Amen.

when i read the chester piece, I thought - if its so easy, why havent they cut the line already? I can hardly think theyre waiting for Iraqi troops - they didnt wait for Iraqi troops to go into Fallujah, a far more sensitive op than cutting some roads, etc which can be done outside urban areas.

Arguably, its harder cause the volumes are smaller - a few suicidal jihadis, some money - rather than division, truckloads of supplies, etc in VN. But then the question arises, why has so little managed to do as much damage as it has (part of the answer is that supplies were precached by the Fedayeen Saddam, but I think thats only part of the answer).

Im not suggesting this is a quagmire - the elections represent a kind of political progress we NEVER saw in VN, and the month after the new govt was formed may prove exceptional, rather than the two months of relative quiet after the election. But I still dont see any reason to cheer, yet, or to think this will be easy.

There's a sixth reason: Recon and surveillance technology is greatly superior to what we had in 1968. In fact, it increased dramatically in the last months of Vietnam.

"when i read the chester piece, I thought - if its so easy, why havent they cut the line already?"

Certainly its much more easilly said than done, but on the other hand i'll hand you a book full of Iraq projects that need to be done, can be done, and havent been done (or at least not competely, in a timely fashion [timely being right f'ing now]). As well ask why we didnt move heaven and earth to get the electricity problem on top of the priorities list. That little mistake has cost us dearly and will cost us still more if it hasnt been majorly improved this summer.

liberalhawk is on to something, I think. Bill talked about the difference between sweep and clear vs. take and hold in an earlier Anbar Province post. You want/need Iraqi troops for the latter.

Which may explain the waiting. Counter-insurgency often goes from the core to the periphery, too, though in this case I think securing the border areas ultimately does much to protect and quiet the core.

I'll quibble with Chester and note that some of the Euphrates ratline is indeed in Syria - and add that the routine use of Sunni mosques as Dar-al-Harb (Houses of War) is an attempt to get the same sort of "fake but adequate" extra-territoriality provision that Laos and Cambodia once provided.

I'll also quibble with the "no series of branches" point. There are at least 3 (2 to Syria, one to Iran) - which Bill himself notes - plus a long border with Saudi Arabia which by all accounts is another ratline (though reports of Saudi paramilitary troops up near Syria are interesting for what that would say about the flows).

The rest of Chester's points hold up well, though I do think the regional war angle needs to be stressed more. As Jack Kelly puts it:

"Within Iraq, people from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen could no more be called insurgents in Iraq than the people who flew airplanes in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 could be described as insurgents within the United States."

the elections represent a kind of political progress we NEVER saw in VN

Ahem, that is false... and Vietnam is the product of USA pro mass murder (George Washington, remember) Communists silent about crimes against humanity there. (when they didnt falsely accuse us)

From

The Vietnamese communists had a simple plan for establishing themselves in power: kill anyone who opposed them.

Apart from the normal, workaday murder of fellow communists, the Viet Minh slaughtered non-communist politicians and sympathizers by the thousands, including in this class- and therefore murdering as well- the friends, family members, and children of their political enemies.

The central government laid down a death quota- 5 percent of the population of each village were to be killed.

In 1957, the communists began to supplement the domestic death toll with an active campaign of murder in the South. This campaign was highly selective, being directed against those individuals who were capable of mobilizing opposition to the communists.

This could include, not just the outspoken anti-communists, but anyone who exhibited skill or competence, whether a government official or a civilian.

In the countryside, village leaders were murdered, disrupting the traditional social structure. Communist guerillas listened in on the classrooms, and when they found teachers who were not sufficiently sympathetic, killed them too.

In this way, from 1957 into the early 1960s, the communists denuded South Vietnam of those individuals who could provide effective leadership, who could forge resistance among the people, or who could inoculate the children against communist lies and propaganda.

The number of people killed in this campaign has been estimated at around six to seven thousand. This is a comparatively small number, but it was precisely those few thousand who could cause the communists the most trouble. To the communist, egalitarianism does not mean everyone is equal. It means those who are superior can be rounded up and shot. The murder campaign put this theory into practice.

John Kerry was in colusion with the mass murder guilty rulers since he met with them in Paris, captured documents bear this out.

At the forfront of cutting funding to the south after the USA was gone, so that the commies could bring crimes against humanity to the south, so that 500.000 could drown in the south china sea attempting to esacpe the people that John Kerry and hes fellow commicrats loved as their fellow travelers in the great leftist utopian dream.

We saw more democrat love of the blood stained religion of crime against humanity in south and central America.

The murder was no different than what the commies always do, in every geography race and culture they have ever blighted or destroyed.

No, what is different this time, is that the leftist LIES of Cronkite / John Kerry and their ilk are not as effective.

And the party that cant win elections without its pro communist totalitarian wing,, is not in power.

Those that ignored, covered up the mass murder of 100+ million people at the hands of the leftist utopians they loved, dont control the information any more.

Thats what the difference is, the Bagdad McDermots, John Kerrys, Patty Mc Murrays of congress have no leverage, thats whay is different

And the Ted Koppels that held up a Vietnam slave and his government minder as a credible information source ... (During the Election!) against our Veterans, (who was supported by Kerrys own book) are known to be commie crat Liars.

Thats what is different

Not that they are not still up to their old crap, its certainly not for want of effort.

Joe, Yes, and the way the import jihadis treat their hosts plays to our atvantage.

Look in falujia at all those that had their little girls taken to be "Wives" for the jihadies.

The street executions etc.. its Udays night out on steroids, but without the clean beds the booze and the music. amd the manners are worse.

At least when they ordered your ear cut off, they used kinder words and a smile. and all you lost was your ear, and if the tigers wasnt hungry you got your daughter back.

liberalhawk,

Agreed, the volume makes it difficult to shut down 100%, and it is easier said than done. One of my complaints is the amount of prominence the media places on the suicide bombings. While deadly they do not truly represent the power of the insurgency to affect political change, and in fact hurt their cause. The bombs are a weapon of chaos designed to instill fear, and it doesn't take much to build them. I think the ratline can be reduced in effectiveness, but not eliminated. They will be leiminated when the Sunnis tire of them and turn on the insurgency.

Joe,

Remember that Chester is addressing Mr. Burn's point that the Euphrates line is the Ho Chi Minh Trial. Alos, the fact that the line extends into Syria is addressed, but Syria, unlike Laos and Cambodia, are fair game this time around. I thought he made that point clear.

Why would suicide bombs hurt more than normal bombs. They both kill. The only advantage is that they have less collateral damage than normal bombs and as such they are more easy to deal with political

a,

How do you figure suicide bombs have "less collateral damage" than normal bombs?

If collateral damage = dead civilians there are suicide bombs every day that are 100% collateral damage and 0% military target. I'd rather trust my life on the ground with American pilots in the air if you don't mind. At least the American pilot is trying not to hit me. The suicide bomber isn't even trying.

A, operates in a reality inverted world, I think the twisted nerd that turned him on and set him on the floor for a lauph put the batteries in backwards.

and as such they are more easy to deal with political

And there we see what this inverted circut was attempting to get at..

One of the wobbly footstools of leftist groupthink the past 70-50 years or so...

But the ability to physically sever the Euphrates ratline was an option that never really existed with the Ho Chi Minh Trail

The option did exist with Ho Chi Minh Trail, we just chose not to do it. For misguided political reason, we were not willing to cross into Lao.

The rat line in Iraq is actually harder to interdict. Enemy combatants can travel openly. Checkpoints have no way of knowing if they are enemy combatants or not. This war is an intelligence war. One can be in control of physical space but not in control. Controlling population is more important than controlling space.

Raymond, I don't believe posts #6 and #7 belong in this thread, because your point is big enough to call for its own discussion thread.

Obviously the policy of the terrorists from 21 September 2003 at latest (I am thinking of Akila Al Hashimi being shot four times not far from her Baghdad home) has been to kill prominent participants in the reconstruction of Iraq (out of general malignity and) in order to discourage others. Everything worthwhile in Iraq, including voting, happens to the bang of terrorist bombs.

Besides the general alienation of the Iraqi population (which is a Good Thing) I can think of one possible negative consequence of this for the terrorists: Iraq interim prime minister Iyad Allawi was a logical consequence of an incentive system where if you are timid, you just can't aim for serious power in Iraq.

But, overall and in the long term, I think bloody incentives work. Terrorism, historically, works. (It certainly worked to elect the socialist Spanish government of Spain led by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.) I suspect Western journalists are thoroughly intimidated by what I call "jihad international". (No need to get bogged down with examples of that.) I see Muqtada al-Sadr, who's a known murderer who was supposed to be killed or imprisoned walking around freely, so force and intimidation obviously work on us too.

"The Vietnamese communists had a simple plan for establishing themselves in power: kill anyone who opposed them."

As we know this historically well-founded simple plan worked. So what results are the terrorists achieving for all their hard work? To what extent and in what ways are they shaping what people are willing to do in Iraq? What is the state of play now?

I think this is a separate issue from the ratlines into Iraq and how we can turn Iraq into a more efficient cockroach motel for international jihad terrorists.

On that, my only thought is: the pace of this war is slow. From the point of view of the terrorists, it doesn't eat too much (in tonnage). So logistic efficiency, which is so critical to high intensity, high-tempo operations, matters less. In other words, from our point of view, blocking the most logistically efficient rat-lines, forcing the terrorists to use less efficient entry points and infiltrate more slowly, has a lesser reward. Given all the other things we have to do that really are high priority, I think it would take some huge, bumptious second-guessing to assert that we should have done more than we have so far to impede the efficiency of jihad international's routes into Iraq.

David, and its important to remember the north expended and destroyed themselves at Tet.

The war was over, we had won, and the weak remanant was at the Bargan table.

A combo of weakling Liberals (Congress) a weakend president (Nixon) and John Kerry to the rescue (Winter Solger, Fake charges) stalled for 2 years while the Commie Left (John Kerry/Paris) undermined things here at home so that more of our POWs could die from torture and neglect.

In many cases the torture drove them mad, and they no longer had the mental ability to feed themselves and they would starve to death.

Despite John Kerry, we had handed off the war to the South and they was holding their own (with military support from America.)

John Kerry and his pro Communist mass murder loving democrats that hated america cut off funding for the south so that the North could bring the crimes against humanity south, that they knew about, and loved (HoCheMihn = George Washington, according to John Kerry, Democrats agreed).

They wanted the Communists to win ...
The media wanted the Communists to win ...

Btw, Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism (HoCheMihn came first) was trained by the KGB, (As was HoCheMihn) no wonder the left loved Arafat.

And the current militant Islam is a mix of Mohammed and Socialism.

Remember John Kerry at the conferience talking about assasinating certain memeber of congress ?

(to cut off funds from the south, so the Commies could bring Crimes agaist Humanity south.)

He was there, despite his denial.

The point im making is that terror bombing wasnt invented by Islamists .. it came from the communists ,,and the first was commie terorists in Britain and National Socialist Germany.

The bloodstained commi crats turned a victory in Vietnam, into a defeat in congress.

Remember the same left calling for pauses in the recent wars ?

The lesson of vietnam, is dont listen to the left, dont listen for calls for pauses, keep going till victory, and dont pull out early, and after you are out, dont cut them off early.

We even have the same fake charges of war crimes, presenting misfits as the general example, Just Like John Kerry did.

Vietnam was a leftist engineered failure crafted out of our victory, despite its feckless managment.

We should never let them do this to us again.

So yes, we will see the same program in Iraq.

During Tet, the Vietmihn was so brutal and horrific to the people, and the stories of horror everywhere after they was defeated and pushed back.... ALL support for the Communists evaporated in the South among the people.

So the fact that the people of Iraq see how horrible the Terroists are, is DejaVu all over again.

The big difference, is the Anti American pro communist leftist liberal media no longer control the information ... thats the big difference,, this time.

Er, fellahs? John Kerry was a minor player in 1969-1973, as compared to say Mike Mansfield, William Fulbright, etc. Focusing on him is reading backwards from 2004. Its silly, and it brings into question everything else you say.

Second, the NVA was by no means finished after Tet. The VC was, which is something rather different.

"While deadly they do not truly represent the power of the insurgency to affect political change, and in fact hurt their cause. "

Im not sure. There are three potential impacts we're talking about. 1 - the effect on fencing sitting Sunnis - who are presumbaly repulsed. 2. The immediate effect on shias and pro-govt sunnis - on the one hand it causes them to push the govt harder to fight, but it can also lead to disillusionment, declining morale, and discontent with the americans who have failed to protect them. Oh, and the suicide bombs in some cases are aimed at valuable targets, like Iraqi recruits, etc. 3. The insurgent long shot, which is that some Shia get so enraged they pogrom some local Sunnis, which would consolidate the Sunnis behind the insurgents.

And who said suicide bombers are the only concern? Theres the rest of the insurgent activity, the killing of local govt officials, the attacks on oil and power infrastructure, etc. Are they independent of the ratline (again, precached supplies?) I dont know.

liberalhawk,

I have no clue as to why John Kerry is an issue here, in this we agree.

On point 1, I don't think we disagree, unless I am misinterpretting something. On points 2 & 3, we have not seen evidence of either the disillusionment or of the potential for pogroms. Recruiting has not declined because of attacks on Iraqi police & military targets, and in some cases have increased because of them. On the issue of pogroms, I think that if this was going to happen, it would have already. The Shiites had all of the excuses needed to attack the Sunnis based on years of oppression by Saddam.

Does the insurgents/terrorists have a chance at disrupting the progress in Iraq based on violence alone? Sure, it is a possibilily, but history and the state of affairs in Iraq today do not lead me to believe it has much of a shot.

I do not think that suicide bombings are the only concern. But reading news reports from Iraq, these are highlighted above everything else. I think this is myoptic.

"I do not think that suicide bombings are the only concern. But reading news reports from Iraq, these are highlighted above everything else. I think this is myoptic."

Hmmmm. I see them highlighted as well in the (pro-US, pro-change) Iraqi blogs. Ultimately we have to provide security in the capital, and the capital, at least during the months leading up to the election, and in the month following the new govt, has been highly insecure (though it looks better the last few days). And suicide bombs also effect the willingness of private companies to invest, the willingness of NGO's to go in, etc.

Ultimately I think its about how we measure where we are in Iraq, inputs vs outputs. We can talk all we want insurgents captured and killed, arms caches destroyed, tips from Iraqs, and growth in Iraqi forces - as long as Baghdad is as unsafe as it was in 2004, as long as electricity has made no progress since summer 2004, ditto oil exports, etc - its like the school board head who talks about reduced class size, better teacher training, etc but still cant show progress in drop out rates, etc. I mean it leaves three possibilities 1. the inputs will turn into outputs, just time is needed. 2. These are not the right inputs (the body count problem A) or 3. The inputs are being mismeasured (the body count problem B). Frankly, we dont know which of these is true in Iraq now.

While I find the MSM is too pessimistic even in their view of outputs (like ignoring months when things get better) I find the tendency of many bloggers to simply ignore the disconnect being inputs (all the good things) and outputs (continued unacceptable levels of violence) to be offputting as well.

Oh, and, if it seems that the target keeps moving - electricity is important, if its failing, but if electricity is improving, then its crime, or oil, or something else - this is not JUST MSM unfairness - its the nature of the game - a rebuilt nation is like Tolstoys happy family - it needs to work on lots of factors, and failure in ONE nullifies successes in others.

I am not pessimistic about the long run. I simply dont see any corners being turned real soon. And I think it would behoove this admin (Mr. Cheney in particular) to start managing expectations better (the way they would talk about their prospects in the New Hampshire primary, say) - Puffing up success adds NOTHING to the war effort if it turns out that things keep going well, and it is very damaging to public support IF things dont go well. Better to just say its a long hard slog, but necessary.

Unless of course one is more concerned with boosting popularity numbers, to advance a DOMESTIC agenda, than one is with the war in Iraq. Far be it from me to suggest that Mr. Cheney might be doing that.

"On points 2 & 3, we have not seen evidence of either the disillusionment or of the potential for pogroms. "

disillusionment
1. i think we were starting to see that as the cabinet forming process dragged out, but it was formed, and that set things back on course. Im not sure how much impact the subsequent month of violence had, but I think the lavish publicity the Iraqi govt gave to operation lightning is a sign that they were very concerned. Also that they ARE working greater Baghdad first, with their limited resources, despite the fact that a more Clausewitzian approach would suggest closing the rat lines through Anbar first. That would also suggest a concern that not responding to the insecurity in the capital could set in motion very damaging political dynamics.

No pogroms - 1. I think again, we underestimate how much we owe to Grand Ayatollah Sistani.
2. There have of course been some unsolved killings of Sunni clerics. More provocations by the insurgents - maybe.
3. I dont think the immediate aftermath of liberation, when people were torn between disbelief that the old regime was really gone, and hope for the future, was the time when pogroms were most likely. Now, when the old regime is really gone, but when (if you buy this line) hope is fading, would be the time to lash out. Again I DON'T expect it. I also don't expect to die if I drive to the store without wearing seat belts. But the potential consequences are so dire, that cutting off the possibility would seem to be a high priority.

In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.

By 1968, NVA morale was at its lowest point ever. The plans for Tet was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.

The Vietnam War was about to end, the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat.

Then, they heard Walter Cronkite on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy, there were some VC who had been killed on the lawn, they hadnt gained access. And then came the riots and protesting on the streets of America.

According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield.

Another good account

Donning helmet, Mr. Cronkite declared the war lost. It was this now famous television news piece that persuaded President Lyndon Johnson six weeks later, on March 31, not to run for re-election. His ratings had plummeted from 80 percent when he assumed the presidency upon John F. Kennedy's death to 30 percent after Tet. Approval of his handling of the war dropped to 20 percent, his credibility shot to pieces.

Until Tet, a majority of Americans agreed with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that failure was not an option. It was Kennedy who changed the status of U.S. military personnel from advisers to South Vietnamese troops to full-fledged fighting men. By the time of Kennedy's Nov. 22, 1963, assassination, 16,500 U.S. troops had been committed to the war. Johnson escalated all the way to 542,000.

But defeat became an option when Johnson decided the war was unwinnable and that he would lose his bid for the presidency in November 1968. Hanoi thus turned military defeat into a priceless geopolitical victory.

LibHawk

Yes you can follow Kerry back to Fullbright and other commies, he didnt stand alone.

But he is the commie worm that ran for president recently with his history of enemy agent of influence,,, and aid to communist butchers the world over,,, rewritten into Vietnam war hero story by the leftist media,, who had won the war for them when the communists was ready to surrender.

Are they doing ANY different today ?

No, many attempts are made to explain this as their limited ability to gather real information, lack uf understanding, or it bleeds is leads.

But this view is historicaly ignorant, the information and documents we have is volumous and damning,..... if the scale of scandal in porportion to the wisps we have seen the media grab onto .. was reflected back opon them, the US population would demand they all be lined up and shot,,, deported,,, airdropped over N Korea like a passinger jet venting its toilet holding tank.

This hostile Anti American leftist media is still working for our defeat, all the more in ernest. and to a large extent, it has our hands tied.

It was a mistake to let the traitors brush off the recriminations all these years, because it allowed them to do it to us again.

Not as effective, this time, due to the alternate information paths around them, that is having some effect on tempering their propaganda.

But most of America does not read blogs, and the press is still made of Walters, from Durranty to Cronkite.

They could do it to us again. Its certainly not for their want of effort.
...

The rest, all the way to Sistani. I can find no fault with.

You hint that the supply lines as far as weapons and expendables might not be all that important, and there I think you are closer to the truth.

Iraq is one big ammo dump, even in Afgan, kids are still making fireworks by opening the heads of old RPG rockets, and using the explosive to make big fire crackers.

I share your view that this is Intel based, which makes the media assault on our ability to get information so well targeted. If they are dumb, they are Dumb like a Fox, and I dont think they are dumb. Enough of them understand and provide the lead to the rest of them, that serve as the amplifier.

The press is the intentional eager enemy propaganda corp. They know what they are doing.

#10

Collateral damage is damage that is not intented and as such has little to do with civilian deaths.
If you blow up a police station while trying to kill the police inside than those police agents killed are simply not collateral damage. (Are police agents even civilians?)
But it is easier to abort a suicide mission when a kindergarten class is walking by than it is to abort a time bomb so it is quite obvious that suicide bombs have less collateral damage than the bombs that would replace them.
You could answer that a pilot has less collateral damage but pilots are part of the army side in a guerilla war and suicide bombs are more a weapon of the guerilla force.

#14

Raymond, i know it will come to you as a shock but the war in South Vietnam couldn't be won by the USA. Lets assume the most rosy pictuire possible: No communists left in South Vietnam after TET (even you will admit that this wasn't true) than Moscow and Beijing only needed to send a thousand insurgents a year in to make it impossible for the USA to win. Would they do it (absolutely, it would be very cost effective)

a your perfect record of getting reality backwards remains unbroken.

Even the general giap said all was lost.

Thats why they was at the bargain table.

The angel that provides you your care is surely a benevolent creature

Giap was not the man wh would decide such a thing. The mudjahedeen had lost in 82/83 but their back-ers wanted to see the war continued. The same was true in Vietnam. It would have continued as long as China or the USSR wanted it. And that would be forever as Vietnam was destroying the US army.

Well, at least a.'s record of campaigning for America's defeat remains historically consistent.

It's possible to win any guerilla war, a., though one's strategy may have to change. If you were at all interested in real analysis, I might refer you to Col. Harry Summers' provocative analysis, and General Giap's response when asked how he would have won if he had led the USA.

But you're not, so... try Google, if you like.

Raymond: Shorter and tighter is better.

An invasion of North Vietnam would have cost more money and more american lives while the end result would not be an improvement. And that doesn't even looks at the reason why an invasion into North Vietnam was impossible