something to consider regarding 'funding'

or 'supplying' the troops. rodeodance recently put up a post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3279130

which reminded me of this story
Can you imagine if this 'supply' problem becomes anything like what the above article suggests could happen, what kind of shit-storm would occur?

I hope we have a lot of helicopters. We may be needing them.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358546.html

It may be objected that US air superiority makes the eventuality discussed here impossible. But bad weather and sandstorms can disrupt air power. In addition, swarms of guerrilla fighters armed with modern RPGs spread out in ambush positions along 800 miles of roads may not be concentrated enough to represent remunerative targets. Where the roads pass through towns and cities, convoys would be hard to defend from the air against urban guerillas firing from buildings.

Georgie Anne Geyer in The Washington Times, she wrote, "The worst has not, by any means, yet happened. When I think of abandoning a battleground, I think of (the 1840s), when thousands of Brits were trying to leave Afghanistan through the Khyber Pass and all were killed by tribesmen except one man, left to tell the story."

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358546.html



COALITION OF THE WILLING MELTS AWAY

Originally, this area was supposed to be guarded by a multinational force drawn from Bushs so-called coalition of the willing. But, almost unnoticed in the US, the coalition of the willing has disintegrated and vanished from the scene, leaving a dangerous void. The 1,800 Italians completed their departure on December 2. The 2,400 Poles say they are in the process of leaving. The South Koreans are reducing their contingent from 3,300 to 2,600. The Australians have come down from 2,000 to 1,400. The 1,650 Ukrainians, the 1,345 Dutch, and the 1,300 Spanish are long gone. Also gone are the 600 Japanese, the 462 Bulgarians, the 423 Thais, the 368 Hondurans, the 302 Dominicans, the 300 Hungarians, the 230 Nicaraguans, the 192 Singaporeans, the 150 Norwegians, the 128 Portuguese, plus assorted smaller forces. All in all, in excess of 12,000 coalition troops have already departed from the southern Euphrates area, or are in the process of leaving at least one full division.

That leaves 7,200 British forces, the remnant of a larger force which the British had fielded for the 2003 invasion. British Defense Secretary Des Browne and Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in late November 2006 that the UK contingent would hand security control over to the Iraqis in the province of Maysan on the Iranian border in January, and then hand over security responsibility in the southern port city of Basra by the spring of 2007. Browne predicted that by the end of 2007 British forces in southern Iraq would be significantly lower by a matter of thousands. The planning for this has been going on for some months."

In short, the most vital logistical link for the US forces stretches for 400 miles through regions now in the process of being deserted by the former allies and coalition partners. This area is very large, and there are no US land forces are available anywhere to maintain a semblance of security. This adds up to a finding that the US position in central Iraq is simply untenable, now that the coalition of the willing has melted away. This fact must be faced, and a US pullout begun at once, before this massive danger turns into a catastrophic rout.

Are there any alternatives to this 400 mile double gauntlet from Kuwait to Baghdad? If there were alternatives, the US forces might shift their base, like McClellan moving his base from White House on the Pamunkey to the James River during the 1862 Seven Days battles before Richmond. But there are no alternatives to the Kuwait-Baghdad roads. The road from Amman, Jordan to Baghdad passes through Anbar province, where the position of the US Marines is desperate and the power of the Baathist-Sunni national resistance is growing. Turkey, angered by the US sponsorship of PKK terrorists which are supposed to attack Iran but also attack Turkey, shows no sign of offering alternative supply lines. In any case, the roads coming into Baghdad from the west, north, and northeast through places like Tikrit and Baquba are subject to constant attack by the Baathist-Sunni resistance. No alternative supply lines could come through these regions.

I know I'm grasping at straws for a 'logical' reason for deep-sixing all pretense of ending the war.

<snip>
Pincer Movement

Action
Send two columns out to the left and to the right of the enemy position. Do this covertly or quickly so they have no chance to react. Then simultaneously turn inwards to attack the enemy in the 'pocket' created.

The pincer may complete a full encirclement or it may attack from the sides, like a double flanking movement.

Analysis
The power of the pincer is the attacks from multiple directions that it enables. The enemy has to mount multiple defenses and usually has no way of retreat.

The weakness of the pincer can be that, being spread out, it is vulnerable to concentrated attack at a single point. It also is vulnerable to attack from behind by a rescue force.

Example
In the Second World War battle for Stalingrad that lasted through 1942 and into 1943. A turning point happened on 20th November when a pincer movement led to an encirclement of 250,000 Nazi troops. This led to an effective siege, in which the German army slowly starved. After tightening of the noose and fierce fighting, the 91,000 surviving troops eventually surrendered in what was a critical turning point in the overall war. Eventually, after being sent to labor camps, only 6,000 found their way home.

Analogy
Get two arguments ready then attack with both at once. If they try to wriggle out, quickly cut them off, perhaps with yet another argument. Then steadily move in, crushing any remaining opposition.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/warfare/tactics/pincer.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p09s01-coop.html

By Patrick Lang

ALEXANDRIA, VA. – American forces in Iraq are in danger of having their line of supply cut by guerrillas. Napoleon once said that "an army travels on its stomach." By that he meant that the problem of keeping an army supplied is the prerequisite for the very existence of the force.
A 21st-century military force "burns up" a tremendous volume of expendable supplies and continuously needs repairs to equipment as well as medical treatment. Without a plentiful and dependable source of fuel, food, and ammunition, a military force falters. First it stops moving, then it begins to starve, and eventually it becomes unable to resist the enemy.


In 1915, for example, this happened to British forces that had invaded Mesopotamia. A British-Indian force traveled up the line of the Tigris River, advancing to Kut, southeast of Baghdad. They became besieged there after their line of supply was cut along the river to the south. Some 11,000 troops ultimately surrendered, after the allies suffered another 23,000 casualties trying to rescue them.

American troops all over central and northern Iraq are supplied with fuel, food, and ammunition by truck convoy from a supply base hundreds of miles away in Kuwait. All but a small amount of our soldiers' supplies come into the country over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq.

Until now the Shiite Arabs of Iraq have been told by their leaders to leave American forces alone. But an escalation of tensions between Iran and the US could change that overnight. Moreover, the ever-increasing violence of the civil war in Iraq can change the alignment of forces there unexpectedly