With the country now at the brink of total civil war, I suppose that our exit strategy is FUBAR'd and we're in for another 7 years?

Why not see how things play out before crying "The Sky is Falling!"

At least another 7

Quoted: img.photobucket.com/albums/v663/grey2112/Funny/chickenlittle.jpg

And, let's just say for a moment that Iraq is "unfixable".
We have disrupted and infiltrated and killed so many terrorists in the area, how can that be a bad thing.
Besides, we will need a base of operations against Iran shortly, it would appear.

With the way some people here over-react to everything, is it any wonder that there are so many divorced people on this board?

I'm not crying the sky is falling. I am simply watching events unfold and see an entire region on the brink of mass civil warfare.

When you have tribal grudges which go back centuries, I don't see how it's going to play out any differently.

Sadaam ruled Iraq like Tito ruled Yugoslavia, another nation that was bound together by tight-fisted dictatorial rule. When Tito was gone, what happened? The place erupted into all out civil war again among people who have a history of hate for their neighbor bred into them.

Again, how is this going to play out any differently with the US standing in the middle?

Iraq is not like Vietnam, frankly, it's not even close.

Look at the amount of casualties--it's bad, but it could be worse, much worse.  The army has finally started a counterinsurgency academy-three years after the war started.  And there are some army officers who understand how to fight and win this "new" type of war.  There is a Brigade Commander in Tal Afar, who has a Phd in history and really made some changes in the way his brigade fights.  No huge FOB's, instead 29 patrol bases scattered thoughout the city.  Soldiers have the population under  observation 24/7, hard to plant an IED that way. He made 1 of 10 soldiers attend an arabic language course and his troops work closely with the Iraqi army forces,who understand the people and culture in a way we never can.  There are some good articles in the Washington Post recently.  

The saddest part of the US war in Iraq is the fact that this "war" was already fought before; in Algeria, in Northern Ireland, in Lebanon, and in Rhodesia, and the failure to learn the hard lessons of these campaigns have resulted in a higher US casualties.

It IS like Vietnam in that we are perfectly capable of prevailing unless we listen to the idiots in the press who are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

They said we couldn't win the cold war too, remember???

Stop listening to the talking heads and start listening to the people on the ground. We CAN prevail against the terrorists if we don't turn all wussy and run home crying.

Quoted: It IS like Vietnam in that we are perfectly capable of prevailing unless we listen to the idiots in the press who are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They said we couldn't win the cold war too, remember??? Stop listening to the talking heads and start listening to the people on the ground. We CAN prevail against the terrorists if we don't turn all wussy and run home crying.

Excellently put.

My brother was in charge of training Iraqis in Tal Afar last year, and said he was impressed by their esprit de corps and desire to make their country into a modern democracy and make it safe for their families.  And there were Shiites and Sunnis together in the group he was training and they never had any problems.

I know it is difficult to stay positive when all we ever hear on the news is the doom and gloom.  Stay tough and believe in our President - he is doing the right thing that will pay dividends in the future by increasing the safety of your family for years to come.

Quoted: It IS like Vietnam in that we are perfectly capable of prevailing unless we listen to the idiots in the press who are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They said we couldn't win the cold war too, remember??? Stop listening to the talking heads and start listening to the people on the ground. We CAN prevail against the terrorists if we don't turn all wussy and run home crying.

I agree with you a 100% but the problem is that the majority of americans ONLY hear the media they are not hearing the people on the ground and the sucess stories all they hear is damn near every single day is american troops dying and riots all over the place.   Unless somebody figures out how to beat the media at their own game we have a serious problem.

As usual, denial and blame from the coolaid conservatives here.  It wasn't the media that botched this, it was the GW and Rummy and their simplistic understanding of things.  The real military experts from Powell to Shinseki warned against their strategies, saying we need a larger occupying force, but GW in all his wisdom thinks the people would throw flowers at our feets and praise America the beautiful if we just removed Hussein.  But go ahead and blame the media and the liberals, I'm sure Dan Rather is building IEDs in his garage right now.

Quoted: As usual, denial and blame from the coolaid conservatives here.  It wasn't the media that botched this, it was the GW and Rummy and their simplistic understanding of things.  The real military experts from Powell to Shinseki warned against their strategies, saying we need a larger occupying force, but GW in all his wisdom thinks the people would throw flowers at our feets and praise America the beautiful if we just removed Hussein.  But go ahead and blame the media and the liberals, I'm sure Dan Rather is building IEDs in his garage right now.

+1 (to a certain extent), and this is another place where the analogy to Vietnam is correct.  The US left Vietnam under heavy pressure from the left, but the reason that the left was able to mount that pressure was that the commanders fighting the war chose strategies that didn't allow us to finish the war quicly enough.  

Twenty years from now, we'll have a lot of people claiming "We never lost in Iraq!  The libs made us pull out to early, then it was the Iraqi government that screwed up and let the caliphate take over!"  I don't care how blindly supportive of this administration you are, I don't think anyonoe would argue that there haven't been some serious mistakes in the execution of the war in Iraq.

Iraq, the Islamic terrorist version of rope a dope.

Iran and Syria and Al Quaeda will stop at nothing to keep us spending lives and resources in Iraq.

This battle will take all the resolve our country can muster.

The war has always been in the Mosques.

It's good to see that the Shia are finally doing what must be done.

Odds are, those Sunni clerics were cell leaders and the Mosques were C2 and Logostics points.
If you think I'm joking, you need to visit Iraq.

Its not even close.  The only common denominator in each are that there are casualties.
There are not nearly as many as in VN but its all the enemy has right now to make a difference.

Its not the Iraqi people as much as it is insurgents we are fighting.  In fact, the Iraqi's are turning in suspected terrorists.    They keep racking up GI's and the war becomes more and more unpopular over here.  The Vietnamese combatants were fighting for their country and political beliefs.  The insurgents in Iraq are fighting for their religious extremism and radical beliefs.  

Nukes can do wonderful things in places like that. It is only a race in time between when they are able to light one off here, or we work up the nerve to make glass over there. If there was Vegas odds made on this, I'd say the house favor them.

Quoted: Wow, I wish it had been simplistic.  LBJ lives! Tj

Ah, LBJ, his family is a major shareholder of Halliburton! One does not here that in the press.

Quoted: And, let's just say for a moment that Iraq is "unfixable". We have disrupted and infiltrated and killed so many terrorists in the area, how can that be a bad thing. Besides, we will need a base of operations against Iran shortly, it would appear.

It's not a bad thing but look at it this way; they have an endless supply of people willing to die so no matter how many are killed in a particular day, somebody will always take their place. That will never end.

Wow, alot of negative waves in this thread.

The task of Iraq is a monumental one. It will take 20 more years. Get used to it.

ETA: As my 4 year old is fond of saying "The only real mistake is giving up."

Iraq became like Vietnam precisely the same time that the politicians caved to the liberal media and "hate America first" crowd, and decided to fight with both hands tied behind our backs and a muzzle on. We succeed only when the politicians allow the experts to run the show.


roy d...I thought we learned our lesson, but apparently not, cuz here we go again.





ps....anyone reading this wearing a uniform.....thanks for your sacrifice, and sorry for our lukewarm  support at home. My family says a prayer for ya'll everynight. God bless you, each and everyone.

Quoted: With the way some people here over-react to everything, is it any wonder that there are so many divorced people on this board?

What a great, true post.

Yes, and we're the french.  

I think we always knew the road to hell was paved with good intentions...

any of these ME countries could be there in civil war without our help.  Look at Sudan, Ehtiopia, Afghanistan,..

If it isn't the haves vs. the have nots, it's the shiites vs. the sunnis, the convervatives vs. everyone that stands against them, the muslims vs. the buddhists or for those who enjoy strained credulity, the people against the jews or payback for WWII.  

ETA I think the South was fairly hard to govern after the Civil War.  Gradually the Jim Crow types got the old intimidation factor going and secured the "old" life and ways.  Yep, it can take generations to rise out of mediocrity.

Quoted: As usual, denial and blame from the coolaid conservatives here.  It wasn't the media that botched this, it was the GW and Rummy and their simplistic understanding of things.  The real military experts from Powell to Shinseki warned against their strategies, saying we need a larger occupying force, but GW in all his wisdom thinks the people would throw flowers at our feets and praise America the beautiful if we just removed Hussein.  But go ahead and blame the media and the liberals, I'm sure Dan Rather is building IEDs in his garage right now.

You have NOT been to Iraq.  Instead, you rely on the viewpoints of the liberal media to tell you everything.

Neither are you in ANY Whitehouse Staff meetings yet you claim the President and his Secretary of Defense are simplistic.

Then you listen to retired generals who do not have the intel...well, you listen to parsed statements from retired generals.  These same statements were coerced from the generals using crafted interview questioning and careful editing out of context.

Dan Rather does not have the brains to successfully navigate his nostrils with his fingers, much less construct an IED.

NO!

the war in iraq is NOTHING like vietnam in so many levels....

primarily: vietnam, unlike iraq, had NO strategic value what-so-ever
--and i mean something besides oil--iraq is smack dab in the middle of a hostile region full of totalitarian, fanatical, relious dictatrors who already support terrorist acts against the US
--Vietnam did not support terrorism against the US; they only wanted thier independence
overall strategic value of 'nam was nothing--we had no business being overthere

hell, most of our inital reasoning to get involved in nam (starting polically as early as '45, with funds being sent over in the early '50s), was to appease the French
they wanted Nam back as a colony so they could restore thier pre-WWII ''prestige'' ; they had some problems, and the US, wanting support in Europe in preparation for a USSR/Communist attack, decided to help the Fr in return for that support(we thought that the hotspots would be in EU)
--h/w, when the Fr. started to loose the fight against nam, and pulled out after diem bien phu ('56?), they decided to leave US there as they knew that we wanted to contain communism everwhere--chicken bastards

in general, the middle east is behind the times with many still living in poverty and disconten
-- the top middle east "leaders" refuse to change any social/economic means, and to keep the people happy, they divert thier attention to the 'invading' US--a simple way to consolidate power by blaming an outside enemy to allow these high ranking officials to divert the populas' attention away from thier local problems

vietnam was a mix of political stupidness (mcnamar, JFK's wizz kids, etc), a lack of presidential thought (LBJ--biggest, weakest, dumba** on this side of the ocean), Ike, JFK, and to a certain extent, nixon) , political agendas, and communism--NO US politician could appear to be "soft on communism" for fear the US public would ostrasize em
therefore, we kept our troops and monies and dumb-a** puppet dictotors in SVn, all to "contain communism" from spreading (which it would never had done as the NVn only wanted a UNITED vietnam, not to spread the ideas on communism to the US....)

then there was that idiot gen. westmoreland, who did NOT know how to operate in vietnam-hell, he cared more about pleasing the press and the politicians
when Gen. Abrams took over after tet, it was too late, as he was the right man for the job, but given less support (at home) than he deserved

another BIG problem with our handling of vietnam (besides our continued support of corrupt, self-serving, and stupid SVn dictorial puppets, like Diem), was that the US primarily poured money into the country without keeping a hand and eye on how it was allocated
--social reform programs were not initiated as heavily as they should have been
--and, when the situation got bigger, the US just took over militarily, but all the while we made LITTLE to NO attempt to change HOW the SVn govt was run--we did not try to give true democractic power (hell, all the Svn leaders were put in office by us, with stuffed ballot boxes)

we are NOT doing that in Iraq--we are allowing them to take political power, democratic measures, and the power of the vote to the PEOPLE (i hope we are though....)

basically, we are actually trying to imporve iraq by doing it the right way--by instituting govt, social, economic guidance, and not by either ignoring it or allowing some non-complacent puppet run the show....

tactically, YES, its a simliar fight--iraq, like nam, has an insugency, outside enemy help/aid, a pourous border, poverty, social/economic prolems, govt isssues, a poor economy, and an enviornment that does not help anyone

Quoted: With the way some people here over-react to everything, is it any wonder that there are so many divorced people on this board?

Damn good point there...

Quoted: As usual, denial and blame from the coolaid conservatives here.

And as usual, more simplistic, idiotic propaganda from the usual suspects.

Quoted: Why not see how things play out before crying "The Sky is Falling!"

Been doing that for about 2-1/2 years now...

I took my share of the Kool-Aid.  I was willing to believe that it was the right thing.  Then I was willing to believe those people were ready for democracy.  Then I was willing to believe it was outsiders causing all the ruckus.  Now I'm less and less sure.  The cartoon thing may have been the tipping point for me.  I just can't believe, anymore, that trying to help those people is worth the cost.

Nuke their ass and take their gas.  I've come back around to my 1980 way of thinking.

56,000 KIAs to go before you can make the comparison.

The truth is, the Arabs have three or four centuries of civilization building to go through before they get their act together, after they put tribal law behind them.

The real question is what is the US strategy for if it does turn into a civil war:

Make bases and withdraw to them and back no one: wait for it to subside and start over?

Be finished with Iraq and withdraw all?

Back one religious part over the other two?

Try to be a peacemaker between all 3?

What would the best path be?

Each of the ones I listed may have strong points, but have lots of weak points and outright problems.

Quoted: 56,000 KIAs to go before you can make the comparison. The truth is, the Arabs have three or four centuries of civilization building to go through before they get their act together, after they put tribal law behind them.

Yep, so why let them focus their hate on us? Let the bastards do themselves in because they can't change and the money we spend there is better spent elsewhere. Let's put our efforts into bringing alternative energy to the forefront because once that happens, the middle east will be irelevant. A big bonus to that, don't share our energy technology with no one especially the Chinese. Since they will rapidly becoming the worlds biggest oil user, let them go fight and die for it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: As usual, denial and blame from the coolaid conservatives here.  It wasn't the media that botched this, it was the GW and Rummy and their simplistic understanding of things.  The real military experts from Powell to Shinseki warned against their strategies, saying we need a larger occupying force, but GW in all his wisdom thinks the people would throw flowers at our feets and praise America the beautiful if we just removed Hussein.  But go ahead and blame the media and the liberals, I'm sure Dan Rather is building IEDs in his garage right now. +1 (to a certain extent), and this is another place where the analogy to Vietnam is correct.  The US left Vietnam under heavy pressure from the left, but the reason that the left was able to mount that pressure was that the commanders fighting the war chose strategies that didn't allow us to finish the war quicly enough.   Twenty years from now, we'll have a lot of people claiming "We never lost in Iraq!  The libs made us pull out to early, then it was the Iraqi government that screwed up and let the caliphate take over!"  I don't care how blindly supportive of this administration you are, I don't think anyonoe would argue that there haven't been some serious mistakes in the execution of the war in Iraq. Wow, I wish it had been simplistic.  LBJ lives!                                                 <SNIP> If there is one comparrisson in this thread to Vietnam its this its so and so's war and politics.  That was a mistake then and just as much a one now.  War is for soldiers not politicians.  The minute you mix the two, the ultimate end result is more body bags. Tj

Nail on the head right there gentlemen.

AB

Quoted: Quoted: 56,000 KIAs to go before you can make the comparison. The truth is, the Arabs have three or four centuries of civilization building to go through before they get their act together, after they put tribal law behind them. Yep, so why them focus their hate on us? Let the bastards do themselves in because they can't change and the money we spend there is better spent elsewhere. Let's put our efforts into bringing alternative energy to the forefront because once that happens, the middle east will be irelevant.

I think our efforts in the Middle East reflect our day-to-day needs, more than our long term needs.

Virtually every oil exporting country benefits from keeping Iraq unstable. The less oil Iraq ships, the more they ship, to the tune of billions of dollars a day.

If Saddam hadn't tried to switch OPEC to the Euro, and showed a huge profit for doing it, I'm sure he would still be happily grinding Shiites and Kurds under his heel.

The oil companies are deeply invested in alternative enegy. That way they can hire all the good researchers, direct their research and keep the whole thing on ice. Alternative energy sources will be "discovered" when the oil companies want them to be "discovered."

The US government is a controlling agency, not a for profit business. It is in the gov't's interest to keep the money flowing and tap the flow. We cannot allow ourselves to become irrelevant in the day to day decisions of the world's governments.

If the world chooses to force America out of the oil game, they will starve out 5% of the world's population and free up 25% of the world's oil supply. From their perspective, it's not a bad trade. By switching currencies, the growth in the Euro would replace the American economy in a few years. Better a controlled crash than a nuclear war.

More than a few oil exporting nations, who would profit from this switch, support the idea.

- U.S. MILITARY CASUALTIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA -
- DEATHS BY CALENDAR YEAR -
- Year of death may either be actual or based on a presumptive finding of death -
- (originally declared missing and later declared dead). -
- AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 -
Since 1997 71 names have been added to the memorial that are not show in the stats below.
YEAR  USA     USN   USAF   USMC   USCG   TOTAL  
1957       1        0        0         0          0         1
1958       0        0        0         0          0         0
1959       2        0        0         0          0         2
1960       0        4        1         0          0         5
1961       7        1        8         0          0       16
1962     27        3       18        5         0       53
1963     73        4       31      10         0     118
1964  147      15       39        5          0      206
1965 1,079   114   162    508         0   1,863
1966 3,755   279   246 1,862         2   6,144
1967 6,467   583   317 3,786         0 11,153
1968 10,596 598   345 5,048         2 16,589
1969 8,186   426   305  2,694         3 11,614
1970 4,972   219   201      691        0    6,083
1971 2,131     55     90         81        0    2,357
1972    373     77   172        18         0       640
1973      34      52     75          7         0       168
1974      49      23     80        26         0       178
1975      23      22     83        32         0       160
1976      29        6     29        13          0        77
1977      29      24     39          4          0         96
1978    158      42   219       28          0       447
1979      38        3    101        6           0       148
1980 - 1995   25  5   22      14           0         66
TOTAL DEATHS 38,196 2,555 2,583 14,837 7 58,178

As of today we're coming up on ~ 4 years for Iraq 2003-2006 and we've got 2,287 killed. It took ~ 8 years 1957-1965 for 2,264 killed in Vietnam. So historically speaking, from a KIA calendar year perspective VN & Iraq are not similar; Iraq unfortunately has a greater initial rate of death.  
(Column spacing does not line up in the post)
US in VN Link - Scroll down to 2nd last chart

US Casualties By Year in Iraq
Year US Deaths US Wounded
2003 486 2409
2004 848 7989
2005 846 5944
2006 107 311
Total 2287 16653

ETA: US in Iraq casualties by year chart.

A civil war would might actually be a good thing for the area. Let them all shoot each other for awhile, then we carpet bomb a few nukes in the area and blame it on Iran.

We will not win in Iraq. You cannot change hundreds of years of religious feuding. We can bring a democratic type system to the government but we will never end the internal conflict, nor will we ever crush the insurgency. All you have to do is look back at Russia's invasion of Afganistan to see what the outcome for us will sonner or later be. History does repeat itself.

Quoted: - U.S. MILITARY CASUALTIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA - - DEATHS BY CALENDAR YEAR - - Year of death may either be actual or based on a presumptive finding of death - - (originally declared missing and later declared dead). - - AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 - Since 1997 71 names have been added to the memorial that are not show in the stats below. YEAR  USA     USN   USAF   USMC   USCG   TOTAL   1957       1        0        0         0          0         1 1958       0        0        0         0          0         0 1959       2        0        0         0          0         2 1960       0        4        1         0          0         5 1961       7        1        8         0          0       16 1962     27        3       18        5         0       53 1963     73        4       31      10         0     118 1964  147      15       39        5          0      206 1965 1,079   114   162    508         0   1,863 1966 3,755   279   246 1,862         2   6,144 1967 6,467   583   317 3,786         0 11,153 1968 10,596 598   345 5,048         2 16,589 1969 8,186   426   305  2,694         3 11,614 1970 4,972   219   201      691        0    6,083 1971 2,131     55     90         81        0    2,357 1972    373     77   172        18         0       640 1973      34      52     75          7         0       168 1974      49      23     80        26         0       178 1975      23      22     83        32         0       160 1976      29        6     29        13          0        77 1977      29      24     39          4          0         96 1978    158      42   219       28          0       447 1979      38        3    101        6           0       148 1980 - 1995   25  5   22      14           0         66 TOTAL DEATHS 38,196 2,555 2,583 14,837 7 58,178 As of today we're coming up on ~ 4 years for Iraq 2003-2006 and we've got 2,287 killed. It took ~ 8 years 1957-1965 for 2,264 killed in Vietnam. So historically speaking, from a KIA calendar year perspective VN & Iraq are not similar; Iraq unfortunately has a greater initial rate of death.   (Column spacing does not line up in the post) Link - Scroll down to 2nd last chart

Until 1965, our role in Vietnam was limited. We didn't commit any major combat units, or conduct any combat operations until 1965. Once we did, casualties were MUCH higher.

The terrain was far more difficult in Vietnam, with troops moving largely on foot or by helicopter. trucks and armor were largely limited to roads, bases and a few regions where the ground would support tracks.

In the mountainous central highlands, I never saw armor move more than a few hundred yards away from pavement or well engineered jungle roads. The South Vietnamese troops really could have used RPGs back then, since the LAWS rocket seldom stopped a T-54 main battle tank.

FWIW, our goal was to topple Saddam. Sticking around to rebuild is just our foreign policy. We've already won the war in Iraq, it was no contest.

We can't even stop the violence in our own streets, it simply can't be done by force.

Quoted: It IS like Vietnam in that we are perfectly capable of prevailing unless we listen to the idiots in the press who are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They said we couldn't win the cold war too, remember??? Stop listening to the talking heads and start listening to the people on the ground. We CAN prevail against the terrorists if we don't turn all wussy and run home crying.

+1

Quoted: We will not win in Iraq. You cannot change hundreds of years of religious feuding. We can bring a democratic type system to the government but we will never end the internal conflict, nor will we ever crush the insurgency. All you have to do is look back at Russia's invasion of Afganistan to see what the outcome for us will sonner or later be. History does repeat itself.

And yet Afghanistan is swiftly moving towards a stable, representative government...

Quoted: The war has always been in the Mosques. It's good to see that the Shia are finally doing what must be done. Odds are, those Sunni clerics were cell leaders and the Mosques were C2 and Logostics points. If you think I'm joking, you need to visit Iraq.

Interesting that no one seems to have read the only post from someone who is there right now.

Quoted: Quoted: We will not win in Iraq. You cannot change hundreds of years of religious feuding. We can bring a democratic type system to the government but we will never end the internal conflict, nor will we ever crush the insurgency. All you have to do is look back at Russia's invasion of Afganistan to see what the outcome for us will sonner or later be. History does repeat itself. And yet Afghanistan is swiftly moving towards a stable, representative government...

That's right, because the majority of the people do not have the religious conflicts that are prevlent in Iraq. When you have a cooperative public, things will transition smoothly. You cannot group Iraq with Afganistan, they are 2 completely different societies. That's like putting a lion with a tiger and say they are the same, they are both cats but only have that in common. They live and survive very differently.

Quoted: Quoted: And, let's just say for a moment that Iraq is "unfixable". We have disrupted and infiltrated and killed so many terrorists in the area, how can that be a bad thing. Besides, we will need a base of operations against Iran shortly, it would appear. It's not a bad thing but look at it this way; they have an endless supply of people willing to die so no matter how many are killed in a particular day, somebody will always take their place. That will never end.

And in the event we get hit again like 9-11, WE will have an endless supply of people willing to KILL.  At age 33, with 3 low back surgeries under my belt, I'm considering enlistment.

I know it is difficult to stay positive when all we ever hear on the news is the doom and gloom.  Stay tough and believe in our President - he is doing the right thing that will pay dividends in the future by increasing the safety of your family for years to come.

How did invading Iraq make our families safer?

Well, we certainly can't arm the Kurds to come in and kick some Sunni/Shia ass because they will just attack Turkey.

Guys, I am a flag waving, GOP card carrying, freedom loving conservative. But we have to face the truth that the conflict has transcended beyond us vs. them. We are smack dab in the center of them vs. them now, and we do not have the balls or the political moxy to intimidate either side into submission with iron-fisted, brutal force. That is how Sadaam kept both factions in check. That is how Tito kept the Serbs and the Croats in check. We aren't even willing to allow an intelligence officer to rough up a subject for information, let alone enact a kill em' all policy like what would be necessary to keep the peace between both of these factions.

Quoted: I know it is difficult to stay positive when all we ever hear on the news is the doom and gloom.  Stay tough and believe in our President - he is doing the right thing that will pay dividends in the future by increasing the safety of your family for years to come. How did invading Iraq make our families safer?

With a post like that, you will never want to believe it or accept it.

Maybe someone else would want to waste thier time...I do not.

We did it Clintons way for 8 years (maybe your way as well) and it got us 9/11. It is no accident we haven't been hit since here on our shores.

There is a Brigade Commander in Tal Afar, who has a Phd in history and really made some changes in the way his brigade fights.  No huge FOB's, instead 29 patrol bases scattered thoughout the city.  Soldiers have the population under  observation 24/7, hard to plant an IED that way. He made 1 of 10 soldiers attend an arabic language course and his troops work closely with the Iraqi army forces,who understand the people and culture in a way we never can.

That would be COL H.R. McMaster-you may remember him from asswhoopings such as the battle of 73 Easting.  He was also in the Frontline documentary about the Iraqi insurgency that aired last week.