Posted on 03/14/2006 11:00:37 AM PST by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
good point, unfortunately our intelligence agencies are very inept and incompetent... but I would like to think someone other than you thought of it as well...
Maybe not, if they're actually redeploying out-of-area to seek other, softer targets. If so, then our presence in Iraq is devalued dramatically for our purposes of seeking more-favorable confrontations with the jihadis.
Bush has finally admitted that part of our rationale was that our presence in Iraq would act as a magnet for the most-susceptible and most-voluntary of Al Q'aeda's manpower resources, and lure them into not hard-on-soft attacks like the WTC, but hard-on-armorplated confrontations that they would for the most part lose, and in so doing die like flies. They've obliged, so far.
Maybe they've decided to abandon the attrition battle and go back to embassies and schoolyards and apartment-blocks.
Just an alternative explanation for the falloff in casualties. Which is good per se.
Partially: however it is also a result of turning over more of the patrolling responsibility to the Iraqi forces and having them participate heavily in most operations with just a small cadre of US advisers.
Reading between the lines, they have at least 421 fighters willing to take part in a huge martyrdom operation. I don't think Zarqawi is done yet!
"U.S. casualties have fallen by 60% since the October Iraqi referendum."
Thank God.
"This was their "Big Bang" in Iraq...and it fizzled."
Thank God again.
"I hope they'll soon be seen "hanging around" Baghdad."
Since Saddam's trial is not over yet, they may get to hang with him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.