U.S. Commanders in Iraq: al-Qaeda's Bombing Us But . . . We're Winning?

U.S. Commander Speculates on Ramadi Attack

Friday January 6, 2006 3:32 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5527951,00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said Friday he suspects that al-Qaida's affiliate in Iraq carried out the suicide bomb attack in Ramadi that killed dozens, including two U.S. troops, on Thursday, although he has no evidence to prove it.

``This attack shows the desperate, murderous nature of al-Qaida,'' Marine Maj. Gen. Stephen Johnson told reporters at the Pentagon by teleconference from his headquarters in Fallujah, the predominantly Sunni Arab city west of Baghdad.

``We don't have any evidence that it was al-Qaida,'' Johnson said, although the attack bore ``all the markings of al-Qaida,'' including the use of a suicide bomber.

Separately, the overall U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, said the Ramadi attack and other deadly violence this week is a concern.

``It is a spike, there's no doubt about it,'' Casey said in an interview with Fox News Channel. ``We've seen 12 suicide attacks in the last six days.'' He added, however, that he believes the insurgents' violence ``is not a winning strategy.''


Can either of you substantiate anything you've just said?

No wonder Murtha wouldn't want to be in the military with assclowns like that

Myopic vision is not a plus in military matters.

Commanders (Westmoreland) ignored signs of the coming takeover of Saigon.

Send out a small patrol, wait for an attack on them, then sweep in with a larger force to destroy the insurgents.

Unfortunately, the attackers disolve into the civilian background and it leaves an average of three or four dead soldiers a day.
It may have worked if Rumsfeld propaganda that the insurgents were foreigners, but apparently that's not true.

I have a feeling this "war" is being waged from the White House and not by battlefield commanders on site. I think that's why Murtha was chosen to speak out for the officers in Iraq who seek an objective there.

Good luck convincing the "War President" that he's not a brilliant strategist.

especially now that we're essentially defending an uncertain government with elements that almost certainly oppose our presence and work to undermine whatever Bush wants to do there politically. There has to be a point where they go into the oval office and tell Bush to either find a mission that's in line with the purpose of our defensive forces or get them the hell out.

I wonder about the backgrounds of these commanders that Bush has chosen to carry this thing on. I can't recall many generals after Vietnam who would allow their forces to be used in a political quagmire as bait, and as hit men for the new authority's death squads.

He spends a lot more time with his family now.

A reporter asks a government official how he can explain the 13 years of terror bombing, and the government blowhard answers "Beginner's luck."