I just had to answer that. I heard some guy on CBS, didn't catch his name. He said the fear is that the insurgents will be able to pull of a "tet offensive" all over Iraq.
Let's be realistic here. First, the Viet Cong had a lot more public support. Second, there were a lot more Viet Cong then there are "insurgents" in Iraq. Third, while the insurgents have outside assistance like the Viet Cong that was able to get a lot more equipment sent to them from Russia and China. Foruth they don't have tanks or air force like the Viet Cong and NVA with which to pull it off.
Now, what they could do is what they did in May (to me, that's the closest they can come to a tet offensive) which is let off a bunch of car bombs at once and try to attack specific areas. What you won't see is these guys attacking our bases directly. They've tried. In Qaim, they got their asses handed to them. At Abu Graihb, they got their asses handed to them.
Tet offensive? I don't think so and that's the kind of over blown rhetoric we've all come to know and love.
Frankly, as I was just saying on Iraq the Model, you have to realize that the attacks that the insurgents have been doing have changed drastically. I do mean drastically. Last year, most of the attacks were leveled at police and Iraq military and US forces. They were attacking these forces at their bases, mortaring police stations, infiltrating army posts or driving car bombs into recruitment lines and trying desperately to blow up people at the entrance of the Green Zone.
Those attacks were very costly in time, money and resources (including men). What was proved is that, even when they could take over a police station, they couldn't hold it.
They cannot hold any territory. What sanctuary they have is in small enclaves, in small homes and maybe in the desert in Anbar. They cannot and do not control any of the major cities or even a block in a major city.
Now, in order to conserve resources and get more "bang" for their buck, they are forced to use car bombs to attack super soft targets. Largely civilians or police who are at lunch or dinner in civilian areas.
The number of attacks are quite frankly, no more than they have been. Unfortunately, softer targets mean more casualties. It also shows, as I point out, most attacks are low cost, low personnel, low risk to the leadership, car bombs with very few attacks by men on foot with AK-47s and RPGs.
Just read the miliblogs. They aren't saying that, but what they aren't saying is more important. Bad guys pop up, they go get them. IEDs are being scraped up more than they are going off (note less casualties than usual by these methods so our guys are learning).
However, as winds of change pointed out, IEDs are the major method for killing or wounding our soldiers. Not outright attacks. And since we are having less and less casualties via this method, we must be neutralizing more and more of these.
Thus, by every analysis, one cannot imagine or believe that the insurgents could ever really commit a Viet Nam "Tet Offensive". May was it. Their spring offensive. What is more likely to occur is continued attacks on the soft targets until September when the temperature starts going down an it's close to referendum time on the constitution and election of a new government.
If those come off without a hitch, it will be major blows to the recruiting ability of the insurgents. It would be the second and third process that shows the Iraqis want this. Nothing like showing what the populace wants to make others start thinking it's not worth their time to persue.
Why else would the democrats keep trying to point to American citizens feeling less confident in the war? Lose the people, lose the war.
Now, the question is, can we hold out on the home front long enough to let the Iraqi citizens win?
Thursday, June 23, 2005