Even a plat LSO can see a bad pass sometimes and I think my comments about the patience of Americans are right on the mark. The President, I think actually understood that which was why he believed it would all be over by the 2004 election. It was not and the clock started ticking. It’s ticking louder now.

As for the Arab League they should have troops there, but from their standpoint there is no benefit for them. They want Iraq to stay weak and divided. They get to have their cake and eat it too by playing both sides off against each other.

“Oh, Maliki realizes his government wouldn’t last a week if our troops withdrew. He doesn’t want us to leave yet. But he’s looking ahead.

For now, Maliki and his pals are using our troops to buy time while they pocket our money, amass power and build up arms. But they’ve written us off for the long term.”

Cynicism, or just a realistic reflection of how others see us? Probably just as our public wobbly waffling has taught them to do. We expect good faith actions from the Iraqis while ignoring their realistic expectation of the same from us. Who is going to have their illusions dashed first? Our wussy need to be “liked” can be the first to go. Would do us a world of good.

We need to go back to fighting a manuver war on our terms, with aggressive tactics like your COA. Iraq’s future will be what the Iraqi’s make it, for better or worse. As long as our strategic interests coincide, all to the good. If Maliki’s government morphs into a failed state, we’ll still do what needs to be done. Either a bright future for Iraq’s children or just an effective killing ground for jihadis–we probably won’t care much either way.

We are fighting there for ourselves first. To be feared and respected is the beginning of wisdom.

No gloves. I’m with you. I was just offering a commonsense COA so your scenario doesn’t happen first, because, as we both know, it will…..

I’m asking those questions above not because I’m being rhetorical. I really want to know. Freedom of enemy movement, a porous border and lack of effective house to house search for weps caches all aid the insurgency. Why can’t we remedy those conditions with a little power. I am sure some innocents will be hurt but they are being already on a daily basis.. It’s the bad guys we want to kill, right? Oh wait- negative publicity for the info war might happen? Have some balls, declare war on that, too! Just allow only embeds and throw out all the MSM chains worldwide outta the country (well the Green Zone hotels)! AL Jazeera? Them too. Jam ‘em if you have to.

Did you read Peter’s today? Same theme sorta:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10262006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/kill_muqtada_now_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

B2

“…Yet if America has shown that it can’t be trusted to enforce its commitments and defend its interests elsewhere in the world, a determined and risk-neutral enemy might be more than willing to call the deterrence bluff too.

The missing element, in the end, is willpower, and none should be surprised to learn it. A degree of willpower has already been sacrificed as a “bridge too far” in Mr Koppel’s plan. A system of nuclear deterrence that allows Iran to go ahead and have its regional caliphate, so long as it doesn’t harm those under the US nuclear umbrella, fails at an unusually unspoken goal: preserving American primacy. But how to justify this to a public, or at least elites, that all too often seem to need the most legalistic of justifications for the most basic aspects of self-preservation? Preserving the primacy of one’s own way of life in the world — in this case, classical liberalism — requires a moral willpower much greater than that required to merely guarantee the physical security of one’s homeland, people, and allies. This is a weakness that we emit like a pheromone and that our enemies sense like the animals that they are.”

Why are we reduced to fighting a long war in Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world? Because we don’t have the resources to fix it immediately. Thus we are reduced to fighting it “on the cheap”, (even though it isn’t cheap), and for the duration with a lower level of effort, (even though the effort seems superhuman). CPT J probably has the accurate and most likely scenario pinned down. Without a huge impelling event, we won’t wake up and we will suffer dramatically higher casualties until we get enough anger to actually defend ourselves by waging total unconditional war, because we aren’t farsighted enough and tough enough to do so now with a larger effort.

The cost will be huge. The price will be drastic. Millions of Muslims, and possibly billions, will die, and thousands or millions of Americans will also. WWII could have been prevented, but too few had the will.

History repeats itself.

And many millions WILL die.

Subsunk

Because, as you said, it will be an exponentially worse attack than 9-11. Their doctrine calls for it.

Tactical patience means waiting for an opportunity like a coiled spring, not passively waiting for the initiative to be passed to us. Or worse, waiting for “permission” from the “international community”.