Analysts urge U.S. forces to attack invaders at border (here we go...)

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050713-102938-9937r

Analysts urge U.S. forces to attack invaders at border
By Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times


WASHINGTON -- Some government analysts have concluded that U.S. forces in Iraq will never defeat the ubiquitous improvised explosive devices (IEDs) with new technologies and should augment the fight with a full-fledged border war to stop bombers at the source.

The opinions of government officials in interviews with The Washington Times do not necessarily mean there will be a change in war-fighting strategy. Commanders continue to try to defeat IEDs, which are the No. 1 killer of coalition troops and civilians in Iraq, by attacking insurgent havens and bomb-making factories throughout the country.


But the analysts said midlevel personnel increasingly think that the IED threat will never be defeated unless the flow of foreign suicide bombers, primarily via Syria, is stopped.

The analysts also believe the U.S. must start identifying the foreign fighters as invaders, which would better justify the redeployment of American and Iraqi forces along the border with Syria, aided by more use of spy drones and satellites to watch for incursions 24 hours a day.

<</SNIP>>

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Refresh my memory on what we invaded Iraq in the first place, please.

Because it sounds like we are working our way into a "border war" now.

[bemildred]

2. The "foreign fighters" meme again.

I think that's the whole point of this "story".

[TahitiNut]

9. As though the US military aren't "foreign fighters"! Unfreakingreal!

Invade a country to 'protect' it against invaders? Isn't that like raping a woman to defend her against rapists? Maybe more like robbing a bank so the bank won't be robbed.

Whenever I think the language has been abused beyond reason, it just gets worse.

[madrchsod]

3. what about our borders?

what about our seaports? oh well ,we`ll fight them over there.....

[doubleplusgood]

5. "your borders are our borders"

that's what the Soviets used to tell their E. European client states.

[Tempest]

4. What flow of foreign bombers?

I guess these "analysts" (armchair warriors, i.e. chickenhawks) haven't been listening to the commanders in the field.

[iconoclastic cat]

6. ...but they'll still be out in 18 months.

[Lochloosa]

7. Was that Cambodia's border.....

[moggie]

12. No

They mean the border of the Green Zone.

[Lochloosa]

15. LOL....true

[TahitiNut]

8. It's better to fight "them" .... where? And just who are the "invaders"?

Orwellian! :eyes:

[n2doc]

10. Aren't many of the bombers coming from Saudi Arabia? n/t

[LynnTheDem]

11. "identifying the foreign fighters as invaders"....that would be America.

Jesus H. Christ.

[ovidsen]

13. The US can't even secure it's own borders

Setting aside (just for a moment) the questions surrounding America's presence in Iraq.... our own borders leak like crazy! How can anyone expect a meaningful reinforcement of Iraq's?

[Dhalgren]

14. Not only is this article ridiculous, it doesn't even attempt to make

sense. "But the analysts said midlevel personnel increasingly think that the IED threat will never be defeated unless the flow of foreign suicide bombers, primarily via Syria, is stopped."

IEDs are called "roadside bombs" and are usually detonated by remote control or by some form of on-device trigger. What, pray tell, do IEDs have to do with "suicide bombers"? The Ministry of Propaganda is getting really sloppy...

[daleo]

16. Ho Chi Mihn Trail, Cambodia, etc.

It won't be long until "hot pursuit" and other incursions are deemed necessary, according to this reasoning.

Of course deploying more troops along the borders means they can't be in the middle of the country at the same time - not without more troops (i.e. a draft) anyway.

[No Michael Savage]

17. Just great

Defend Iraq's borders and ignore ours. Just how stupid is Bu$h?