USA Today hates America

In the months since the end of the invasion-phase of the Iraq war, Bush administration officials have linked surges in violence to a series of benchmarks after which, presumably, the attacks would abate. First it was the capture of Saddam Hussein, then the drafting of a constitution, then the establishment of an interim government and now the January elections.

[...]

The implications of the audacious suicide attack in the center of a heavily guarded U.S. military base in Mosul go beyond a failure of base security.

The attack is the latest evidence that Iraqi insurgents have better intelligence about U.S. forces than U.S. forces have on the insurgents.

USA Today article

Can you say that and still be patriotic?

Send more Bobs candy canes; those kids know things, and they can be turned.

"This is very much an intelligence war," he said. "The insurgents seem to be getting better and better at intelligence."

How did insurgents know when and where three Iraqi election officials would be traveling last weekend in Baghdad before they were dragged from their vehicle in broad daylight and murdered by pistol-wielding insurgents? How have insurgents been able to penetrate the heavily fortified Green Zone — the political and diplomatic nerve center of Baghdad?

The questions bedevil Pentagon officials trying to plot a successful strategy for Iraq.

Never would it occur to them that the reason may be that the "insurgents" have the cooperation of the Iraqi populace. Nope, that couldn't be it.

"It's a very tough, complicated business," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon Wednesday. "The enemy's got a brain. The enemy alters its tactics. ... And intimidation is the kind of thing that can prevent people from providing intelligence."

The enemy's got a brain! Too bad we didn't think of that before we invaded. And intimidation apparently isn't preventing people from providing intelligence. Maybe they're providing intelligence to the people they want to prevail. Nope, that couldn't be it either. They're just too scared to help the Americans. No doubt that is a factor, but resting our whole approach on the belief that the people of an occupied country are longing to support their occupier, but are being intimidated out of it, is the kind of assumption that will keep us pouring troops and money into a disaster of cosmic proportions. I still wonder whether Derr Rumsfiend and the neocons really believe that nonsense or if they just know that the American people are gullible and arrogant enough to buy it.

"Very tough, complicated business." Feeding candy canes to kids to get them to rat out some "bad guys".

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the same Pentagon briefing that the solution is simple.

"The way we prevent this is we win. And that's what we're going to do," Myers said.

I swear, they all have Bushitis.

Rumsfeld and Myers confront difficult choices for coping with what they now acknowledge is an insurgency that will remain violent even beyond the scheduled Jan. 30 Iraqi elections.

Both see the recent U.S. sweep of Fallujah as a model tactic to be used elsewhere.

Because, as we know, Fallujah is under control.

But the concentration of forces in Fallujah required shifting troops away from other areas, including Mosul, which helped spark violence in that northern Iraqi city. A block-by-block sweep of Mosul for insurgents involved in the attack began Wednesday, but the city is three to four times Fallujah's size.

The answer most often cited by outside experts — more troops — has its own risks, Rumsfeld warns. Sending more troops, he said, "has the counterproductive aspect of creating additional targets and creating a sense of occupation."

Okay, maybe he does believe himself.

Patrick Lang, an Iraq expert and former Army intelligence officer, calls armored Humvees and steel-reinforced dining halls — neither of which would have prevented this attack — "Band-Aids" that overlook the widespread hostility U.S. and allied forces face in Iraq.

"The idea that these are our allies, that's a lot of bunk. That's a really bad attitude," Lang said. "There has to be a much larger support group in the population which doesn't turn them in, which turns a blind eye, which cooperates with them."

Well, Pat you just hate America, don't you?

"Looking for a peaceful Iraq after the elections would be a mistake," Rumsfeld said. "I think our expectations level ought to be realistic about that."

It's okay to be realistic about that. You heard it from the horse's mouth ass.