Where's Common Sense When We Need It?

This morning, I was listening to news reports on both Imus in the Morning and Curtis and Kuby. On both stations there was talk about how depressing all the terrorist attacks in Iraq were, the lack of troops to meet all needs, and that people aren't supporting the war.

All three issues are interrelated, but not in the way most of us think of them. Terrorists see and hear the news, just as an average American would. They'd hear pessimism coming from the media elites and continued calls from these individuals that the US should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. Kuby suggested withdrawing sooner, with a resultant loss of fewer American casualties, with Iraq likely falling into a civil war, than waiting a year or two and having more American casualties, with the likely result of an Iraqi civil war.

A terrorist listening to Kuby talking on the radio would likely conclude that inflicting more American casualties now might result in a tactical and strategic advantage going forward. If the war is truly that unpopular, the terrorist leaders could conclude that stepping up the attacks on Iraqis is having the desired effect - eliminate the US support and the Islamists and Ba'athists could regain control in Iraq, despite the fact that there is little popular support for either movement among the general Iraqi population.

Then, there was the report that the US may not have sufficient troops to meet all needs in Iraq, Afghanistan and any other hot spots that might crop up (read North Korea, Iran, or even China) and that troop reductions in Iraq are an ongoing issue. Nothing could be worse than telegraphing personnel issues to our enemies. I know that the public demands knowledge of every single troop movement that the military undertakes, but there is still something known as operational and national security. Telegraphing troop needs provides critical information to the terrorists who can read maps and plan accordingly. If they think that the US is on the run in a given area, they will try to capitalize and maximize the attacks in that area.

The soldiers on the ground have a different vantage point, one in which they see that they are clearly winning every engagement with the terrorists. Yes, there are suicide bombers, and there are IEDs, but the soldiers have come across 'suicide' bombers who are little more than people whose relatives have been kidnapped and are given the 'choice' of either becoming a suicide bomber or watching their relatives executed in a gruesome fashion. Those soldiers know that the insurgents are desperate, and need every attack to mean something, for every attack to get press, so they'll try ever more spectacular attacks, which is how you can read this morning's news reports about a suicide bomber killing at least 50 people who were in a police station looking to sign up for the police force.

Of course, all this doesn't take place in a vacuum, so countries like Syria are taking advantage of the situation by condoning the actions of terrorists operating along the Syria to Baghdad routes. Those routes are the critical lifeline for the terrorists, so disrupting the lifeline will disrupt the insurgency.

Meanwhile, terrorists continue to be killed in Afghanistan and the hunt for al Qaeda operatives continues to bear fruit in places like Pakistan.

UPDATE 5/4/2005 10:27AM EDT:
Saddam Hussein's nephew was caught near Tikrit. Saddam's nephew was a bad boy, playing with guns, ammo, and helping the terrorists carry out their deadly work - and carrying on the family tradition of disbursing mayhem and mischief.

UPDATE 5/4/2005 10:40AM EDT:
Col. Robert B. Killebrew, U.S. Army retired has an interesting take on fighting wars and insurgencies. It's a discussion that is relevant to the subject of this particular blog article.