There’s a rumor going around that we’re winning in Iraq. We’ve turned the corner, and there’s light at the end of the tunnel, and it may not be an oncoming freight train. We just need to stay the course a little bit longer, hang tough, because all the metrics show we’re gaining, and pulling ahead.
I love metrics, don’t you? There they are: hard, incontrovertible proof, quantifiable results. You can measure them, weigh them, lay them out on a table and dissect them with the Occam’s razor.
Case in point: we’re killing and capturing a lot more people than they’re killing of us. Well, we’re apparently not getting our troops captured, which is probably a good thing, considering the way we treat the people we capture. I mean, can you imagine the squealing if THEY had an Abu Ghraib and took photos of our troops on leashes and piled into pyramids? So we continue to capture people, handcuff them, take them away somewhere and they’re all – you know – insurgents (wink, wink)
It all reminds me of Viet Nam: if the guy’s alive and unarmed he’s a farmer. If he’s dead, he’s a guerrilla. No weapon? Others were probably with him, and took his weapon when they didi’d. But the body count. Oh my friends, the body count was phenomenal. The metrics were right there: the body count was 20 to 1. We were winning. Right up until that sad, tragic day when the very last Huey took the very last Marine guard off the roof of the Embassy.
Another case in point: Last week we killed the #2 guy in Iraq. Abu Azzam was the “top lieutenant” of Abu Massab al-Zarqawi, who of course, is the #1 guy, the head of al_Qaeda in Iraq. Now, being the #2 guy is a very dangerous job. I know this, because we’ve killed or captured the #2 guy about 30 times. It’s true. You could look it up. A fella over at Blogenlust has been keeping score.
We can’t seem to catch the top guy, because he’s a wily, slippery guy. I mean, reportedly having only one leg, and all, he’s real hard to find. And that other #1 guy? The guy with the mobile dialysis pump? Osama bin Forgotten? We can’t find him, either. Maybe he has a stealth dialysis unit, and that’s why we can’t find him.
Yes, the metrics are looking good.
But our Army is still being whittled down, by the death of 10,000 cuts.
Comments
"But our Army is still be whittled down, by the death of 10,000 cuts."
In January 2004, a senior Army officer (now commanding a brigade-sized unit in Iraq) opined that if things kept going the way they were then going, the Army would be "broken" (his word) in two years, the USMC about six months after that.
Well, things have indeed continue to go the way they were going. The result: most of the equipment in country is shot (it's hard to keep tanks and choppers operational in an environment like Iraq's), we're buying small arms ammo from Israel because we're running out (another metric: if memory serves the ratio of rounds fired to KIA during Vietnam was 22,000:1; in Iraq it is currently estimated to be 250,000:1 -- ah, urban combat)and soldiers are heading to Iraq for their third tours.
Those who recall the dismantling of the Army during the Late Southeast Asia Unpleasantness know that that dismantling was a nonlinear event -- the increasing dedication of the soldiers held the edifice together for quite a while, but eventually gravity and/or entropy took over, with the result that the edifice unravelled in a hurry.
Such will be the case this time. As with RVN, the military in general and the Army in particular will be left holding the bag.
There are special places in Hell reserved for Robert Strange McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld -- hopefully they'll spend eternity next to each other. What will they talk about?
YD recommended you guys.
Glad that he did; sorry that I have to read proud veterans say what is really going down in Iraq.
Any chance that there would be a military coup in USA?
Rummy was clamoring for metrics a couple of years ago wasn't he (has it been that long)? They never released them, so I guess they didn't like what those metrics showed.
I know what our goals (at least the public ones) are in Iraq, but I'm not sure if our actions to date serve as a means of accomplishing those goals. I don't understand how the tools of war and occupation can bring about peace and democracy. It seems like there should be some important step in between.
Welcome to the blogosphere, guys.
My favorite comment at a blog that isn't Blogenlust, where the proprietor there also listed all the al-Zarqawi #2's we've killed or captured: Being al-Zarqawi's second-in-command is getting to be like being the drummer for Spinal Tap. Makes you wonder who'd want the job..."
Now THAT's funny.
You'd best hope not, fbg. It's purty darn rare for sergeants and privates to lead successful military revolts. Most often they carried out by the upper Officer class, and that group is worldwide mostly reactionary. In fact, the more successful military coups generally have a predictable formula: replace or co-opt whatever formation serves as the Praetorian Guard, seize control of all communication centers, especially electronic media, such as radio (and in the later years, TV.) The next step requires immediate flooding of population centers with troops in full battle rattle, and quite often the shutting down of local police authority.
In the more militarily advanced countries I would think firm control of all air attack assets would be a must, don't you? If you don't like the idea of a Generals' (or Colonels') Council of National Reconciliation running things, would YOU want armed F-16s flying in your neighborhood? And Bradleys directing traffic?
Let's face it, the alleged Iraqi national government notwithstanding, we sort of have a military coup effectively in control right now in the Iraqi cities. They're doing a great job, aren't they?
Post a comment