Like Water for Chocolate

Understand
Were fighting a war we can't win
They hate us--we hate them
We can't win--no way
--Police Story, Black Flag

''No question the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence.
They use violence as a tool to do that.''
--GWB
___________

As for Black Flag's lyrics, more specifically, all hate all, and the U.S. military machine is not the Kofi Annan to effect a conciliation between the warring factions. And what is it we were going to win again? And just what is it this president understands?

MSM often presents reports which may seem cheerier than they actually are, presenting the latest statistics as signifying positive trends. What underlies the behavior is often predictable, and not so hopeful.

''Raids Quell Copter Attacks'' tells us, ''Coalition forces have broken up a network of insurgents behind a string of deadly attacks on U.S. helicopters this winter, the Army's top aviation officer in Iraq said.''

Simply killing enemy personnel does not mean that the network has been broken up; that is wishful thinking.

The fighters killed represent the tip of the spear. Trust Ranger when he says the organization is not compromised. The events of the last five years indicate the veracity of this statement.

The resistance fighters have all the advantages, and they don't need helicopters. They have interior lines of communication, they control the local population either through fear or loyalty, and they have no evident recruitment problems. Their losses are are absorbed through new membership.

Killing is not the correct yardstick with which to measure progress in this war, and the military should know this. So why brag about killing less than 100 people?

''The raids came as the United States boosted troop levels in Iraq. However, violence has not declined.

''Coalition forces have increased the use of helicopters to reduce the number of ground convoys, which are vulnerable to roadside bombs.''

Consider the cost of using helicopters for supply purposes. If they are carrying beans and bullets, then they are not being tactically employed. This indicates that U.S. forces have lost the initiative.

If you can not drive supply vehicles safely in the area of operations, which is Baghdad, then the area is not secured. A statement like this is about as trenchant as some made by GWB this past Thursday in the Rose Garden. So why does MSM hail these failures as success?

A historical analogy comes to mind--the air supply effort to the Nazi Sixth Army at Stalingrad. Of course, it is not snowing in Baghdad. But armies in contact with the enemy can not be supplied or sustained totally via air assets.

Why would America want to expend resources doing this?

The security of Baghdad is not the mission of the U.S. military, nor is the political capital of the U.S. there for GWB to expend.