Charles Gray wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:24:15 -0600, "Gene Storey"

wrote:

They didn't get the money - end of story.




Nope, but they did score several injuries
on U.S. forces, forced a
U.S. column to unload lots of fire in a town,
causing civilian
casulties that WE will be blamed for, proved
that they are unafraid
to engage a U.S. military force in the field...
And most importantly, proved that they can
move freely through Iraq.
Nobody called in, and there's evidence that
civilians in the town came
in on the insurgents side. If that's the case,
than there are parts
of Iraq where the "occupation' only goes so
far as we have guns
pointing, and we don't have enough troops by
half for that kind of
occupation.
The resistance doesn't need to win-- they
only need to outlast the
U.S. will to stay, absent a stable govenrment
capable of taking over
once we leave. They're banking on the probability
that faced with
attacks like this, and the possiblity of major
losses, the U.S. will
cut and run, clothing it by declaring victory
and leaving a weak
government that will either fall or be unable
to effectively control
Iraq.
From Korea to Somilia, history appears to
be on their side.
However, the stakes are honestly higher in Iraq
than they were even in
Vietnam, so that analysis by the resistance
might be in error.

Yes, especially if Saddam or Al-Dhuri are calling the insurgents' shots.
A NYT reporter in the Saddam Triangle noted that many of the Sunnis who on
the outside shout Saddam slogans actually want the U.S. to stay-when a government
is in place that they trust. They are afraid that if the Shiites and Kurds
get too much power, old wrongs will be avenged, and they will pay the price-in
blood. Many also admit that they suffered under Saddam, but their fear of
him still lingers, and that won't go away until he's either dead or in prison.


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!