Tet for Tat?
Frontal assault on a base in Iraq kills two, wounds 17.
This raises a question I’ve been wondering about. We’ve seen surge results, and we’ve seen the brief peace broken. No surprise here. Obviously it is to the benefit of the enemy to paint the surge as a failure, and well with the enemy’s capability to keep launching attacks. They can continue launching sporadic attacks as they are able, and the Surrender Camp will seize on them as signs of failure.
An attack like this on a base is an attention grabber, but it doesn’t sound like it involved a human wave assault, and for an alert and well-defended base, probably never threatened to amount to more than deadly harassment. Awaiting more details on that.
Is the enemy capable of anything like Tet-like offensive? I highly doubt it. No unified command and control; little cooperation among groups; nothing close to the necessary number of troops; and the U.S. is putting heavy pressure on all the leadership … al-Qaeda, Baathists, Mahdi Army, Iranians … everyone’s on the run. If anything, a campaign of coordinated frontal assaults would be a great opportunity to break the enemy … just as it did in Tet. What we’re more likely to see is more of the same. All those guys who fled Baghdad need something to do, and they’ll launch more harassing attacks of the sort reported today on bases and provincial towns. In either case, Tet or more of the same, the threat is political.
The surge is already showing significant results, and as long as it continues to do so, it will be increasingly difficult for Murtha’s slow-bleed or Hillary, Obama and Kerry’s abandonment proposals, or any of the other efforts to undermine the future of Iraq, to go anywhere. The next abandonment story line will be, “OK, it’s worked, now let’s get out while it’s quiet.” That doesn’t work until Iran is neutralized, and until the Iraqi forces and government are up to the task. All three of those things could take a long time. But we are used to it. Our troops had to remain in Germany, Japan and Korea to maintain the peace until … today.
It’s early yet, way too early to make predictions, when there are undoubtedly many unexpected twists and turns ahead. A known known, however, to steal a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld, is that it is ours to lose, and we cannot leave any time soon. It would not be in our national interest.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:21 am Comments (10) on Monday, February 19, 2007
10 Responses to “Tet for Tat?”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:38 am
It’s been a long time since the terrorists attempted a coordinated attack on any Coalition base. That’s because when they tried before, they got their clocks cleaned but good. And that’s when their command and control was in better shape.
I’d say this base attack was either an attention grabber, as you noted, or an attempt to divert personnel from the surge to secure base perimeters. Possibly both, but it sounds like a pathetic attempt, and I doubt the latter will work. The former could, though.
But, in any case, it’s neither a sign of success or failure, it’s simply too early to say one way or the other. Although I’m certain that the left will certainly leap on it being a sign of “failure”, and probably throw in “quagmire” for a little added spice.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Two GI’s Killed in Iraq Base Attack
They’re feeling comfort from the aid they’re getting from the Democrats.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Operation Rubble, should begin now. It should have been there from the beginning. Seems the only way to get the hearts and minds of these people, is rip them from their dead bodies. Sunni and Shia and the al-qaedists. Sadr, should roasting on a rotisserie and sent to Tehran, via UPS for any upcoming holiday feasts.
That’s what Saddam did, they understand that, give them what they understand. If that makes us worse then Saddam, tough darts.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Don’t forget, Tet was a victory that lead to… Uncle Walter and a vote to cut off support.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Did Haji have a fire truck this time.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
What Cliff said.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Tet for Tat?
Tet for Tat? Jules Crittenden This raises a question I’ve been wondering about. We’ve seen surge results, and we’ve seen the brief peace broken. No surprise here. Obviously it is to the benefit of the enemy to paint the surge
February 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Bill’s Nibbles — 2007.02.19
Some Bill’s Bites posts, some things I excerpted and linked but I’m sending you to the original post. I may rearrange the order of the items within this post as I add new things that I think belong above the
February 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Two soldiers dead is a tragedy, but if this is the best the enemy can do then it is pretty damn pathetic.
February 20th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Senator Chuck Schumer predicts anti-war “resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam”
The anti-war rhetoric of the anti-war Democratic party escalates:
WASHINGTON – After Republicans blocked a Senate debate for a second time, Democrats said Saturday they’ll drop efforts to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush̵…