House of Paine

david brooks needs castration

too harsh??


 ever really
 look at his fuckin mug shot 


 that oughta convince you

i'm right 

if not 

then read his latest
      piece in the nyt
        an  ink blot
              pattern
to  victory
and freedom 
          in Iraq-coonia
                      
"man oh man

         pass
     me the dullest fuckin knife ya got ....


===========================================
 




"Andrew Krepinevich is a careful
, scholarly man. 
A graduate of West Point
 and a retired lieutenant colonel,
 his book, "The Army and Vietnam," 
is a classic on how to fight
 counterinsurgency warfare. 


"Over the past year or so 
he's been asking his friends and former colleagues
 in the military a few simple questions:
 Which of the several known strategies 
for fighting insurgents 
are you guys employing in Iraq? 
What metrics are you using 
to measure your progress? 

The answers have been disturbing.
 There is no clear strategy.
 There are no clear metrics. 

Krepinevich has now published an essay 
in the new issue of Foreign Affairs,
 "How to Win in Iraq," 
in which he proposes a strategy.
 The article is already a phenomenon
 among the people running this war, 
generating discussion in the Pentagon,
 the C.I.A., the American Embassy in Baghdad
 and the office of the vice president. 

Krepinevich's proposal is hardly new.
 He's merely describing a classic counterinsurgency strategy
, which was used, among other places, in Malaya by the British in the 1950's.
Krepinevich calls the approach 
the oil-spot strategy.

 The core insight is that you can't win a war 
like this by going off
on search and destroy missions
 trying to kill insurgents. 

There are always more enemy fighters waiting.
 You end up going back to the same towns 
again and again, 
because the insurgents 
just pop up after you've left
 and kill anybody who helped you.
 You alienate civilians, 
who are the key to success,
 with your heavy-handed raids. 

Instead of trying to kill insurgents,
 Krepinevich argues, 
it's more important to protect civilians.

 You set up safe havens 
where you can establish good security.
 Because you don't have enough manpower
 to do this everywhere at once, 
you select a few key cities and take control
 Then you slowly expand the size
 of your safe havens, 
like an oil spot spreading 
across the pavement.

Once you've secured a town or city,
 you throw in all the economic and political resources 
you have to make that place grow.

 The locals see the benefits 
of working with you. 

Your own troops and the folks back home 
watching on TV can see concrete signs
 of progress in these newly regenerated neighborhoods.

 You mix your troops 
in with indigenous security forces,
 and through intimate contact 
with the locals you begin 
to even out the intelligence advantage
 that otherwise goes to the insurgents.

If you ask U.S. officials 
why they haven't adopted this strategy,
 they say they have.
 But if that were true 
the road to the airport in Baghdad
 wouldn't be a death trap. 
It would be within the primary oil spot.

The fact is, the U.S. didn't adopt
 this blindingly obvious strategy
 because it violates 
some of the key Rumsfeldian notions
 about how the U.S. military 
should operate in the 21st century.

First, it requires a heavy troop presence
, not a light, lean force.

 Second, it doesn't play to our strengths
, which are technological superiority,
 mobility and firepower. 

It acknowledges 
that while we go with our strengths,
 the insurgents exploit our weakness:
 the lack of usable intelligence.

Third, it means we have to think 
in the long term.

 For fear of straining the armed forces,
 the military brass have conducted
 this campaign with one eye 
looking longingly at the exits. 

A lot of the military planning 
has extended only as far 
as the next supposed tipping point:
 the transfer of sovereignty,
 the election, and so on.

 We've been rotating successful commanders 
back to Washington after short stints,
 which is like pulling Grant back home 
before the battle of Vicksburg.

 The oil-spot strategy would force us 
to acknowledge that this will be
 a long, gradual war.

But the strategy has one virtue.

 It might work. 

Today, public opinion
 is turning against the war
 not because people have given up on the goal 
of advancing freedom,
 but because they are not sure 
this war is winnable.

 Why should we sacrifice more American lives 
to a lost cause?

If President Bush is going to rebuild support
 for the war,
 he's going to have to explain 
specifically how it can be won,
 and for that he needs a strategy.

It's not hard to find.
It's right there in Andy Krepinevich's essay,
 and in the annals of history. "


=====================================

"the anals of his story eh? """



some body has to stomp out


this  fuckin over sized
           bed bug

he and  the hill clit 
  both now
 want more boots
          in the sand

              and 
more patience 
         at home 

notice 
  his  version
of amerika's
            hoi poloi

the yokels
   just want
  iraqi freedom 
              to have a fightin chance at winning 



then  what ?

this  blood match's 
              suddenly gets  
                     worth its tariff.....


===================

if it were miy scrap to market 

i'd well....
             just fuckin look this 
                   lead prop over:



 " we can guarantee u
         a win 
  in  72 months "

 and our charge 

 just 30 dollars 
        per  amerikan household 
                 per month
and 
that not in cash

  we'll  
put  the bill
  where a long term investment
like this
rightly  belongs

on the national tab ....work out the numbers here

freedom for 22 milion folks

at 

fuck 
at  no more
per home viewer expense
then 
what ???

adding 
 like ahhh
     one more  
        premium cable tier  ....