Is it just me, or can any of us ask questions that are more pertinent and relevant then does the paid press? Here’s a few. Can Iraq or any nation of 25 million, situated between Iran, Syria, Turkey and Kuwait exist and thrive without an effective airforce and/or coastal navy? In the 4 and a half years since we dismantled the Iraqi military, how many jet aircraft, modern helicopters and coast guard cutters have we provided for the exclusive use and unrestricted deployment of the "sovereign" Iraqi government? Close your eyes and tell me what you see. Does Syria, Turkey and Iran have such equipment and trained officers and service people to operate aircraft and sea craft? You betcha! Who supplies air cover, air assault and air recognizance? Can You say U S of A? Who guards the sea-lanes? Right, again. So please explain how and when Iraq will stand up so Americans can stand down, with out control of the air space above them and their sea border? OK, we’ll try some other questions.

How can an internationally outlawed criminal organization without taxing authority or a recognized tax base, raise sufficient capital over 5 years to arm enough fighters to engage in warfare with the richest country in the world? How can a few thousand "dead-enders", foreign terrorists and local whackos sustain a war against 160,000 American soldiers and an additional 150,000 US purchased "contractors"? Is their cause so righteous that the indigenous population supports them over freedom, peace and love, American style?

OK, let’s try a simpler one. If the mightiest army in the history of the world can’t secure the borders of a stone age nation, (Afghanistan) sufficiently to contain levels of opium export, let alone reduce them (they are actually up nearly 100%) or to deny access to new weapons and fighters, what does that say about the generals of that mighty army and their strategies and implementations? Are the Afghan opium exporters, Taliban and Al Qaeda smarter and more courageous then our military? Is the fault with the generals, the soldiers, the strategies or the underlying concept?

Israel has ensured that none of the surrounding nations have an effective Air Force or Navy.

So whats your point?

Egypt exists without one. So does Saudi Arabia. As does Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.

But you are just an ignorant ass.

San always seems to need to throw in a elementary school taunt; I swear he's a liberal's sockpuppet idea of conservatism. Wish we could add a grownup to the mix.

How can they do it? Simple: lots and lots of oil money from Iran and from Saudi Arabia. Extensive corruption, extorsion and kidnapping. Bank heists, leftover money from Sadaam's stashs. With that, you buy the foreign fighters to keep this going. However, considering the quality of Al Qaeda's efforts and munitions lately, that side of the problem may be dring up. The Shia militants are better funded (through Iran) but are starting to fracture; Al Sadr's looking to be a politician, while he works out how to assinate Sistani for his buddies in Tehran. Trust me, the mullahs are worried that Sistani might become a problem for them in their home turf.

San:

Israel has ensured that none of the surrounding nations have an effective Air Force or Navy.

So whats your point?

Egypt exists without one. So does Saudi Arabia. As does Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.

But you are just an ignorant ass.

Egypt is the world's 4th largest user of the F-16. If I remember my news correctly Saudi Arabia just completed an arms deal which includes updates to their F-15s. A Saudi was the highest scoring pilot of the first Gulf War. Turkey operates over 150 F-4 Phantoms and over 200 F-16s and maintains its own refueling tanker force, and has agreed to purchase 100 F-35 JSFs. Lebanon has no effective air force because until recently it was Syrian proxy and depended on that nation for its defense. Jordan is the worst of the lot you listed and they still operate early-model F-16s. When the Israelis cleaned house on most of these nations they were flying Soviet aircraft and using Soviet tactics, now they all fly the same aircraft as the Israelis, the only difference is avionics.

What is air recognizance? Whatever it is, I can tell you that not much of it was being done even beyond 10 years ago because between our thorough smashing of the Iraqi Air Force in Desert Storm and Saddam's purge of the Air Force after the coup attempt there wasn't anyone left to do it. Iraq's ills won't be solved by a shiny fleet of destroyers or a wing of fighter planes, because obviously we have more of those than we know what to do with and it hasn't helped us much so far. The Air Force and Navy have been for the most part very far removed from this fight from the outset. What needs to happen is to stem the tide of support, weapons, and nutcases streaming into the country from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. There's no chance anyone will get tough with the Saudis because they control the oil spigot, Syria is protected by the folks who love the wonderful work they do in Lebanon and Israel, and Mahmoud has everyone scared of the bomb, but I can dream can't I?

"Egypt is the world's 4th largest user of the F-16." Oh wow, way to go. An outdated plane. And the fourth largest user? Jackass, you don't have a damn clue, bug off.

San:

Israel has ensured that none of the surrounding nations have [sic] an effective Air Force or Navy.

Subject of that clause is "none" which is singular, thus it should be "has" not "have."

So whats your point?

Egypt exists without one. So does Saudi Arabia. As does [sic] Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.

Should be plural form -- ie "do." Maybe should have not cut so many basic English classes.

But you are just an ignorant ass.

"Outdated" really has relevency in relationship to your likely enemies.

"Subject of that clause is "none" which is singular, thus it should be "has" not "have.""

Ernt.

Subject is surrounding nations.

None is a conditional.

Way to go douchebag.

And obviously, you are an ignorant ass, because you made the same mistake in the next section.

That is a list. Obviously, when I use Saudi Arabia with does, I set up that each is its on sentence starting with "As does".

But you have no clue or understanding about rhetoric. You have been dismissed, child.

Insurgents can always pick when they attack, and concentrate on a weak target. The most effective counter-insurgency tactic is a highly mobile force, able to catch the insurgents with superior force before they can disperse. The mobility and firepower is provided by helicopters, both as gunships and troop carriers.

Any Iraqi force will need to own,maintain and pilot attack helicopters to defeat insurgents. So the question is a good one - why aren't the Iraqis being allowed to have this capability?

Because there is no plan for the Iraqi army to be able to fight the insurgents on their own. They will always be led and ferried into battle, always have the bombing and strafing carried out by US forces. The Iraqi forces will aways be a puppet army, dependent on American support.

All part of the plan.

Thank you for grasping one of the key points of the post. Now, perhaps we can "intellegently" and civily discuss the comparative abilities of the insurgency & AQ to recruit, replace, restock and fund versus The "Coalition's" (USA) effectiveness at dispatching an underfunded, under manned and under armed adversary in less then a decade or two.

San:

Subject is surrounding nations.

Still wrong! Actually ,"surrounding nations" is the object of the preposition "of."

Ernt.

"Israel has ensured that none of the surrounding nations have [sic] an effective Air Force or Navy."

"none" is a modifier of "surrounding nations". Its complete phrase is "of the" making it genative.

None is being possessed by surrounding nations. "none" in this situation is more than an adjective, as it becomes an "idea" or "lack of idea".

Please, learn English before you mouth off.

"Any Iraqi force will need to own,maintain and pilot attack helicopters to defeat insurgents."

Complete bollocks.

"abilities of the insurgency & AQ to recruit, replace, restock and fund versus The "Coalition's" (USA) effectiveness at dispatching an underfunded, under manned and under armed adversary in less then a decade or two."

AlQaeda

1. recruit - Recruitment is quite down. Remember, we are killing thousands of them every month. For everyone "three" that supposedly comes from one dying, we are killing 10. The attrition alone would show that psychologically, these people wont get more recruits. Psychologist call terrorists, like most anti-social personalities, the "1%". This was a study done on groups, such as Hells Angels, to determine the possibility of a member become violent or willing to act in such ways.

2. restock - Last time I checked, they don't have access to anything but old equipment and little ammunition. Hence they have to use IEDs and other makeshift explosives instead of entering into open combat.

3. fund - They already ran through most of the Bin Laden money that was left over and they are not the ones getting the money from the Poppy farms in Afghanistan anymore. The drug lords there seperated themselves when the Taliban lost power and are currently only caring about getting money for their own desires.