You blame politicians for not persisting in a war they they don't think is worth pursuing, but you won't fight in a war you support. There's something definitely wrong with this picture, but it's not political.
The surge is meant to provide overall security since the problem with previous effors was that they were specific to a few areas and once they secured an area they moved on only to have the insurgents return. The whole point of the surge is defeat the insurgency. If the surge can't defeat the insurgency because they launch a coordinated counterattack how could the surge be expected to work in the first place. The timetable of an insurgent offensive shouldn't matter since it should be expected that they would try to to counterattack the surge. If they hadn't planned for that then it was incredibly poorly planned.
the insurgents could launch "spectacular" attacks at little to no cost to themselves, but substantial civilian casualties....which the gullible liberal media will trumpet as signs of thier strength and our defeat, all the while ignoring the very real successes our soldiers have had in this fight.
Honestly you're beginning to sound as ridiculous as Baghdad Bob. The situation in Iraq has been steadily getting worse, not better.
This has always been the nature of assymetric warfare especially one where a foreign power is trying to occupy a distant territory. Of course the insurgents can't wipe out the US military but what they can do is make it so costly to continue to stay that its not seen in the US interest to remain. Its not enough to say we have to stay to defeat them, everyone knows we can kill far more of them than they can of us. That is a given. The challenge is in convincing both the populace there and your own populace that we should stay. What you, Basso and others have been doing is blaming the media or liberals but the blame for this failure rest squarely on the shoulders of the Administration for not being able to maintain the political will. Our political system is adversarial and for any major endeavor there will be opponents. If the Administration can't maintain political support its their failure and not the failure of the media or the Admin's political opponents.
If the insurgents can continue to launch spectacular attacks how is the surge working? What measure of success are you using if you aren't guarenteering security.
The failure is not attributable to lack of will (Where's Leni?), but of the sheer stupidity and hubris and naked ambition with which this war was cast in the first place. It is attributable to pushing the political interests of the Republican Party above the national interest of the United States. There is not another American President in history who would have done this and with any luck, there will not be one in the future.
No, we can be defeated in Iraq. Just as we and the French were in Vietnam and just as countless others were who tried to occupy a country halfway around the globe. There's no way Ali could have beaten George Foreman in a straight-up slugfest, but he beat him in a boxing match. There's no way insurgents could beat us on battlefield, but they are beating us in the streets.
We were not defeated militarily in Vietnam. We were defeated politically. The military in Vietnam was easily holding their own positions, regularly attacked the enemy in their territory, and bombed the enemy capital at will. Nearly every engagement of forces greater than patrol size went the way of the US. The people at home lacked the will to keep the fight going. The military situation in Iraq is even better. Casualties on the American side are much lower. In the end, if we lose the war, it will be because the politicians pull the troops out, not because they were defeated in any engagement. Using your boxing analogy, it is like one fighter winning every round 10-1 and then having his trainer throw in the towel because he doesn't like the mouse he sees under his fighter's eye.
so there shouldn't be a progress report or debate on the war? also, i see again that you want us to compare iraq to vietnam when its conveeeeeenient
You keep saying this, no doubt because you are desperately trying to convince yourself of its validity. If the best you can do is insult and blindly accuse, please go **** yourself, and save us all the trouble of having to hear this stupid ass argument over again.
Fears...fears...fears........ That is the one word that this crappy administration has used to prop itself up. We fear this...we fear that...... Well, the WORLD fears this administration and their lack of understanding the shades of gray the world works in..... DD
Perhaps "will" isn't the best term and "leadership" is better. A better leader wouldn't have gotten us into this in the first place and if they did would've executed it much much better.
The exact thing can be said of the Vietcong -- except that the forced us to leave in the end. Winner stays on the court.
link WASHINGTON — The terrorist network Al-Qaida will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the United States. The declassified key findings, to be released publicly today, were obtained in advance by The Associated Press. The report lays out a range of dangers — from al-Qaida to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim radical groups — that pose a "persistent and evolving threat" to the country over the next three years. As expected, however, the findings focus most of their attention on the gravest terror problem: Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. The report makes clear that al-Qaida in Iraq, which has not yet posed a direct threat to U.S. soil, could become a problem here. "Of note," the analysts said, "we assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland." The analysts also found that al-Qaida's association with its Iraqi affiliate helps the group to energize the broader Sunni Muslim extremist community, raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives — "including for homeland attacks." National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative written judgments of the 16 spy agencies across the breadth of the U.S. government. These agencies reflect the consensus long-term thinking of top intelligence analysts. Portions of the documents are occasionally declassified for public release. The White House brushed off critics who allege the administration released the intelligence estimate at the same time the Senate is debating Iraq. White House press secretary Tony Snow pushed back at the critics today, saying they are "engaged in a little selective hearing themselves to shape the story in their own political ways." "We don't keep it on the shelf and say 'Let's look for a convenient time,'" Snow said. "We're trying to remind people is that this is a real threat. This is not an attempt to divert. As a matter of fact ... we would much rather — one of the things we'd like to do is call attention to the successes in the field" in Iraq, he said. The new report echoed statements made by senior intelligence officials over the last year, including the assessment of spy agencies that the country is in a "heightened threat environment." It also provided new details on their thinking and concerns. For instance, the report says that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained al-Qaida's ability to attack the U.S. again and convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target. But, the report quickly adds, analysts are concerned "that this level of international cooperation may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge." Among the report's other findings: — Al-Qaida is likely to continue to focus on high-profile political, economic and infrastructure targets to cause mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, economic aftershocks and fear. "The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles." — The group has been able to restore key capabilities it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants and senior leaders. U.S. officials have warned publicly that a deal between the Pakistani government and tribal leaders allowed al-Qaida to plot and train more freely in parts of western Pakistan for the last 10 months. — The group will continue to seek weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological or nuclear material — and "would not hesitate to use them." — Lebanese Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group that has conducted anti-American attacks overseas, may be more likely to consider attacking here, especially if it believes the United States is directly threatening the group or its main sponsor, Iran. — Non-Muslim terrorist groups probably will attack here in the next several years, although on a smaller scale. The judgments don't name any specific groups, but the FBI often warns of violent environmental groups, such as Earth Liberation Front, and others. The publicly disclosed judgments, laid out over two pages, are part of a longer document, which remains classified. It was approved by the heads of all 16 intelligence agencies on June 21. In the last week, reports on this document and another threat assessment on al-Qaida's resurgence have renewed the debate in Washington about whether the Bush administration is on the right course in its war on terror, particularly in Iraq. The White House has used the reports as evidence that the country must continue to go after al-Qaida in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. But critics say the evolving threat is evidence of a policy gone wrong. The debate — and the underlying global problem — will not go away soon. The high-level estimate notes that the spread of radical ideas, especially on the Internet, growing anti-U.S. rhetoric and increasing numbers of radical cells throughout Western countries indicate the violent segments of the Muslim populations is expanding. "The arrest and prosecution by U.S. law enforcement of a small number of violent Islamic extremists inside the United States ... points to the possibility that others may become sufficiently radicalized that they will view the use of violence here as legitimate," the estimate said. "We assess that this internal Muslim terrorist threat is not likely to be as severe as it is in Europe, however."
Basso has been asked, numerous times, to discuss how he would define success. He continually refuses to, probably so that he can continue inane his statements. If the point of our operations is to get rid of insurgents and establish security, and the insurgents don't allow that, I don't see how you can say "we are winning, but the media is showing otherwise". However, if you don't define success, you can argue "we are winning" all you want since it has no meaning.
