A simple-minded general stirs internet mutiny in the ranks: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1922881,00.html "Meanwhile, the fate of Iraqis grows more hideous. A road-sweeper says he works with 'his soul in his hands'. Stand on the Syrian border and you will see, each day, 1,000 refugees fleeing Iraq. They drive Mercedes and Chevrolets, these doctors or engineers driven out by kidnap, rape and brutality from streets where muggers kill for a mobile phone." Also: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2404365,00.html "Worse, as Dannatt points out, âour presence exacerbates the security problemâ. We were not invited â âwe kicked the door inâ â and as occupiers we are no longer welcome. The British are not even policing Iraq, merely guarding bases and venturing on occasional patrols that offer target practice for passing mujaheddin. This does no more than echo what American field generals were reporting as long ago as September 2003, six months after the invasion. According to Bob Woodwardâs book State of Denial (see Culture and News Review), they demanded an immediate transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis. Swift withdrawal, they said, âwould enhance the security situation because the Iraqis donât like occupationâ. Staying would become a focus for insurgency. Never did soldiers speak truer words."
Stay the course... Mission Accomplished... You are either with us, or against us... I guess the general is just confused.
The problem is they are no longer fighting a war at least in the traditional sense that aligns with what soldiers are trained to do.
The most puzzling thing about the invasion of Iraq is why the Americans didn't simply take out Saddam and a couple of top aids, but keep the governement structure intact. Isn't that standard when invading a country?
Well, he was the modern day desert fox and he slept in different places all the time. Also he had a few fake-Saddams, and imagine how embarrasing it would have been: US takes out fake-Saddam!