“ 15 GIs Killed As Chopper Attacked in Iraq“:
Insurgents shot down a U.S. Chinook helicopter in central Iraq on Sunday as it carried troops headed for R&R, killing 15 soldiers and wounding 21 in the deadliest single strike against American troops since the start of war.
Other attacks, in Fallujah and Baghdad, killed another U.S soldier and two American civilians. The only day that saw more U.S. casualties came March 23, during the first week of the invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.
We’ve been told by President Bush that attacks in Iraq are a sign of the insurgents’ desperation. Does that ring true?
The most applicable definition of desperate at Merriam Webster is “involving or employing extreme measures in an attempt to escape defeat or frustration.” Most people will agree that the periodic Iraqi suicide bombings qualify as “extreme measures,” because the bombers are intentionally forfeiting their lives.
But what about the day-to-day attacks on exposed U.S. targets? I don’t consider that to be an extreme tactic; I see that as a time-tested low-cost, low-risk trick from the guerrilla playbook. And these days it’s working much more effectively than the administration is acknowledging.
Sugar coating a messy situation isn’t going to stem the flow of American blood.
And your solution is?
(And I’m not looking for the “we shouldn’t be there, blah, blah, blah”.)
Good question; one warranting further posting. Clearly, however, the first (and easiest) step should be to cease the everthing-is-going-according-to-plan spin.
And who is saying everything is going according to plan? Everyone in this administration is stressing the difficulties we face there. Hell, leftists nearly had an orgasm when the Rumsfeld memo leaked calling it a “long, hard slog.” Is that spin?