July 22, 2003


The Sydney Morning Herald, today:

The Pentagon doesn't want to admit it, but this is guerilla war.

Associated Press, last week:

The former administrator of the U-S reconstruction team in Iraq acknowledges American troops are engaged in a guerrilla war.

Posted by Tim Blair at July 22, 2003 12:29 PM

How much longer do we have to put up with lazy journalism such as this? A quick search on the internet and you can come up some real issues in Iraq not the popular grab bag sound bite crap....


Now this may be wrong or right, biased or no but at least they offer some rudimentary reasoning in their explanations. Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: Rob at July 22, 2003 at 12:40 PM

The reason the SMH and ABC etc all want to gloat about a Guerilla war is that they don't think a Guerrilla war can be won by the west.

They forget examples like the Phillipines and Malaya.

Actually, given their jounalistic standards they probably don't forget them, they've probably never heard of them.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at July 22, 2003 at 01:14 PM

Without even bothering reading the source material, "the Pentagon" and "the former administrator of the U-S reconstruction team" are two different entities. Why wouldn't they have differing points of view?

Posted by: Bon Scott at July 22, 2003 at 01:27 PM

Anyone who thinks a gorilla war can be won has never played Donkey Kong.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at July 22, 2003 at 01:51 PM

What a bunch of twits! Obvoiusly they wnat the people of Iraq and Allied troops to suffer, just so they can make a political point. It just hows so divorced from reality those on the left really are.

Posted by: Toryhere at July 22, 2003 at 02:10 PM

Considering the new general in command at Central Command said in his first press conference that the US is fighting a classic guerilla campaign a few days ago, one can only be amazed at the sleuthing abilities of the leftie Aussie press.

These guys haven't got the memo. We don't give a crap what kind of war it is. We're gonna win it. Count on that. This isn't Vietnam. We wouldn't stand for that half-ass Democrat war a second time.

Posted by: KevinV at July 22, 2003 at 02:11 PM

In response to Mr. Scott, above, the "Pentagon" means the U.S. defense establishment. All military officers report to it and it may be taken for granted that anything they say officially has been cleared by the Pentagon

Posted by: doyned at July 22, 2003 at 02:36 PM

The new ranking officer, General Abizaid also admitted last week it was a guerrila war.

(BTW, what's so bad about admitting it's a guerrila war? I must be missing something. Should we call it something else?)

Posted by: g wiz at July 22, 2003 at 03:10 PM

I would think the "admission" would have gone something like this:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are now fighting the most piss-weak guerilla war in history. A small bunch of suicidal nutcases has so far lobbed a couple of dozen RPGs at our 200,000-strong invading army, over a period of, like, three months. They manage about two attacks every week, which is a helluva lot quieter than a good day in South Central Los Angeles. Their entire 'guerilla army' has a far lower kill rate than the Washington Sniper. Martin Bryant killed more people in twenty minutes with a semi-automatic than they've killed in three months. They apparently have no command-and-control, no sophisticated weaponry, no means of communication and no support among the general population. In conclusion, while I've seen guerilla armies suck before, this is the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked."

I wouldn't be surprised if the entire guerilla army turns out to be one guy with a grenade launcher and a camel.

Posted by: Jorge at July 22, 2003 at 04:01 PM

Oh Jorge, your world is indeed a pleasant place. I'm not quite sure what relationship it has to reality, though.

Posted by: Bon Scott at July 22, 2003 at 06:01 PM


Posted by: Tiu Fu Fong at July 22, 2003 at 06:40 PM

Yeah, and in Bon's world, buildings speak (i.e. "the Pentagon").

Posted by: David Crawford at July 22, 2003 at 06:58 PM

Yeah your right Toryhere, reporting adverse events is OBVIOUSLY evidence that SMH want troops to be killed.

It's this sought of logic that makes me think your a fucking moron.

Posted by: craig at July 22, 2003 at 07:22 PM

Why is it that left wing meatwhistles think the phrase "guerilla war" is some sort of magic incantation from some barbarian shaman. Mention the word and we're supposed to go "ooooooh, a guerilla war, we're doomed!" A "guerilla army" also needs many things to be successful, almost none of which are in play in Iraq. Left wing fuckwits also seem oblivious to the fact that the USA has master guerilla fighters these days (same as we did in Nam but the politicians and their left wing handmaidens lost that war not the GI's). Anyone who makes a comparison to Viet Nam just shows themselves to be the ignorant left wing jerk offs they are.

Posted by: Two in the Hat at July 22, 2003 at 11:29 PM

Perhaps the left hopes so desperately for another Vietnam, so they can turn their backs when the working-man guerilla armies slaugther Cambodians and Laotians later.

Posted by: Drake at July 22, 2003 at 11:41 PM

This fascination with guerilla war by the Left goes back a long way. It echoes the romantic notion of the Noble Savage standing valiantly against the evil 'civilized' world. Poorly armed, out-numbered, but filled with righteous virtue, this underdog can harry and confound the lumbering giant. Demoralized, riddled with dissention, the arrogant invader ignominiously slinks off, tail firmly tucked twixt legs. Nice fiction, but isn't that standard for the Left?

Posted by: nobody important at July 22, 2003 at 11:52 PM

Oh God, no! The "Pentagon" and the "former administrator of the U-S reconstruction team" are at odds! Somebody's lying! What did they know and when did they know it! Whoever sexed up this crazy notion that there is no guerilla war and the coalition is in control needs to be identified and terminated! Heads must roll!

/frothy nit-picking lefty rant

Posted by: Tongue Boy at July 23, 2003 at 12:21 AM

The administration's hesitancy to accede to the use of "guerilla" is nothing more or less than a recognition that the people throwing the word around in the press don't know what the fuck it means. No, to those twits, "guerilla war" means "just like Vietnam." Last week when the NY Times reported that an administration official had used the word, "Vietnam" was used in the Times's followup sentence.

Posted by: Brian Jones at July 23, 2003 at 01:48 AM

One more point the Marxist meatwhistles seem to be missing is we are not adverse to a "guerilla war" in Iraq. Many of our military officers are refering to Iraq as our "flypaper", with Bush even inviting them to "bring it on". We are drawing the savages out from under their rocks all over the islamofacist world into the killing field of OUR choice. We will take casulties in this but far fewer than if we had to go into their strongholds and root them out. I remember a story about Eisenhower in WWII at the Battle of the Bulge, when the generals realized it was a major German offensive, not probing attacks as first thought, and they expected Ike to be beside himself, but to thier surprise he was stoked, turning to his surprised officers he said "this is a great opportunity, we've got them all in one place, now lets kill em".

Posted by: Two in the Hat at July 23, 2003 at 02:20 AM

>Oh Jorge, your world is indeed a pleasant place. I'm not quite sure what relationship it has to reality, though.

In my world, I get DoD casualty reports daily, and it looks like the "ferocious" Iraqi resistence is killing about as many servicemen as vehicle accidents. How are they doing in your world, Bon?

Posted by: John Nowak at July 23, 2003 at 04:28 AM

"Sanchez said the U.S. military had been given a "walk-in" tip that Qusay and Uday were in the villa and that the six-hour raid involved various military units, including special forces."

Certainly evidence that Saddams troops lack popular support.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at July 23, 2003 at 09:12 AM

Seeing the condition of the house they were shot to pieces in I'll bet that Mullah who owned it is pissed he told them they could crash on his couch for the night "ooooh, and they cleared out my liquor cabinet, puked on the kitchen floor, pissed the bed, sodamized my goat and now THIS! Look at this place! If it ain't bent it's fuckin broken! If only the Americans hadn't stolen all my ooooooil I could fix this place up! They killed them for ooooooooil!"

Posted by: Two in the Hat at July 23, 2003 at 09:35 AM

Personally, I'm still very worried about the "brutal Afghan winter" and the havoc it will inevitably wreak on our troops. Why isn't anyone in the major media covering this point? They were warned back in early 2002 and have since pretty much ignored the problem. I smell coverup.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at July 23, 2003 at 01:07 PM

Brutal Afghan Winter? Personally, I'm still waiting for Ronald Reagan's nuclear war.

Posted by: John Nowak at July 23, 2003 at 03:17 PM

Anyone spot CRAIG's typically incisive commentary here? Are we ignoring the little troll now or what?

Posted by: Dave F at July 23, 2003 at 09:07 PM

Actually, Jorg, they're concentrating on the "Brutal Iraqi Summer," right now. After all, it's so much worse than the National Training Center our armour troops use in California. You know, the one right next to Death Valley.

Posted by: CGeib at July 25, 2003 at 08:48 AM