Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) They may not know, though it is possible to gauge what your enemy is doing. If the insurgents have been getting better training, we may not want to acknowledge it yet for political/diplomatic reasons. That's a bit less likely now that we're going after Iran in the press.
[For a long time, we wouldn't admit shootdowns, and still won't announce sniper kills as such, to try not to let the enemy know they've succeeded.]
(b) Thanks for the tip. I meant to use an (e.g.). I would still say that the losses reflect the natural results of more aggressive operations over urban population centers .
S_A_M
|
The best training available is in combat. As this thing drags on, OF COURSE the insurgents will get better at it. Unless we have such stunning victories that their supplies or personnel dry up or are disrupted, whatever they have will be increasingly better deployed and each combatant will have a better sense of what they are doing.
Our combatants have to do the same. That means changes in tactics, coming up with new plays, and anticipating what they'll learn next. More importantly, it means engagement, because if we are essentially passive and they are engaging, they'll get better faster than we will. Improving a passive position is much harder.
I think of the surge as a pure PR move on Bush's report, but it still may be useful if it gives the guys on the ground the ability to shuffle their deck a bit and come at some of the battles from a new angle.
Threaded Mode