Matthew, it's not a bug, it's a feature.

at one point, it may have been astounding to have a c-student president who simply didn't care to work hard enough to learn the facts, but now it's well-established. 

he has a narrative, he's going to stick to it, and it generally doesn't accord with reality as most observers recognize it.

the issue isn't how astounding it is: it's whether this problem, which is showing signs of getting worse, can be endured for 3+ years longer.

You're right, this is absolutely nothing new.

This is the exact same sort of reporting we saw TWO YEARS AGO when the insurgency was just getting started. It was KNOWN THEN that the insurgency was not just a bunch of "dead-enders" or "foreign infiltrators" or any of that nonsense. And study after study of the available intel has confirmed this repeatedly.

Anybody who doesn't realize that Iraq is a tribal society - which means you kill one, everybody else wants to kill you - just doesn't comprehend why this war is utterly unwinnable. 

Anybody who thinks this war is "winnable" - or even that it can come to some useful conclusion (even Vietnam is doing business with us now) is out of his mind - or deliberately lying to you. Leaving out the psychotics who want to "nuke the whole country" or send in another five hundred thousand troops and massacre the entire civilian population (which is what sending in more troops would accomplish), there is no way to "win" this.

This is the worst strategic decision in US military history and it will cost us dearly for the next quarter of a century or longer. 

Next time you want to kill a dictator, pay me a billion dollars and he'll be gone in ninety days. You'll save a couple hundred billion dollars, several score or hundred thousand civilian and military lives - and I'll make a nine hundred million dollar-plus profit. 

I don't see anything new there.

The US is not winning.  It's not reducing the capabilities of the insurgency as a whole and does not have any good prospects to do so except hoping that one political development or another will convince the insurgents to stop fighting on their own.

Of course a strategy that depends almost entirely on convincing the opponent to voluntarily stop fighting should be sending different messages from the President of the US down than this administration is sending - but that's not new.

The fact that the insurgency is a bunch of mostly independent groups is described in more detail but its not really new.  Recently I read that there are 36 groups and laughed out loud.  Does someone really think they know that there are not 37 or 35 insurgent groups?  But the point that it was a lot is not new.

The best indicator that the insurgency is not being defeated by the current level of US troops is that the number of killed US troops is stable or trending up.  The fact that even in theory there is no one or person or 36 people who can be captured or killed to cripple the insurgency is another indicator, but if the amount of US troops dying was trending down that would trump the theoretical considerations.

The fact that Iran has one hand behind its back now.  And could be shipping a lot more arms to a lot more different groups is another good indicator that the US cannot win unless Iran wants the US to win.

The White House strategy is poor but not misleading.  The strategy is what they say it is.  They hope the Sunnis can be convinced to participate in the US-sponsored political process and stop fighting.

The fact that the Sunnis are not being offered anything and that there are strong indications that the constitutional referendum was rigged with regard to at least one province that maybe should have been the third to reject the constitution is an incompetent application of the strategy, but the strategy is what they say it is.

Here is something funny about the Bush strategy:  The plan is to reduce US fatalities by reducing the number of patrols and convoys.  Were they patrolling and convoying for no reason before?  Weren't they patrolling and convoying when the military value of those actions outweighed the risk?  Are they now going to stop doing those actions even when the value outweighs the risk? Won't that strengthen the insurgency?

Woah!  In this stream of consciousness I'm starting to see Matt's point.  If there is no chance of militarily defeating the insurgency and the US knows it, what is the military doing there?

I think the military's primary strategic role is not to defeat the insurgency but to give the US leverage over the Iraqi government and make sure the Iraqi government can be guided so that it does not become hostile to US interests.

If the insurgency can be defeated politically with the US army still there, Iraq can be a "democracy" that is guaranteed to never take a position that the US cannot veto.  That strategy requires skipping the fact that the insurgents say they are fighting to get the US out and fighting to make sure the US does not have a veto over Iraqi policy.

That is a stupid strategy.  Even if it could work and the insurgents would accept the US army occupying Iraq, (and it cannot work) then Iran would just not let it work.

We just do not have a bright government right now.  Realities that A student Bill Clinton would perceive in 6 months or more like before the adventure started C+ student George W. Bush will not perceive until someone explains to him after he has left office. So far 2,127 dead US soldiers and maybe 100 times that amount of dead Iraqi civilians are paying the price. 

It's interesting what different people pull from the same article. I happen to think this was the most interesting point made in it:

"The primary military goal of groups like Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sunna is not to win but simply not to lose; to hang on until the United States runs out of will and departs..."

Al Qaeda is half way to their goal since the leaders of the Democratic party are helping them (inadvertantly or not) every day.

Actually it is Bush who is helping Al Qaeda.  He has no intention, despite his rhetoric of keeping the troops anywhere until Al Qaeda is irradicated.  If he wanted to do that he never would have wheeled around from Afghanistan before the job was done and started the war in Iraq.

Further, Bush has caused this crisis by lying to the American people.  Americans want to win.  Personally, I think Americans would be willing to kill large numbers of iraqis in the name of victory.  However, by assuring us how easy the war would be Americans, not Democrats, have reverted to our basic isolatists predispossion and wants out.

For what it's worth, John Kerry was also a "C" student at Yale. Maybe that's why he "voted for the war before he voted against it."

"The primary military goal of groups like Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sunna is not to win but simply not to lose; to hang on until the United States runs out of will and departs..."

But the attacks have not tapered off so how can you say our continued presence will have any effect? As the article stated what must we do kill everybody?

Al Qaeda is half way to their goal since the leaders of the Democratic party are helping them (inadvertantly or not) every day.

And every day that Bush commits a new atrocity the "insurgents" gain new recruits. Also if Bush wouldn't have listened Rumsfeld's plan to do the war on the cheap and instead listened to his Joint Chiefs perhaps the would have been enough troops to secure Saddam's many munitions depots. A couple of rounds duct taped together and primed with electric blastin caps  makes a nasty roadside mine.

"It's not a bug but a feature" is right on.  However, describing Bush as a C student doesn't capture the essence.  He is a moron.  He lacks normal human brain function.  People keep assuming he functions the way they do or the way they think a president should.  He doesn't.  A C student may be slow but he can catch on eventually.  With Bush many things (like the August 6 PDB) don't even register.   Assigning human characteristics to Bush is a perverse form of anthropromorphism. 

Yale is just a place where young twits come to start building their networks.  You don't expect them to actually learn anything.

Bush as a politican looks to dominate allies and enemies. He makes them submit to his will.

Bush, simply put, is an empty-suited salesman whose personality as President is merely a reflection of Karl Rove, a true sociopath if there ever was one.

Here is another example of the Bush strategy.

The insurgents and al-Qaeda produce lies and propaganda that the US intends to occupy Iraq for generations to come and to influence Iraqi policy during that time.

The Bush response is the US will stay in Iraq as long as is necessary and no longer.

That response is much worse than no response at all.  Everyone even a little suspicious of US motives translates "as long as necessary" to be generations to come.  Bush's response is nothing more or less than a confirmation of al-Qaeda lies and propaganda.

But that response is even worse because it rules out trying to make a justification of why the US wants to stay.  Bush believes a long-term US presence in Iraq would good for the Iraqi people but he can't argue that.  Al-Qaeda is certainly arguing the reasons that a US presence will be bad for the Iraqi people.

The worst part of this response is that domestically the American people are not in a position to debate and decide as a democracy how important it is for the US to have a long term presence in Iraq.
The Bush administration is not equipped to engage in a political war against Arab nationalists and Islamists in an Arab country.  It is just no contest.  Compared to the political war, the military aspects of the occupation are an absolute smashing success.

The idea that political successes are going to cause the insurgency to weaken is mind-boggling.  Watching Bush Iraq policy is like watching repeated car wrecks.  The only thing certain is that over the next year we'll be seeing more spectacular blunders that nobody could have expected.

It's like the Cold War slogan "Better Dead than Red", or the famous Vietnam "we had to destroy the village to save it "quote.

Time to focus on what we Americans think. What we think is that our occupation is fueling the insurgency and we should leave ASAP. I believe about 67% agree with that statement, allowing for different interpretations of ASAP.

Bush is an ignoramus, not a moron.

Its been well established in the critical biographies that Bush suffers from a learning disability of some kind.  Had he been born in a typical middle-class family, who knows what he would have become, or if he would have even survived his addictions.

Yes, he was a legacy at a time when grades didn't really matter in his socioeconomic circles.  Yes, he failed at every business set up for him, and was bailed out every time.  Molly Ivins et al have convincingly shown that he engaged in insider trading in the sale of his Harken stock, and that once again, he was let off the hook because of daddy Bush.  And of course, let's not forget that he only got into the Texas Air National Guard ahead of almost 200 others (off the top of my head memory) because of connections, and then received an honoralbe discharge after being AWOL for over a year because of, guess what?  Connections.

He is an empty suit, and was indeed created by Karl Rove.  He's the perfect example of (Molly probably said it first) "he was born on third base, and thinks he hit a triple."

On top of all that, he is a true believer who somehow absorbed some kind of received wisdom, and will never question it.  How can we have a president who literally doesn't read newspapers, and has to depend on his advisors to tell him everything that is going on in the world.

He hasn't appeared before an even critical, much less unfriendly, crowd, since when?  Did he ever?

His ignorance is indeed his strength.  And if he ever admits to a mistake or a problem, the whole edifice unravels, which is why he will never do either of those.

Bushco delenda est.

I generally agree irishkg.  But I do think in the very short term we do have a military obligation to provide stability until elections are held and a government is in place.  Which was the way I read your post that Hoppy questioned you on.  Long term military operations after the elections are held will do nothing then but embolden the insurgency.  After the elections let politics take it's course in Iraq, the Iraqis have a far better chance of stabilizing their own country...

I still think some combat military should be there to provide Iraq protection from any external threats to their security but internal problems should be left to them.

I think EST had it correct. It has been known from the beginning of the occupation that most of the insurgency was composed of small groups operating independently. Lerger groups provided some combination of arms, munitions, general guidence, occasional training, money. The small groups of Iraqis undertook operations at irregular intevals. People joined them for a variety of reasons: personal revenge, nationalism, simple opposition to foreign troops, Islamin fundamentalism, etc. I remember reading several articles about it, continaing numerous of interviews with individual insurgents. Some of them said they would be active for a few weeks or for a few operations and then take a break for a few months while some or their friends or relatives stepped up in the meantime. I don't see these interviews anymore, perhaps it is too dangerous for western reporters or Iraqi stringers to do them now.

Out of ignorance, incompetence, or a desire to mislead the US public, the Bush/Cheney administration has publicly claimed that there is no widespread support for any part of the insurgency in Iraq. Who believes that now? If you go back and look at articles written shortly after the invasion, who should ever have believed iit?

I think SFCWallace is, frankly, a sorry dupe of the Bush administration. It is the Bush administration that has so mishandled the occupation that we now face a choice of whether to withdraw quickly and let the Iraqis (and Iran!) hash it out themselves, or withdraw slowly and attempt to manage a soft landing somehow. The cost of continued occupation in terms of damage to the military is severe, the cost of continuted turmoil and chaos in Iraq is severe. But the occupation has been so bungled in so many ways, the US administration and the Iraqi government it has installed have so little understanding of the insurgency, that it is very difficult to understand which choice will avert the larger disaster. I think flipping a coin is about as any other approach.

It is the Bush/Cheney adminstration, which as done everything its own way, that has brought the US to this very dangerous and unfortunate dilemma, and absolutely no one else.

Another commenter likened the situationh to the horror of watching multiple car wreckes. I agree. Everytime the Bush/Chendey administation make a claim of progress, something happens within a few days or weeks to make them look like fools or liars.

I don't think anyone understands the Bush/Cheney behavior. Incompetence, stubbornness, ideoology. Or dishonesty. Perhaps the plan has always been to establish a large permanent US military presence in Iraq, one way or another. That would explain the refusal of administartion to disavow a desire for permanent military bases. It would explain the lack of any operational criteria for success, the portrayal of the insurgency as an international Islamic terrorist operation.

As a matter of fact only 19% say pull out immediately!!! 19%!!!!
Do your students have to back up claims they make in their papers with research and facts or can they just say what they want the truth to be and get a good grade for trying hard?

Bush is a utopian.  This is faith-based war.  He's so emotionally invested in the idea that war is God's mission that to admit he's wrong would be a spiritual crisis. 

All you faith and values folks -- keep your faith, keep your values -- but never entrust government to a leader that can't tell faith from fact.

We broke it so we need to endeavor to repair.