More nasty surprises await U.S. troops in Iraq

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0505150447may15,1,3336523.column?coll=chi-news-col

Published May 15, 2005


`We feel right now that we have, as I mentioned, broken the back of the insurgency."

--Marine Lt. Gen. John Sattler, Nov. 18, 2004, after the U.S.-led offensive against Fallujah.

<snip>The last couple of weeks have been among the bloodiest since the U.S. invasion, with more than 420 people killed. The insurgents have been mounting an average of 70 attacks a day, compared to 30 or 40 in March.

Fallujah was supposed to make a difference, and so is the recent U.S. offensive in western Iraq. But someone forgot to tell the insurgents. American commanders were surprised at the strength and sophistication of the resistance in this latest campaign.

But this war has been full of surprises, none of them pleasant. In April, even before the latest expansion of violence, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency testified, "The insurgency has grown in size and complexity over the last year." Grown in size? We are spawning terrorists faster than we can kill them.

This offensive may illustrate why. On Thursday, the Associated Press reported that residents of Qaim were angry at American forces for hitting the town with air strikes and artillery. "They destroyed our city, killed our children, destroyed our houses," one man said.

The insurgents, said New York University law professor Noah Feldman, a former official of the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, "are getting stronger every passing day." Contrary to assumptions in this country, he told Newsday, "there is no evidence whatsoever that they cannot win."

more

[oblivious]

1. I'm not sure who's won, but I'm sure the US has lost.

Just reading the Iraq threads on DU tells me that.

It's just kind of hard defining "the insurgency".

[Double T]

2. The "Insurgents" Are Filled With Anger And Hatred.............

........as anyone would be if their cities were destroyed, children were killed and homes destroyed.

[ariellyn]

3. The Chicago Tribune is a republican paper...for them to run this

story means it's serious. (Of course I already knew that but maybe it's getting to the point where they can no longer ignore it.)