[tw]

Does this sound like a war where Americans are on the offensive?
From the Washington Post of 26 Feb 2006:

Faces of the 101st In the Battle for Baghdad, U.S. Turns War on Insurgents
Here in the area south and west of Baghdad, the push by the Army's 4th Infantry was launched in recent months to give the capital some breathing space. "My job, above all things, is to keep them out of Baghdad," said Capt. Andre Rivier, the Swiss-American commander of Patrol Base Swamp. "The important thing is to keep them fighting here. That's really the crux of the fight." By taking the battle to rural-based insurgents, the Army hopes to gain the initiative, pressuring the enemy at a time and place of the Americans' choosing, rather than simply trying to catch suicide bombers as they drive into the capital.

Despite its proximity to the city, this area was visited surprisingly sporadically by U.S. troops over the last three years. Even now there are pockets where no American faces have been seen, and there still are no-go areas for U.S. troops where the roads are heavily seeded with bombs. Following counterinsurgency doctrine, Ebel doesn't want to take areas and then leave them.

But George Jr administration spin is that the military already has sufficient troops? Why would we have to leave?

It's like trying to track down a bunch of ghosts," said Sgt. Chad Wendel, sitting on an Army cot under a window frame shielded by a blanket.

"I think it's the way we're losing more soldiers" that is most bothersome, added Spec. Frank Moore, a medic from Lynchburg, Va. "It makes you wonder, what do you gain by sticking around?"

"I don't like anything about being here," agreed Spec. Matthew Ness.

Vietnam Deja Vue.

The war here has gone through three distinct phases, each with its own feel and style of operation.

The first period, from May 2003 to July 2004, was characterized by drift and wishful thinking, military insiders say, with top U.S. officials at first refusing to recognize they were facing an insurgency and then committing a series of policy and tactical blunders that appear to have enflamed opposition to the U.S. occupation.

The second phase began in the summer of 2004, when Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. replaced Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez as the top U.S. commander in Iraq and developed -- for the first time -- a U.S. campaign plan. That plan, which looked forward from August 2004 to December 2005, gave U.S. operations a new coherence, directing a series of actions intended to clear the way for Iraqi voters to establish a new government.

Now, after parliamentary elections held in December, the U.S. effort has entered a third stage. The current emphasis is on reducing the U.S. role in the war, putting Iraq army and police forces in the forefront as much as possible -- but not so fast that it breaks them, as it did in April 2004, when a battalion ordered to Fallujah mutinied.

Mutinied? When did the George Jr administration mention that when they also claimed by this time 30 Iraqi battalions would be capable of independent operation? Latest Pentagon assesment changes that number from one down to zero.

... noted Gentile, who holds a doctorate in American history from Stanford. "Two years ago I would have spent all my time talking to sheiks."

IOW getting public support (ie to identify their neighbors who man that mortar by daylight) is no longer an option. Americans have now fallen back on rebuilding military and police forces that the George Jr administration disbanded - in direct violation even of principles in "Art of War". The one common factor that all insurgent groups and the population agree on: Americans are undesirable. Especially repeated are comment about how American drive through towns shooting indiscriminately. Anyone gets within 300 yards can have their radiator shot out. Yes, this makes friends.

I realize the underlying concepts are repetitive. But the same concepts demonstrate how new facts only point in one direction. The Mission Accomplished war is not being won.

I am struck as how honest so many commanders were in that Frontline report "The Insurgency". One said that he cannot lose this war. But he cannot win this war either. Mission Accomplished?

... noted Gentile, who holds a doctorate in American history from Stanford. "Two years ago I would have spent all my time talking to sheiks." ...

The biggest difference in Baghdad from two or three years ago is the nearly total absence of U.S. troops on its streets. In a major gamble, the city largely has been turned over to Iraqi police and army troops. ... The streets of the capital already feel as unsafe as at any time since the 2003 invasion. As one U.S. major put it, Baghdad now resembles a pure Hobbesian state where all are at war against all others and any security is self-provided.

Army Reserve Capt. A. Heather Coyne, an outspoken former White House counterterrorism official, said, "There is a total lack of security in the streets, partly because of the insurgents, partly because of criminals, and partly because the security forces can be dangerous to Iraqi citizens too."

In their first deployment, the 101st Airborne took Mosul. Since Brennen and the George Jr administration had no plans for peace for 7 months and since American bureaucrats never came to Mosul, then this Commander commandeered other funds to start his own nation building. He knew that without such programs, all military victory would be lost. Mosul had no insurgency when the 101st left. After those 101st rebuilding programs terminated, an insurgency started in Mosul.

Ironic that the 101st is now deployed in a country that is what its commander feared. Not only did we not have enough troops. We did not have enough intelligence in the George Jr administration to understand "Mission Accomplished" had never happened yet – phase one of the war. Too little too late because George Jr said Americans don't do nation building. Mission Accomplished. We have met the enemy and he is us. Vietnam deja vue. The president says we are winning this 'Mission Accomplished' war - details be damned - just like an MBA.