[Lancey Howard]

(( ping ))

Check this out....

[jazusamo]

Thanks for the ping, Lancey.

I believe that’s an Aussie Generals way of ripping an ahole a new one, he sounds like a very good man.

[RedRover]

Thanks, Lancey.

[xzins]

Excellent article by the Aussie general. Then I went on to read some of the unbelievably ignorant comments left by readers of the Australian, so I, too, left a comment. I don't know if they'll publish it, but it went as follows:

A terrorist is a terrorist because his chosen intentional target is a non-combatant. An insurgent is an insurgent because he is part of an irregular armed force that fights against a larger armed force by means of sabotage and harassment. In Iraq, the terrorists were primarily Al Qaeda, and they were not, in most cases, native Iraqis. They might have been welcomed at early points in the conflict, but their strategy of murdering Iraqis made them unwelcome in Iraq. Likewise, the "insurgents" in Iraq who were locally led were mollified by advances of the new Iraqi government, so that they now work with it rather than against it. Remaining pockets of resistance in Iraq, and there are very few at this point, continue to be terrorist in nature.

Face facts, the conflict in Iraq is over...in the mop-up phase. It is being won by the Iraqi government's military superiority. Accept it. The new Iraqi government is in power, and they are there to stay.