ClaimsAdjuster:
Your post was a neat summary of all the ignorant, stupid, and circular arguments being made about the surge. Your bottom line is that the surge must be just the temporary addition of troops. Why? Because you say so.
It must surely follow from that groundless position that nothing that preceded the addition of those troops (or followed it) had anything to do with the surge, as you define it, or any change in strategy connected with it. Every positive development has just been one big coincidence.
With your great knowledge of military strategy you inform us that any conflict involving insurgents is "counterinsurgency," as if that term had no accepted meaning in military circles. When Gen. Petraeus wrote the book on true counterinsurgency warfare, it must have been a short one ("Go and fight wherever there's an insurgency").
- Using precision munitions and special forces to conduct targeted attacks on terrorist leaders while minimizing the presence of ground forces to avoid the impression of an invasion or occupation.
- Increasing the visibility of the troops and spreading them out among the civilian population in order to secure that population and assure them they would be protected from reprisals for turning against the terrorists.
One of the above is called a "counterterrorism strategy" and the other is called a "counterinsurgency strategy."
Can you guess which is which, clown?
