Is the United States ready to receive Marines in bodybags?

[crooked22]

Yeah, the rebels know that they are only effective in hit and run attacks and carbombings etc, it´s not going to be a huge battle with every Fallujah-rebel against the US forces.

So the expectation is that our forces will find pockets of resistance and root them out?
This is efectively just taking control over an area... in which case, what will keep them
out? As this only seems to establish control, but the Armed Forces will run into troop
shortages as many more gets scattered around in "patrol spots", so to call them something.
And those seems to be the very targets being, well, targetted.

Hey, assemblage, I heard they are doing factory recalls, go pick your brain.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: assemblage
OP, your melodramatic post header is very insensitive to people who may have family overseas. I heard the same drivel when my Marine reservist brother served in the vanguard of the 1991 assault on Iraqi forces.

We're not here to soothe your fears; we're discussing a war that has left 1100+ US soldiers dead from everyday insurgency, and we face a very real possibility of relatively large losses on a large-scale urban offensive.

While our soldiers are the best equipped and best trained in the world, remember that these insurgents aren't just civilians with rifles hiding behind barrels. The insurgency has shown itself to be well armed and organized.

And the insurgency has been treated just like the mistakes made in Vietnam. Controlled based on political decisions.

Let the problem be taken care of based on what it is. Military Conflict.

Iraq is not a military conflict. What army is the US fighting there? The French fought a similar vicious military style campaign against a faceless enemy in Algeria and still lost after a gruesome struggle. What makes you think the US will fare better in Iraq? The more power the US applies the more resistance will there be. The harder the US pushes the more committed the resistance will become.

 

[Tylanner]

I say its about freaking time!

This could be finished in a matter of 2-3 months if they are indeed serious about taking over the areas of "chaos".

We have the troops, we have the will, we have the planes, they have the apparent better tactical position and the nothing to lose attitude.

We can expect 100+ american casualties a day if the assault is really intent on its goal.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Tylanner
I say its about freaking time!

This could be finished in a matter of 2-3 months if they are indeed serious about taking over the areas of "chaos".

We have the troops, we have the will, we have the planes, they have the apparent better tactical position and the nothing to lose attitude.

We can expect 100+ american casualties a day if the assault is really intent on its goal.

What are you talking about? The Marines are professionals, not numbnuts. The days of "over the top" assaults are long gone.

 

[Tylanner]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Tylanner
I say its about freaking time!

This could be finished in a matter of 2-3 months if they are indeed serious about taking over the areas of "chaos".

We have the troops, we have the will, we have the planes, they have the apparent better tactical position and the nothing to lose attitude.

We can expect 100+ american casualties a day if the assault is really intent on its goal.

What are you talking about? The Marines are professionals, not numbnuts. The days of "over the top" assaults are long gone.

So you expect far less casualties?

I thought 100 per day was a very optimistic number

 

[assemblage]

Yeppers, I expect less US casualties.

 

[Tylanner]

Out of the 100 casualties, I would expect about 10-20 to be deaths, and the rest to be wounded, if this is the "full on" ground assault.

We will see in a few days, I'm not as optimistic as some I guess.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: assemblage
OP, your melodramatic post header is very insensitive to people who may have family overseas.

Agreed.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Tylanner

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Tylanner
I say its about freaking time!

This could be finished in a matter of 2-3 months if they are indeed serious about taking over the areas of "chaos".

We have the troops, we have the will, we have the planes, they have the apparent better tactical position and the nothing to lose attitude.

We can expect 100+ american casualties a day if the assault is really intent on its goal.

What are you talking about? The Marines are professionals, not numbnuts. The days of "over the top" assaults are long gone.

So you expect far less casualties?

I thought 100 per day was a very optimistic number

The Marine assault will be very methodical and ruthless but it will not be rushed. The opposition is extremely lightly armed (rpg's, mortars and small arms) but prepared defenses like booby traps will be a serious obstacle. The assault will turn Fallujah to ruble but it will not needlessly expose US soldiers. If the US suffers too many casulties they will lose the war even if they win the battle. The remaining defenders in Fallujah want nothing more than to take as many Marines as possible with them to hell, that is the only way they have of defeating the US and if the US starts playing the casulty game the game is over. Fallujah in itself is strategically meaningless except as a symbol of Iraqi resistance.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: assemblage
OP, your melodramatic post header is very insensitive to people who may have family overseas. I heard the same drivel when my Marine reservist brother served in the vanguard of the 1991 assault on Iraqi forces.

We're not here to soothe your fears; we're discussing a war that has left 1100+ US soldiers dead from everyday insurgency, and we face a very real possibility of relatively large losses on a large-scale urban offensive.

While our soldiers are the best equipped and best trained in the world, remember that these insurgents aren't just civilians with rifles hiding behind barrels. The insurgency has shown itself to be well armed and organized.

And the insurgency has been treated just like the mistakes made in Vietnam. Controlled based on political decisions.

Let the problem be taken care of based on what it is. Military Conflict.

Iraq is not a military conflict. What army is the US fighting there? The French fought a similar vicious military style campaign against a faceless enemy in Algeria and still lost after a gruesome struggle. What makes you think the US will fare better in Iraq? The more power the US applies the more resistance will there be. The harder the US pushes the more committed the resistance will become.

Iraq is a military conflict. People are responding with weapons that kill. It may be a guerrala (sp) war vs an coordinated army, but it is still being led by leaders with a base of supplies and strategic planning.

Wars against that type of enemy require an overwhelming force and dam the political consequences.
Dipping your toe into the water to determine if it is cold will not get the job done.

 

[Tylanner]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: assemblage
OP, your melodramatic post header is very insensitive to people who may have family overseas. I heard the same drivel when my Marine reservist brother served in the vanguard of the 1991 assault on Iraqi forces.

We're not here to soothe your fears; we're discussing a war that has left 1100+ US soldiers dead from everyday insurgency, and we face a very real possibility of relatively large losses on a large-scale urban offensive.

While our soldiers are the best equipped and best trained in the world, remember that these insurgents aren't just civilians with rifles hiding behind barrels. The insurgency has shown itself to be well armed and organized.

And the insurgency has been treated just like the mistakes made in Vietnam. Controlled based on political decisions.

Let the problem be taken care of based on what it is. Military Conflict.

Iraq is not a military conflict. What army is the US fighting there? The French fought a similar vicious military style campaign against a faceless enemy in Algeria and still lost after a gruesome struggle. What makes you think the US will fare better in Iraq? The more power the US applies the more resistance will there be. The harder the US pushes the more committed the resistance will become.

Iraq is a military conflict. People are responding with weapons that kill. It may be a guerrala (sp) war vs an coordinated army, but it is still being led by leaders with a base of supplies and strategic planning.

Wars against that type of enemy require an overwhelming force and dam the political consequences.
Dipping your toe into the water to determine if it is cold will not get the job done.

:thumbsup:

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Iraq is a military conflict. People are responding with weapons that kill. It may be a guerrala (sp) war vs an coordinated army, but it is still being led by leaders with a base of supplies and strategic planning.

Wars against that type of enemy require an overwhelming force and dam the political consequences.
Dipping your toe into the water to determine if it is cold will not get the job done.

Well said.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: assemblage
OP, your melodramatic post header is very insensitive to people who may have family overseas. I heard the same drivel when my Marine reservist brother served in the vanguard of the 1991 assault on Iraqi forces.

We're not here to soothe your fears; we're discussing a war that has left 1100+ US soldiers dead from everyday insurgency, and we face a very real possibility of relatively large losses on a large-scale urban offensive.

While our soldiers are the best equipped and best trained in the world, remember that these insurgents aren't just civilians with rifles hiding behind barrels. The insurgency has shown itself to be well armed and organized.

And the insurgency has been treated just like the mistakes made in Vietnam. Controlled based on political decisions.

Let the problem be taken care of based on what it is. Military Conflict.

Iraq is not a military conflict. What army is the US fighting there? The French fought a similar vicious military style campaign against a faceless enemy in Algeria and still lost after a gruesome struggle. What makes you think the US will fare better in Iraq? The more power the US applies the more resistance will there be. The harder the US pushes the more committed the resistance will become.

Iraq is a military conflict. People are responding with weapons that kill. It may be a guerrala (sp) war vs an coordinated army, but it is still being led by leaders with a base of supplies and strategic planning.

Wars against that type of enemy require an overwhelming force and dam the political consequences.
Dipping your toe into the water to determine if it is cold will not get the job done.

This is a political war much more than a military conflict. You cannot defeat this enemy by superior firepower simply because you will become what you are fighting (I would argue that it is already too late). Or are you supporting some kind of "final solution" (i.e damn the consequenses)? If you turn your opponents into political (and why not religious) martyrs there is no way you can win anymore. The Romans thought they could fight Christianity with fire and the sword. We all know what happened. The US lost in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, the British lost their empire. The problem is that overwhelming force is no use against an invisible enemy firmly entrenched and supported by the populace.

What if the US economy stalls in 2005-06, will the US be able to afford to keep up it's enormously expensive military presence in Iraq?

 

[Tylanner]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: assemblage
OP, your melodramatic post header is very insensitive to people who may have family overseas. I heard the same drivel when my Marine reservist brother served in the vanguard of the 1991 assault on Iraqi forces.

We're not here to soothe your fears; we're discussing a war that has left 1100+ US soldiers dead from everyday insurgency, and we face a very real possibility of relatively large losses on a large-scale urban offensive.

While our soldiers are the best equipped and best trained in the world, remember that these insurgents aren't just civilians with rifles hiding behind barrels. The insurgency has shown itself to be well armed and organized.

And the insurgency has been treated just like the mistakes made in Vietnam. Controlled based on political decisions.

Let the problem be taken care of based on what it is. Military Conflict.

Iraq is not a military conflict. What army is the US fighting there? The French fought a similar vicious military style campaign against a faceless enemy in Algeria and still lost after a gruesome struggle. What makes you think the US will fare better in Iraq? The more power the US applies the more resistance will there be. The harder the US pushes the more committed the resistance will become.

Iraq is a military conflict. People are responding with weapons that kill. It may be a guerrala (sp) war vs an coordinated army, but it is still being led by leaders with a base of supplies and strategic planning.

Wars against that type of enemy require an overwhelming force and dam the political consequences.
Dipping your toe into the water to determine if it is cold will not get the job done.

This is a political war much more than a military conflict. You cannot defeat this enemy by superior firepower simply because you will become what you are fighting (I would argue that it is already too late). Or are you supporting some kind of "final solution" (i.e damn the consequenses)? If you turn your opponents into political (and why not religious) martyrs there is no way you can win anymore. The Romans thought they could fight Christianity with fire and the sword. We all know what happened. The US lost in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, the British lost their empire. The problem is that overwhelming force is no use against an invisible enemy firmly entrenched and supported by the populace.

What if the US economy stalls in 2005-06, will the US be able to afford to keep up it's enormously expensive military presence in Iraq?

How long can we afford($$$) to not go in and keep casualties to an absolute minimum?

I know you can not compare $$$ to the lives of soliders..but Iraq will be secure, and I for one believe the sooner the better.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Tylanner

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: assemblage
OP, your melodramatic post header is very insensitive to people who may have family overseas. I heard the same drivel when my Marine reservist brother served in the vanguard of the 1991 assault on Iraqi forces.

We're not here to soothe your fears; we're discussing a war that has left 1100+ US soldiers dead from everyday insurgency, and we face a very real possibility of relatively large losses on a large-scale urban offensive.

While our soldiers are the best equipped and best trained in the world, remember that these insurgents aren't just civilians with rifles hiding behind barrels. The insurgency has shown itself to be well armed and organized.

And the insurgency has been treated just like the mistakes made in Vietnam. Controlled based on political decisions.

Let the problem be taken care of based on what it is. Military Conflict.

Iraq is not a military conflict. What army is the US fighting there? The French fought a similar vicious military style campaign against a faceless enemy in Algeria and still lost after a gruesome struggle. What makes you think the US will fare better in Iraq? The more power the US applies the more resistance will there be. The harder the US pushes the more committed the resistance will become.

Iraq is a military conflict. People are responding with weapons that kill. It may be a guerrala (sp) war vs an coordinated army, but it is still being led by leaders with a base of supplies and strategic planning.

Wars against that type of enemy require an overwhelming force and dam the political consequences.
Dipping your toe into the water to determine if it is cold will not get the job done.

This is a political war much more than a military conflict. You cannot defeat this enemy by superior firepower simply because you will become what you are fighting (I would argue that it is already too late). Or are you supporting some kind of "final solution" (i.e damn the consequenses)? If you turn your opponents into political (and why not religious) martyrs there is no way you can win anymore. The Romans thought they could fight Christianity with fire and the sword. We all know what happened. The US lost in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, the British lost their empire. The problem is that overwhelming force is no use against an invisible enemy firmly entrenched and supported by the populace.

What if the US economy stalls in 2005-06, will the US be able to afford to keep up it's enormously expensive military presence in Iraq?

How long can we afford($$$) to not go in and keep casualties to an absolute minimum?

I know you can not compare $$$ to the lives of soliders..but Iraq will be secure, and I for one believe the sooner the better.

It is in the strategic interest of the insurgents to prolong this conflict. It is also in their interest to keep the conflict asymmetrical which means not to get suckered into static fighting. The Marines may flatten Fallujah and it's residents (not necessarily the true terrorists) but the risk for the US is that it becomes a symbol for Iraqi resistance and backlashes against the US in the upcoming elections (such as they are). It is no surprise that the one Iraqi pushing hardest for this assault is Allawi. He's motive is to show himself off as a strongman befor the elections, and in that way create some crediblity as a man who can bring order to Iraq. Of course it remains to be seen if Iraqis will be impressed by him bombing an Iraqi city and killing Iraqis (he will call them terrorists of course). This strategy is risky and could easily backfire against him and the US and if it does what does the US do then? If the elections are botched Al Sistani and the Shiites will become even more impatient with the occupation and Alawi will have lost all credibility whatsoever. Maybe the US should install Diebold voting machines asap?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Iraq is a military conflict. People are responding with weapons that kill. It may be a guerrala (sp) war vs an coordinated army, but it is still being led by leaders with a base of supplies and strategic planning.

Wars against that type of enemy require an overwhelming force and dam the political consequences.
Dipping your toe into the water to determine if it is cold will not get the job done.

This is a political war much more than a military conflict. You cannot defeat this enemy by superior firepower simply because you will become what you are fighting (I would argue that it is already too late). Or are you supporting some kind of "final solution" (i.e damn the consequenses)? If you turn your opponents into political (and why not religious) martyrs there is no way you can win anymore. The Romans thought they could fight Christianity with fire and the sword. We all know what happened. The US lost in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, the British lost their empire. The problem is that overwhelming force is no use against an invisible enemy firmly entrenched and supported by the populace.

What if the US economy stalls in 2005-06, will the US be able to afford to keep up it's enormously expensive military presence in Iraq?

The war was entered into due to politics (all are).
The intention should be to stamp out the identified areas of resistance and allow the native population to then take control.

If we were to close the borders, that will prevent re-enforcements of population and supplies for more insurgency.

Algeria and Vietnam were failures due to the lack of political will to take control of the situation.
We never tried to win in Vietnam and the population had no interest in supporting the original intentions.

With respect to Iraq, the local population needs to be made aware that there will be a scorched earth applied against the insurgency (not the locals). ONce the insurgency has been destroyed, the civilian population has to take responsibilty for the follow on.

At this point, they have not had the ability to control their own destiny. We do not need to be an occuping force, just a force that will remove threats to the local control.

 

[Tylanner]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Tylanner

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: assemblage
OP, your melodramatic post header is very insensitive to people who may have family overseas. I heard the same drivel when my Marine reservist brother served in the vanguard of the 1991 assault on Iraqi forces.

We're not here to soothe your fears; we're discussing a war that has left 1100+ US soldiers dead from everyday insurgency, and we face a very real possibility of relatively large losses on a large-scale urban offensive.

While our soldiers are the best equipped and best trained in the world, remember that these insurgents aren't just civilians with rifles hiding behind barrels. The insurgency has shown itself to be well armed and organized.

And the insurgency has been treated just like the mistakes made in Vietnam. Controlled based on political decisions.

Let the problem be taken care of based on what it is. Military Conflict.

Iraq is not a military conflict. What army is the US fighting there? The French fought a similar vicious military style campaign against a faceless enemy in Algeria and still lost after a gruesome struggle. What makes you think the US will fare better in Iraq? The more power the US applies the more resistance will there be. The harder the US pushes the more committed the resistance will become.

Iraq is a military conflict. People are responding with weapons that kill. It may be a guerrala (sp) war vs an coordinated army, but it is still being led by leaders with a base of supplies and strategic planning.

Wars against that type of enemy require an overwhelming force and dam the political consequences.
Dipping your toe into the water to determine if it is cold will not get the job done.

This is a political war much more than a military conflict. You cannot defeat this enemy by superior firepower simply because you will become what you are fighting (I would argue that it is already too late). Or are you supporting some kind of "final solution" (i.e damn the consequenses)? If you turn your opponents into political (and why not religious) martyrs there is no way you can win anymore. The Romans thought they could fight Christianity with fire and the sword. We all know what happened. The US lost in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, the British lost their empire. The problem is that overwhelming force is no use against an invisible enemy firmly entrenched and supported by the populace.

What if the US economy stalls in 2005-06, will the US be able to afford to keep up it's enormously expensive military presence in Iraq?

How long can we afford($$$) to not go in and keep casualties to an absolute minimum?

I know you can not compare $$$ to the lives of soliders..but Iraq will be secure, and I for one believe the sooner the better.

It is in the strategic interest of the insurgents to prolong this conflict. It is also in their interest to keep the conflict asymmetrical which means not to get suckered into static fighting. The Marines may flatten Fallujah and it's residents (not necessarily the true terrorists) but the risk for the US is that it becomes a symbol for Iraqi resistance and backlashes against the US in the upcoming elections (such as they are). It is no surprise that the one Iraqi pushing hardest for this assault is Allawi. He's motive is to show himself off as a strongman befor the elections, and in that way create some crediblity as a man who can bring order to Iraq. Of course it remains to be seen if Iraqis will be impressed by him bombing an Iraqi city and killing Iraqis (he will call them terrorists of course). This strategy is risky and could easily backfire against him and the US and if it does what does the US do then? If the elections are botched Al Sistani and the Shiites will become even more impatient with the occupation and Alawi will have lost all credibility whatsoever. Maybe the US should install Diebold voting machines asap?

I agree with you but how hard would it be for the new iraqi troops to take the "lead" and coalition troops to support. Of course, the american support would be quite substantial to ensure a coalition win. With Allawi intent on capturing the "rogue" areas, this would seem like the obvious solution...

 

[Dissipate]

Those who salute the government, should be willing to die for it, it is as simple as that.

Too bad they will die believing that they were "serving their country," when in fact they were really just serving the agendas of politicians.

 

[Tylanner]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Those who salute the government, should be willing to die for it, it is as simple as that.

Too bad they will die believing that they were "serving their country," when in fact they were really just serving the agendas of politicians.

Politicians were given the power by voting american citizens.

I think that term limits in the senate and house need to be established ASAP to help prevent such things, but thats another point

 

[villager]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We're not here to soothe your fears; we're discussing a war that has left 1100+ US soldiers dead from everyday insurgency, and we face a very real possibility of relatively large losses on a large-scale urban offensive.

While our soldiers are the best equipped and best trained in the world, remember that these insurgents aren't just civilians with rifles hiding behind barrels. The insurgency has shown itself to be well armed and organized.

With all due respect to those that have given their lives 1100 casualties to take and occupy a country for over a year is so incredibly miniscule it's not even funny.

The last try at fallujah resulted in very small casualty numbers. Given our close alliance with Israel we have likely trained with the most highly skilled urban combat force in the world. In addition as I stated earlier the vast majority of the civilians have evacuated the city. It's going to be a one sided blood bath.

I agree. The Israelis have of course showed how to end an insurgency in the West Bank.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Tylanner

I agree with you but how hard would it be for the new iraqi troops to take the "lead" and coalition troops to support. Of course, the american support would be quite substantial to ensure a coalition win. With Allawi intent on capturing the "rogue" areas, this would seem like the obvious solution...

No way Iraqi troops would want anything beyond posturing to do with an assault of their countrymen in Fallujah. If we see such an attack then the civil war is not far away for real. And who would those troops be? The Shiites have not really taken to arms yet and the Sunnis won't attack fellow Sunnis (like those in Fallujah) , their tribal cousins.

 

[Tylanner]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Tylanner

I agree with you but how hard would it be for the new iraqi troops to take the "lead" and coalition troops to support. Of course, the american support would be quite substantial to ensure a coalition win. With Allawi intent on capturing the "rogue" areas, this would seem like the obvious solution...

No way Iraqi troops would want anything beyond posturing to do with an assault of their countrymen in Fallujah. If we see such an attack then the civil war is not far away for real. And who would those troops be? The Shiites have not really taken to arms yet and the Sunnis won't attack fellow Sunnis (like those in Fallujah) , their tribal cousins.

I think anyone in the new Iraqi army is past the idea that those people following Zarqawi and others in Fellujah are their countrymen

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Tylanner

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Tylanner

I agree with you but how hard would it be for the new iraqi troops to take the "lead" and coalition troops to support. Of course, the american support would be quite substantial to ensure a coalition win. With Allawi intent on capturing the "rogue" areas, this would seem like the obvious solution...

No way Iraqi troops would want anything beyond posturing to do with an assault of their countrymen in Fallujah. If we see such an attack then the civil war is not far away for real. And who would those troops be? The Shiites have not really taken to arms yet and the Sunnis won't attack fellow Sunnis (like those in Fallujah) , their tribal cousins.

I think anyone in the new Iraqi army is past the idea that those people following Zarqawi and others in Fellujah are their countrymen

You have the cart before the horse. Fallujah turned nasty practically from day one of the occupation with clashes between the 82nd airborne and the locals. Zarqawi (if he is/was there) and the "mujaheddins" turned up later when there already was a long history of clashes between the people of Fallujah and the US Army.

 

[drewshin]

the insurgents are already close to winning the battle in fallujah. most of them have probably already left and are waiting for a later fight, but besides the number of dead on each side (i think the marines will have minimal casualties and meet minimal resistance), they insurgents have already won the hearts and minds of the iraqi population, who see them as victims.

the insurgents will be killed, but the city will be in ruins, and when fallujans return to their ruined city, do you think they will blame the insurgents? no, they will blame the u.s. soldiers or the iraqi guard that will then be patrolling the streets. meanwhile the insurgents will move onto another city to do the same. just my 2c.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: assemblage
OP, your melodramatic post header is very insensitive to people who may have family overseas. I heard the same drivel when my Marine reservist brother served in the vanguard of the 1991 assault on Iraqi forces.

We're not here to soothe your fears; we're discussing a war that has left 1100+ US soldiers dead from everyday insurgency, and we face a very real possibility of relatively large losses on a large-scale urban offensive.

While our soldiers are the best equipped and best trained in the world, remember that these insurgents aren't just civilians with rifles hiding behind barrels. The insurgency has shown itself to be well armed and organized.

Neither was many the 1991 Iraqi troops that my brother faced. I certainly don't need to be wet nursed by you, but "Is the United States getting ready to receive Marines in bodybags?" is an insensitive statement used to create trepidation. It's use and support of it's use lacks class.

Exellent point next time we go to war we will make sure their dismembered corpses are in tux and dressing gown for you.
We don't want those boys dying to make bushco rich going out without some ritz!