Al Zarqawi's Change in Tactics Big Mistake for Al Quada

[Adam's Apple]

Could retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey possibly be changing his tune about Iraq?

Iraq Takes A Positive Turn
By Jack Kelly, The Toledo Blade
May 6, 2006

ABU Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda chieftain in Iraq (or maybe not, see below), is changing tactics, said London's Sunday Times. Al-Zarqawi "is attempting to set up his own mini-army and move away from individual suicide attacks to a more organized resistance movement," wrote Michael Smith.

Col. John Gronski of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard indicated why the change in tactics isn't such a good idea. Colonel Gronski is commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the Pennsylvania Guard's 28th Infantry Division, stationed in Ar Ramadi.

Iraqi troops supported by Colonel Gronski's soldiers killed more than 100 insurgents in a battle last week, Colonel Gronski told CNN. Two Iraqi soldiers died in the battle. No Americans were killed.

The battle started when coalition forces noticed insurgents removing weapons from a train station in the southeastern part of the city. Colonel Gronski slammed them with an air strike, and then the Iraqi troops moved in.

"The Iraqi army is conducting aggressive operations here based on human intelligence from the people of Ramadi themselves," Colonel Gronski said.

A 50-to-1 exchange ratio against you is not a good thing for a guerrilla force.

Most guerrilla wars are not successful. In those that have been successful, guerrillas attacked their enemy's weaknesses, not his strength. Al-Qaeda's change in tactics abandons their strengths and plays into ours.

for full article:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060506/COLUMNIST14/605060322

 

[fabb1963]

Most guerrilla wars are not successful. In those that have been successful, guerrillas attacked their enemy's weaknesses, not his strength. Al-Qaeda's change in tactics abandons their strengths and plays into ours.

Unless, of course, you count the success the Vietnamese had against the US in the Vietnam (Can't call it a war) conflict. Which leads to another question. If we aren't at war in Iraq, but rather estabilishing democracy, why is it called a war while Vietnam, which was a show of arms over capitalism versus communism, is not called a war but a "conflict"? So many questions, so few answers.

 

[Gunny]

Unless, of course, you count the success the Vietnamese had against the US in the Vietnam (Can't call it a war) conflict. Which leads to another question. If we aren't at war in Iraq, but rather estabilishing democracy, why is it called a war while Vietnam, which was a show of arms over capitalism versus communism, is not called a war but a "conflict"? So many questions, so few answers.

Your comment as it pertains to Vietnam makes no sense as the enemy DID attack our weakness and avoided our strength.

Vietnam has been called a "war" and a "conflict." Semantics. Do you have a point?