Thursday, June 23, 2005

Iraqi Tet Offensive?

No.

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?

3 comments:

DaKruser said...

The answer to that questiion, Kat, is yes. There are SO MANY Demos like you and me, here in the Middle who will support the efforts of our troops no matter what. We know their hardships, and whether we agree with the policies of the Administration or not, THEY do what THEY have to. That is the way Soldiers are. I absolutely agree with your advice on the News Conference. That is basically what I was saying in my comment yesterday. The US public is floundering because the Administration either IS, or at least SEEMS to be floundering. As much as I hope to see a Democrat in the White House, and a Republican downfall in the Congress in the next election, I would NEVER want that to happen over the body-bags of US Soldiers. I know a WHOLE lot of people in the Mid-West who feel the same way. This is not, and should NEVER become a Political Football. That is exactly why the Extremists on both sides WANT it to be. IF you don't support the Administration, you are unpatriotic and don't support the Troops. BULLSHIT!
IF you support the effort to extract information concerning deployment of troops/supplies/plans for attacks in ways that are not "friendly", then you and everyone you know is a NAZI. BULLSHIT!!!!
The "Hard-core" idiots of both parties WANT us to think this way. They don't want us to be Americans. They want us to be IN THEIR CAMP. If you're not...you're not an American. That, once again, is BULLSHIT!!!!!!
I recomment you send your blog to the White House, Kat. It is obvious that they need someone on staff who is neither a sychophant or spin-doctor.
Once again, as my Grampa used to say, "I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I ain't holdin' my breath."

Sgt. B. said...

Actually, we WON the Tet Offensive of '68... This is where the Viet Cong was destroyed as a fighting force, and the NVA had to do all of the fighting...

But we didn't hear about THAT either...

But what is looking very "Vietnam-esc" is the negative press we hear through the Main Stream Media, as opposed to what we are hearing from the "horse's mouth" from the guys in Iraq and Afghanistan...

It's getting old...

Sgt. B. said...

Dakruser:

I think that you are spot on. There's the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and then those of us caught in the middle.
I claim no party... I'm a Veteran, and thus conservative on some issues, and liberal on others...
You and I could probably sit down over a pot of coffee or three and seriously discuss issues with an eye towards figuring out a solution.
I worry that the folks holding the reins, or the folks who want to hold the reins have lost sight of that ability, and send the whole country down the path to ruin...

At this point, I can't really say that I hope you're wrong... I can only say that I hope that, should a Democrat make the grade, that it's the sort of Democrat that we are BOTH hoping for... Or a Republican, for that matter - same same...
Right now, I dunno, man, I'm not getting warm and fuzzies from either side...
But your statement is on the money. (From me, a Vet, thank you!)
Cheers!