<blockquote><font size="1" face="TImes, TimesNR, serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pete Hahnloser:
Gen. John Abizaid, on the tactics being used against Americans:<p>"classical guerrilla-type war situation" -- AP<p>"a classical guerrilla-style campaign" -- NYT wire article<p>"a classical guerrilla-type campaign" -- NYT, three grafs later<p>"a classical guerrilla-type campaign" -- WashPost wire<p>***Two out of four match ... guess I'll go with the last ones.<hr></blockquote><p>From the Department of Defense's
transcript of the news conference:<p>"So what is the situation in Iraq? Certainly we're fighting Ba'athist remnants throughout the country. I believe there's mid- level Ba'athist, Iraqi intelligence service people, Special Security Organization people, Special Republican Guard people that have organized at the regional level in cellular structure and are conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us. It's low-intensity conflict, in our doctrinal terms, but it's war, however you describe it."<p>***What I find most interesting is what immediately follows in the transcript. Someone followed with a question about the guerrilla statement, saying the DoD had been reluctant to use the word. Abizaid confirmed his statement that it was a guerrilla war, when the DoD's public affairs dude stepped in to say what type of conflict this is, "is almost beside the point." The accompanying
"news article" makes no mention of the dirty word. <p>There's also an audio version of the press briefing available, but I feel I've spent too much of my life on this already.***