No, your argument doesn't follow in real war.

You're ignoring the omnipresent friction of war. Even in the most perfectly executed strategy, there are substantial random variables. The way you win most times is by the averages. Fight in such a way as to win more often than you lose, then keep plugging past the turning point. It's either that, or the sudden appearance of a miracle weapon at the last minute.

Maybe this is the fundamental mental defect of those who get all happy about every little cluster of alliance casualties. They think if we lose anyone at all, we must have lost the whole war. No, that's not the bottom of it. The bottom of it is they're so desperate to see America and/or Dubya humiliated that they'll grasp at any straw. And they can't even bring themselves to deny it.

How about you? Would you rather see the bad guys win than see Dubya vindicated? Just checking..

You're ignoring the omnipresent friction of war. Even in the most perfectly executed strategy, there are substantial random variables. The way you win most times is by the averages. Fight in such a way as to win more often than you lose, then keep plugging past the turning point. It's either that, or the sudden appearance of a miracle weapon at the last minute.

That might work against an opposing army, but what we are facing in Iraq now is a guerrilla insurgency. They don't care much how many they lose relative to how many we lose, nor can you effectivly take land from them or attack their infrastructure. The US won the vast majority of the battles in Vietnam but ended up losing the war, if the US loses in Iraq it will be the same way.

How about you? Would you rather see the bad guys win than see Dubya vindicated? Just checking..

Personally I see bad guys on both sides of that equation.

I'm also wondering how the above is connected to the previous argument about the ambushes and possibility of counter-ambush of American forces.

Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!