WAR: US Losing to Insurgents

Several agencies including the CIA, DIA and the State Department have recently warned that the US is failing in efforts to quell Iraqi insurgents. These officials are quick to say that the war has not been lost, however. The insurgents have been trying to derail plans of an Iraqi election on January 30th.



"'It all boils down to the aura of the former regime. I think there are a lot of people sitting on the fence. They don't want to be seen as collaborating,' one defense official said."

The Sunni insurgents - armed with a message from Saddam's lawyers urging them to fight - seemingly will not be deterred from trying to disrupt this election. In the wake of todays attack and execution of Iraqi election workers the situation is looking grim.

The Whitehouse, however, is steadfast stating that the elections will go on as scheduled.

Related News Links:
www.realcities.com
www.kvia.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NEWS: Iraqi Election Workers Executions Captured in Photo

How does "failing to quell" and "not been lost" and "insurgents....trying to derail plans" and "aren't winning" equate to "losing"?

ADJECTIVE:

Failing to win, as in a sport or game: a losing team; a losing lottery ticket.
Of or relating to one that fails to win: a losing season; a losing battle.
NOUN:

The act of one that loses; loss.
Something lost, such as money at gambling. Often used in the plural.

Losing





seekerof

Actually one of the reason for the "losing" to insurgents is that US does not have enough troops in that country to put down the resistance, the administration knew that and Rumsfeld knew that also.

Ignoring the problem is what is making the situation so out of control.

Thank you for the "clarification", Marg.



seekerof

"aren't winning the battle against Iraqi insurgents"

"U.S. isn't defeating Iraq insurgents"

"Not winning" and "isn't defeating" sounds like a nice way to say "losing" to me.

You can be losing a battle that hasn't yet been lost, and you can win a battle in which you were losing at one point. The language in the Seattle Times story and the Knight Ridder story at the "realcities" link made me think that someone didn't want to say what the logical conclusion of what "not winning" is.

Yeah, you may well have a good point, PistolPete.
My bust on the over-reaction.

My only contention is that "if" the election does take place though, despite the activities of the 'insurgents', would it still be considered and labeled "losing"?



seekerof

Bombs Create Illusion of Powerful Insurgency, Commander Says

www.defenselink.mil...

WASHINGTON, Dec. 16, 2004 � Car bombs and other attacks are creating an illusion that the insurgency his forces are fighting is powerful, the general in charge of coalition forces in Iraq said at a Pentagon news conference today.

Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commander of Multinational Force Iraq, said the enemy "is not 10 feet tall."

"They don't have to do much," he said. "A car bomb a day in Baghdad or on the airport road sends a symbol that the insurgency is very powerful, when in actuality I don't believe that they are. It's a classic technique of the urban insurgent. They are trying to provoke us to do something that will make us look like we're overreacting to them."

The media eats up photogenic (too nice of a word) events like bombings and execution style killings and will play these incidents on air incessantly until those watching believe the insurgency is a lost cause. Never never will you see a story of a town with its water supply restored, power back on or people going to work - thats boring and doesn't sell adds nor does it fit the MSM's political view.

Be good little media drones and eat up.

The same frenzy of dire warnings were heard about Afganistan just prior to its successful elections.





[edit on 19-12-2004 by Phoenix]

It's difficult to win a war against insurgents when they are being supplied and replenished by Syria and Iran.

"They don't have to do much," he said. "A car bomb a day in Baghdad or on the airport road sends a symbol that the insurgency is very powerful, when in actuality I don't believe that they are.

The airport road should have a 100 meter buffer on either side of it to take away their cover. Same as the Green Zone. It is still a frequent target of RPGs with a maximum range of 500 meters. Why aren't these areas secured?

Originally posted by jsobecky
It's difficult to win a war against insurgents when they are being supplied and replenished by Syria and Iran.

I'm not sure why Iran and Syria, who both follow Shia Islam, would support Sunni insurgents who are attacking Shia targets.

The insurgency may be quelled eventually as US forces kill them off but people will still want the US forces to leave and until they do, there will still be anger amonst some of the Iraqis.

Do you really think that Bush went into Iraq to bring about democratic reform? Do you think the President would spend our soldiers lives and billions of dollars on the Iraqi people? I do not. So how do you measure what winning is to President Bush? How do you measure what winning is to the American people? We accomplished our objectives early in the campaign. If you break it you have to appear to be interested in fixing it. We are not that interested in fixing it. The election is just one more step to appear, window dressing, like we are interested. The U.S. will be there as long as President Bush has determined it is in his political interests to be there. He will not be there for a second longer.

What about SSA problems , health care issues , IOU , local-state-federal budget , Outsourcing , currency problems , etc ... the list goes on and on. Why do we spend billions to *liberate* the Iraqi people when we have so many problems at home. The anthrax attacks , terrorist cells in waiting in our country , obvious threats from real nuclear powers , etc ... yet we spend lots of money on other countries. Yea some could attack us and are a threat. Why do they not like us? Maybe if we tackled that issue then we could solve loads of problems. What to protect ... Israel? The Oil? The Dollar exchange? What about our own people? If we really wish to help other countries etc ... then maybe we should set a real example.

You cant get rid of terrorism by enacting terrorism. You just create more out of what you already have. Revenge! We backed Saddam back in the day like we backed Osama WTF? Freedom fighters oh yea! We cant fight terrorism this way and they know this ... who couldnt? Therefore in IMO there is a hidden agenda. How can there not be? I would be interested in seeing how many US folks in certain positions have their money , stock , bonds , currency , etc ... invested in foreign places such as the EU. Yea Im pretty pessimistic but with the way things are going its hard not to be for me =P

I generally don't like statements from "anonymous" officials, for wich church are they preaching?

Are these perhaps those liberal CIA elements with hard feelings that are due to be kicked out or reorganised into the centralized Homeland Sec. department?





[edit on 20-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

The only thing the terrorist are winning in Iraq is the minds of the liberal media. Yet again these vile subhuman vermin (the media) are helping the terrorist. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN should all lose their FCC liscense. Every producer should go in trial for TREASON..................then executed as the last "show" in their respective networks.

Originally posted by Seekerof
My only contention is that "if" the election does take place though, despite the activities of the 'insurgents', would it still be considered and labeled "losing"?

seekerof

If there is no confidence that the election is free of tampering, if the election is going to be ran by the same people who screwed up our election, then yeah, that's losing...

Originally posted by jsobecky
The airport road should have a 100 meter buffer on either side of it to take away their cover. Same as the Green Zone. It is still a frequent target of RPGs with a maximum range of 500 meters. Why aren't these areas secured?

It's quite a long road and would probably take quite some time to make a 100 metre buffer on each side of it. Plus as the Americans built the road extension by day, the resistance would most likely blow it up by night

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The only thing the terrorist are winning in Iraq is the minds of the liberal media. Yet again these vile subhuman vermin (the media) are helping the terrorist. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN should all lose their FCC liscense. Every producer should go in trial for TREASON..................then executed as the last "show" in their respective networks.

Extreme fanatical violence again... Mmmmm. So a news station that paints a differing view to that of the government should its producers executed?

Originally posted by AceOfBase
The insurgency may be quelled eventually as US forces kill them off but people will still want the US forces to leave and until they do, there will still be anger amonst some of the Iraqis.

Seeing as the insurgency is growing not shrinking, I fail to see how the US can simply "Kill them off"

The US will never be able to win against the insurgents. If Saddam was still in power and had the resources to invade the US and impose his dictatorship and laws on us would you just lie down and accept it? Of course not. Likewise the Iraqis will never allow the US to impose its values and vision of society on them, and rightly so.

Bush has achieved his objective. I believe he will continue to provide security for a year after the elections and then bail....."we gave it our best shot....you can lead a horse to water....the Iraqis didn't step up to the plate.....yada yada yada".

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I'm not sure why Iran and Syria, who both follow Shia Islam, would support Sunni insurgents who are attacking Shia targets.

I believe is Shia islam in Iran but, Sunni is the majority tribe in Iran after all, and if I remember supposedly it was about 80 thousand exiles that fleet to the Iranian lands during the invasion, I wonder if their were Sunni exiles.

The insurgency may be quelled eventually as US forces kill them off but people will still want the US forces to leave and until they do, there will still be anger among some of the Iraqis.

Actually they have been kill but not in the numbers that the US will like it to be, and who is to said that more exile Sunnis will come to the rescue of their fellow tribal men in Iraq.

Also if I wonder why with a city like Baghdad with most of the US sympathizers in there how come they have still not control of the city?

And like I said US needed more troops in Iraq for a successful after invasion campaign but Rumsfeld felt was told about that but did nothing about it making our present troops more vulnerable to random attacks.

And for god sake when somebody can film a killing in the streets that tells the real story of what is going on in that city, nobody is topping these people from doing this crimes, for god sake.