http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec21.html

"If anti-American violence does hit a new level, pressure is likely to increase on the Bush administration to either boost the U.S. military presence in Iraq or find a fast way to get out.

The adequacy of current troop numbers is one of the questions provoked by yesterday's action, said Charles McComas, a veteran Special Forces soldier who served in Afghanistan before retiring. "Do we have the right forces and enough of them to do the offensive patrolling to reduce the chances of this happening again?" he asked.

A private-sector security expert who recently left Baghdad after more than a year there agreed, noting that the United States originally put an entire division in the Mosul area, the 101st Airborne, but replaced it earlier this year with a force about half that size, only to see insurgent attacks increase. "We have replaced a division with a brigade and think we can offer the same amount of security," he said, insisting on anonymity because his opinions are so at odds with the official U.S. government view."

So what will it be? Witdrawal, resignation and the trust and respect of newly deprogrammed brainwashed cult- disciples? Or a renewed effort to reach for victory? Will Bush have to make another "unpopular" decision, like he says leaders are supposed to do? Very exciting, isn't it.

So what did anyone expect, really?

__________________

I thought it would get better..

I say an 'effort to reach victory"

I know there's nothing more satisfying and gratifying for you, muspell, than to see the dead bodies of American soldiers. And, of course, rooting for America's failure to establish Iraq as a free democracy is a noble cause. But I wonder, if America does fail in this, will your personal victory taste as sweet as the military victory enjoyed by the insurgents? Will you share a sense of solidarity with those who have brought you such joy over the past few years? That will be nice.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

America has already failed.

__________________

America hasnt failed, its just...getting a D? for Destruction?

They need to shape up before any more troops or civilians die.

Interesting. How do you figure that? Do you mean "failed" in the same way that the Soviet Union failed to subjugate Afghanistan? Or, are you just still pissed that we were able to do in three weeks what you guys couldn't do in ten years?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Precisely

Yeah, you're right. Even after ten years we managed to avoid such a spectacular failure you guys are enjoying after less than 2 years. And if you must draw parallels, at least do bother to read some history books. Hardly exciting pastime, I know, but it will make you appear less incompetent. First of all, you ever heard of storming of Amin's palace in Kabul? That occurred during the first (!) day of the Soviet incursion. The operation is now considered one of the greatest in the history of world's special forces. Secondly, during the first 3 years of the occupation, the Resistance's activity was barely noticeable. American troops had enjoyed calm and quiet in Iraq for how long, 5 months? During no period of the occupation was the Resistance able to capture a city, or even a town. Finally, you do know, i hope, that fighting against the Soviet Union was conducted mainly with massive military and financial assistance from the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi resistance is on its own, no government officially assists them. And they still manage to operate very successfully. Imagine what would happen if Russia began supplying the Resistance with the latest weapons.

__________________

Alrighty. At least we can both agree the Soviet Union failed in at least one thing.
Right. I’m still waiting for your definition of failure. Is it in lives lost? Is it goals attained? What?
Well, if you read my post carefully you will notice that I am comparing your colossal failure in Afghanistan with our success in Afghanistan. What you couldn’t do in 10 years, we did in 3 weeks.

Secondly, will those be Soviet history books? You know, the ones which tell us what a great and beneficent leader Stalin was? The ones which tell us how millions of Russians prospered under your great economy and every new, and remarkable, five year plan? The ones which tell us all about your workers’ paradise? No thanks.
I think so. Do you mean the storming by Alpha Group? Yes, certainly a bright spot in the group’s history. Haven’t been many since, have there? (Unless you like to count civilians in the dead too.)

And the capturing of the Afghani government officials and military leaders was also quite a coup. Inviting them all to a party so you could arrest them en masse? Very ingenious. Reminds me of Pizarro’s conquest of Atahualpa and the Incas. No one ever has there guard as low as when they think they are dealing with friends. Silly Afghanis.

But I guess you’re right. Had we been invited into the country, as the USSR had been (or did you forget that Alpha group was already at Bagram Airbase disguised as mechanics?), perhaps we could’ve erected a puppet regime quickly as well. Oh well. The things you sacrifice for honor.

It’s curious that you consider this the beginning of the incursion since the capture of Amin’s palace occurred 5 days after communications outside Kabul were cut off; 3 days after three Soviet divisions took control of all airfield in and around Kabul; and 3 days after Spetnaz soldiers took control of all intra-city communications. While most would consider these acts of war, you must consider them friendly attempts at lessening bureaucratic headaches, eh?
I got to give it to you here. In fact, I’ll even go so far as to say that the Soviet experience in Afghanistan was probably a win, on the whole. Your scorched earth policy and utter disregard for the Afghani civilians was showing great promise. Some 20 million land mines dropped; 70% of the roads destroyed; 2 million civilians dead and millions more displaced; agricultural production decimated by 50% and livestock losses of 50%; 5,000 villages destroyed. Yes, you were certainly on your way to beating them into submission.

Unfortunately, we’re just not willing to do that to the Iraqis. Maybe if we did we wouldn’t be “failing”.
Yes, imagine the possibilities.

Now, on to how you consider the US to have already failed in Iraq. Care to put your nationalistic pride aside for a second and explain to me what is and what is not failure?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I don't think you understand. See, the US army won't lose. They will win, and all the sacrifice they have offered will sustain the sense of victory when it eventually is declared. Hell, Vietnam is still remembered by a suprisingly high amount of people to have been worth it, even if it wasn't a eh.. definitive success. Do you think that something similar will not happen now? That defeat will be declared and that the army will withdraw and let the armed factions split the land between themselves? "Sorry, our mistake. We'll be leaving now. Hope you're not sore. Have a nice aftermath, now. We'll just turn our backs now, as you were people". And then to the american public: "sorry for all the wasted lives, all. No hard feelings, right? We did what we thought was best but we failed. Sorry". The question, friend, is how many americans will be killed and how many "insurgents" will be blown away before "victory" happens. At which time I will eat my hair if there isn't some asshole who declares that "In spite of all, America triumphs! We shame old europe and their pessimism now! All hail the ultimate power of the US and the perseverence of our president and the american people".

In other words, it's not I who take pleasure in american deaths.