if we flood troops into Baghdad they MUST come from other parts of Iraq. We simply do not have the manpower or logistics to project our power into multiple regions. So "surge" into Baghdad and you will see a corresponding rise in violence outside of Iraq.
The main reason appears to be that for now the militias have melted away rather than confront the well-armed Americans. Despite recent deadly attacks outside Baghdad, many people who spoke to ABC News inside the city say they sense things have started to change since the U.S. surge began.
Limited Power Projection also leads to our second lesson from Sun-Tzu, goad your enemy into concentrating his forces by feigning weakness. The last time we entered Sadr City a blood bath ensued. The insurgents took it firmly on the chin. One key fact remains, much like the shatteres remains of Al-Quada after the attack on Afghanistan, no matter how far they may have bent, they did not break. Recent history has borne out this assertion.
If, as even the author of the article concedes that, the insurgents have "melted away rather than confront the well-armed Americans." We still have a zero sum gain on the ground. If we relax our presence, shorten patrols because Baghdad APPEARS calm then we may feel compelled to move troops into areas where the insurgency is highly active. Leaving a smaller and more vulnerable force within the capital, and, guess what? The insurgents, that melted away, will reappear; rested, rearmed, and reinforced.
Unless we are prepared to inflict and sustain massive casualties this will just be a circular system leading to a drawn out failure. This also calls into question what is our purpose in Iraq, what is this vague platitude that is cast about willy-nilly by the President and his crew. If we are occupiers extending an American Empire then sustained massive application of force is needed to, I hate using this term, pacify iraq. If we are there to create a stable Iraq then game over. Our ability and time to do so, by military force, has long since past.
We have no reason or purpose to try the first, and we blew our chance at the latter.