It would seem obvious, and would be obvious, that there are two kinds of wars with two different strategies.

First, a war such as WWII, where bombs and bullets were used to take and hold land. Right behind the squad came the platoon, company, battalion and battalion HQ. Behind those were more and more troops, supply lines, and then the brass. The countryside was occupied. Korea was fought the same way.

Enemy action was limited, both is opportunity and scope. It was generally safe for military people to walk down the street.

Now the kind of warfare which attempts to kill all opponents, deny them sanctuary and win the hearts and minds of the population, without controlling the countryside requires different tactics.

Winning hearts and minds means being considerate of the average citizen. Part of the mission would be accepting a higher level of casualties than otherwise, because your enemy will hide behind innocent people while shooting at you. It's part of the mission. It would mean bombing the targets, not entire families and villages, blocks and malls.

To treat people with bombs and bullets, ignore hearts and minds, and expect them to be impatient with insurgents is fantasy. As we can see and is repeated here. Show the population no respect, and you get hatred back.

These are not isolated instances. In fact, I'd be very, very surprised if 1% of them came to the attention of the public. That's 1%.

Bush's style cannot beat an insurgency. The population grows to hate the occupier, and continues to support them. It's a style that Petraeus knows won't win, and the door-kicking and killing of innocents continue.

And, I know. More people will die than would otherwise. And this war can't be "won" not respecting the people you think you are liberating, the people to whom you want to bring freedom, democracy, McDonalds and Halliburton.

Arf