[excon]

Until you define what "lost" means, there is no way to quantify whether it is true or not. So please, provide an explanation of "lost" means with regard to the war in Iraq.

Hello again, El:

It's true. I'm unable to define lost satisfactorily to you, any better than you have been able to define victory to me.

How about this? When we're gone and Iraq is an Islamist state, would you consider that to be a loss? I would.

THAT is what IS happening. I understand that you are unwilling to grasp that we are going to withdraw - not because the left wants to - but because the right is going to force Bush to do it.

You and your friends call them minor defections... I don't think so.

excon

[Dark_crow]

Hello again, El:

It's true. I'm unable to define lost satisfactorily to you, any better than you have been able to define victory to me.

How about this? When we're gone and Iraq is an Islamist state, would you consider that to be a loss? I would.

THAT is what IS happening. I understand that you are unwilling to grasp that we are going to withdraw - not because the left wants to - but because the right is going to force Bush to do it.

You and your friends call them minor defections..... I don't think so.

excon

"When we're gone and Iraq is an Islamist state, would you consider that to be a loss? I would"

Therein lies the crux of the matter

[ETWolverine]

How about this? When we're gone and Iraq is an Islamist state, would you consider that to be a loss? I would.

Absolutely. And since that has NOT happened yet, and since that can ONLY happen if we leave too soon, we clearly, by this definition, have not lost. Nor will we, unless Congress force us to lose by "redeploying" our troops out of Iraq.

This is all the more reason to stay in Iraq till the job is done.

THAT is what IS happening. I understand that you are unwilling to grasp that we are going to withdraw - not because the left wants to - but because the right is going to force Bush to do it.

I don't think so. So far, every attempt by Congress to force a pullout has failed. I think they will continue to fail. And barring Bush pulling the troops out, we haven't lost.

You and your friends call them minor defections... I don't think so.

I have never called them minor. I don't see them as minor at all. And come the 2008 election, those Senators will regret it. However, I don't really see it changing the political equation. Even if Congress manages to somehow get a vote to withdraw from Iraq, Bush will veto it, and there aren't enough votes to override the veto. Ergo, Bush cannot (and will not) be forced to pull the troops out of Iraq by either the Democrats or the Republicans.

So... now that we know your definition of lost --- which has been defined by you as withdrawal of the troops and leaving behind an Islamist state --- can you please stop saying that WE HAVE LOST, since by your own admission, the current facts on the ground do not fit your own definition?

And can we agree also that the only way we are going to lose is if Congress makes us lose, so Congress should stay the hell out of trying to run the war?

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

I have never called them minor. I don't see them as minor at all. And come the 2008 election, those Senators will regret it.
Elliot

These aren’t defections, they’re re-deployments. Wait until after the elections. :D

[excon]

And can we agree also that the only way we are going to lose is if Congress makes us lose,

Hello El:

No. Because, in my view, the war was lost before we ever went in.

Remember those three choices I offered earlier: 1) wrong war, 2) bad battle plan and 3), leftist media? My choices are number's 1 and 2. Yours, of course, is number 3.

Therefore, by ordering a withdrawal, congress is simply recognizing the political reality.

excon

PS> Not enough votes to override a veto?? Not now, but I can see it coming... Just you watch. What? 2 or 3 more senators?? Come on, El. They're going to cave on Bush too cause they're fearful for their political future.

[tomder55]

The American Civil War was a lost cause going into the election season of 1864. Like Bush has done; Lincoln saw a war effort that was stumbling, so he removed his top generals and brought in Gen. Grant and his" surge plan" . He listened to his General who said

"I propose to fight it out along this line if it takes all summer"...

and stuck with him even though public opinion had turned sour on the war. Lincoln's prospects looked bleak for reelection up until Sept. 2 ,1864 when Sherman took Atlanta.

It doesn't matter if Lugar and Warner are covering their political tails . It will not even matter if McCain; seeing his slim chances of getting the nomination dashed; turns on the only issue he is really in agreement with the rest of his party about. The war will not be lost unless the Democrats win and impose defeat .

Yes ,I would've preferred that he had listened to his military earlier instead of his State Dept. A lot of the difficulties in the last few years were the result of a basic difference in philosophies between these two cabinet groups and Bush should've been more assertive in forcing the issue. But that does not mean that early strategies determine outcomes. For more on this see Stephen Hayes new book about VP Cheney . Amazon.com: Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President: Books: Stephen F. Hayes

In Iraq, Cheney thought it important to establish Iraqi political legitimacy as soon as possible. Before the war, Pentagon planners had discussed bringing a government-in-waiting to Iraq to run the country after Saddam Hussein had been removed from power. The idea met stiff resistance at the State Department and the CIA, who worried that the Iraqi people would be skeptical of leaders handpicked by the United States, and consisted mainly of Iraqi exiles. Cheney understood their concerns but the idea still held a certain crawl-before-you-walk appeal. A provisional Iraqi government, even an imperfect one, could help convince Iraqis that the U.S. government was serious when it promised to send a liberating force, not an occupying one.

That was view I agreed with then. Unfortunately a CPA was set up under Viceroy Bremer and a year was wasted . That is water under the bridge .It made our task there more difficult but not impossible.
Right now the issue is perception . We have gained the trust of the Iraqis who thought we were in it to be long term occupiers .The troops are kicking al Qaeda out of the only area in the country that they could ever find sanctuary . The populace has proven their desire for participatory governance . The brutality of the insurgents has shot them in the foot. The people prefer the American tribe to the jihadists .

But the other perception being reinforced by our Legislative Branch is that we are paper tigers not up to the fight. If they had kept at least the good sense to adopt the adage that politics ends at the shore then the effort would be much easier for out troops.

[ETWolverine]

No. Because, in my view, the war was lost before we ever went in.

Well, now. THat differs from your stated definition of lost, doesn't it. So are you saying that you STILL haven't given me a definition of "lost"?

Remember those three choices I offered earlier: 1) wrong war, 2) bad battle plan and 3), leftist media? My choices are number's 1 and 2. Yours, of course, is number 3.

And the fact that the military plan and the nature of military operations have changed doesn't mean anything to you? Even if you believe that the original op plan was wrong, we are no longer using the original op plan. Which means that number 2 no longer applies. So at worst, we are dealing with #1.

Problem with that argument is, even if it was once the "wrong war" it no longer is. The terrorists are there now. So right now it is the right war, regardless of what it may have been in the beginning, and you and I can disagree over whether in 2003 it was the right war or not at some other date. Right now, it is the right war because the terrorists are there now.

Therefore, by ordering a withdrawal, congress is simply recognizing the political reality.

Again, this doesn't jive with your statement that the war is being lost by Congress. Either they are doing the right thing and "simply recognizing the political reality" or they are doing the wrong thing and losing the war. Which is it?

PS> Not enough votes to override a veto?? Not now, but I can see it coming... Just you watch. What? 2 or 3 more senators?? Come on, El. They're going to cave on Bush too cause they're fearful for their political future.

A few will, but not enough to get the 2/3 necessary for a veto override. Congress knows that. The Dems know it, and it is frustrating the hell out of them. That's why they want to keep the issue in the forefront by calling for votes they know they can't win over and over. It allows them to make political hay out of blaming Bush. "We did everything we can... its all Bush's fault." They have failed in their politically driven agenda to end the war, so all they have left is the old "blame Bush" tactic.

Elliot

[BABRAM]

Considering their country's history and then factor in the isolated scale of success, the President's strategy has not worked. I'd dearly love for the Iraqi gov't to stand on their own considering Iraq is not going to be become a U.S. territory nor was that ever the goal. The goal, not to use the excuse of the WMD sideshow as often suggested, was accomplished by removing the tyrant culprit Hussein from power. Now it's time for closure and start the removal of our troops. The people of Iraq are going to have to want this for themselves. Again... we are not colonizing Iraq anytime soon and we don't need another drawn out Vietnam-like affair.



Bobby

[kp2171]

the problem is we are trying to apply logic to an illogical situation.

a report comes out saying al qaeda is gaining strength similar to 911 and both the dems and the gop say "SEE!?! SEE?!? WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!"

of course the dems mean the iraq war has failed to squash the threat that took us to war first and the gop means that this threat is here to stay and requires thicker skin and the will to fight.

and the problem is its both and neither. Iraq was stupid from the get go, but here we are. I'm an independent who voted for bush 2x, and nearly gagged the second time. Can the dems get any more lame that they can't beat a guy who is so lousy? Blech.

off track. Point was it doesn't matter whether we occupy the majority of iraq or our death rate is substantially lower than the enemy. We are in a place where there is really no "winning"... absent wiping all who follow al qaeda and the like off the map completely and wiping it from memory. Good luck with that.

id like our troops withdrawn. Can't see it happening responsibly soon. Id like to say iraq is a better place today than before. Can't say that's true. Tribal warfare can cut down all the good deeds done in a breath. So in the end more innocents will die one way or the other. Our hands, husseins hands (at least before the hanging), al qaeda, blah, blah, blah...

the problem is, again, its just an illogical situation (the hatred that fosters the terror) and we can sit here all we want and argue about the most logical situation. There just isn't one.

I'm not saying its hopeless so give up or that there aren't better paths than others... but we are always going to be stumped a bit my why the hell we need to be doing all of this in the first place. Just a handful of senseless and stupid people can ruin the party.

[ETWolverine]

What about the fact that the terrorists themselves have said that their only chance to complete their goal of creating a Muslim world is to win in Iraq? They need a victory in Iraq in order to become able to recruit new members and gain enough power to continue the fight in the rest of the world. THEY have said that, not us.

So why in the world would anyone in their right minds literally hand the enemy the victory they need in order to continue their war against us? Why would anyone consider a pullout that the enemy will claim as a victory, and will use against us? If only to keep that from happening, we have to stay in Iraq.

And just out of curiousity... how long is a war supposed to take?

I have never heard any military official claim that the war in Iraq would be a short war, and that if we don't "succeed" (however, we define success) within a certain time, it means we have failed and we should pull out. War cannot be placed on a set timetable. You cannot say, we'll win by next week, or else we'll pull out. Yet that is what the people advocating a pullout from Iraq are talking about. War takes as long as it takes.

The troops surge only came to full strength three weeks ago. How can anyone in their right mind claim that we have failed when we've only been at full strength for three weeks... especially given the fact that the number of attacks by the enemy is significantly down, a number of terrorist leaders have been captured and are talking to our intelligence people, several of the toughest neighborhoods with the most fighting are now pacified, and our losses have been so minimal? Give the plan a chance to work. Give the troops a chance to do their jobs.

Anything less is handing the enemy a victory they haven't earned, and a booste in strength that they will use against us.

Elliot