Iraqi insurgents operating in large groups...

[Dinner]

The White House knows how unpopular this war is and they most certainly are trying to lower troop strength prior to the November elections. The Iraqi insurgents are taking this as a good time to ratchet up attacks.

Once again the administration has proved that for them politics ALWAYS comes first and the soldiers on the battlefield will be forced to delay critical missions in the field or even go without proper numbers just because Bush is scared to risk Republican seats in an election. Bush did it in the run up to the 2004 election and he's doing it now.

[Agathon]

Aren't there enough Iraqi insurgents now so that it is appropriate to call them the Iraqi Resistance, or the Iraqi Liberation forces?

[Patroklos]

No, but if their were don't they have to be united to get an all encompassing title?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos
No, but if their were don't they have to be united to get an all encompassing title?

No. The anti-fascists in the Spanish civil war weren't particularly united, nor have many resistance movements (often there's a bunch of disparate groups).

[Patroklos]

The Viet Cong had complete command structures all the way up to the division level, they even called them companies, battalions, divisions.

Now granted they lost, but I would imagine that for a successful insurgency campaign (assuming your goal is not to total destruction of your country like the Taliban) you would need that level of coordination and organization.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Now granted they lost...

Really?

[DinoDoc]

Yes.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon
Aren't there enough Iraqi insurgents now so that it is appropriate to call them the Iraqi Resistance, or the Iraqi Liberation forces?

You if anyone should know that whether they're called an "insurgency", "resistance", or "liberation forces" has nothing whatsoever to do with their numbers.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes.

Is that why you withdrew?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Now granted they lost.

I don't know what they do to you guys in the miltary, but being molested as a child would seem to be preferable.

[RGBVideo]

Aren't there enough Iraqi insurgents now so that it is appropriate to call them the Iraqi Resistance, or the Iraqi Liberation forces?

You can call them whatever you want to, as long as people who you're speaking/writing to can understand what you're meaning. "Insurgency" is a nice, neutral and objective term to be used in the mainstream media.

[Dr Strangelove]

They're getting ready for a massive May Day protest. They want full legalization. They're tired of being called "illegal insurgents". They demand to be granted the status they're entitled to : "undocumented freedom fighters". All they're asking for is the right to dictate the laws and the composition of the government of Iraq. Is that too much to ask for? Two days from now they and their supporters will gather in a show of numbers to demonstrate that their wishes are actually much more significant than those of the Shiites and Kurds, who together comprise 75% of the population of Iraq.

[Patroklos]

Is that why you withdrew?

There are several more viable reasons, depending on who you are.

We withdrew because civilians, as Agathon proves today, have no realistic appreciation for military matters (to much TV and movies, or in Aggie's case videogames). Or because, despite the victory over the VC, it still didn't change the fact that overall victory was impossible. Or some simply don't consider military action a viable solution to anything no matter what the conditions of victory/defeat are. At the very least, it wasn't BECAUSE we just ass raped the VC.

In any case, it is established fact that the Viet Cong ceased to exist in any meaningful sense after Tet. The last part of American involvement saw action against NVA forces almost exclusively. Even after we left the Viet Cong hardly participated in the final collapse and fall of South Vietnam.

[Last Conformist]

Aggie's problem isn't lacking apperciation for military matters, but living in denial.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Patroklos


There are several more viable reasons, depending on who you are.

We withdrew because civilians, as Agathon proves today, have no realistic appreciation for military matters (to much TV and movies, or in Aggie's case videogames). Or because, despite the victory over the VC, it still didn't change the fact that overall victory was impossible. Or some simply don't consider military action a viable solution to anything no matter what the conditions of victory/defeat are. At the very least, it wasn't BECAUSE we just ass raped the VC.

In any case, it is established fact that the Viet Cong ceased to exist in any meaningful sense after Tet. The last part of American involvement saw action against NVA forces almost exclusively. Even after we left the Viet Cong hardly participated in the final collapse and fall of South Vietnam.

Yeah, are you going to have the same revisionist view on Iraq too?