The half-won, half-lost war

[red states rule]

Depsite what the left and liberal media would have you believe, progress has been made in Iraq

There is still alot to do in Iraq, but the US is winning the fight


The half-won, half-lost war
By Victor Davis Hanson
May 3, 2008

The gloomy election-year refrain is that America is mired in Iraq, took its eye off Afghanistan, empowered Iran and is losing the war on terror. But how accurate is that pessimistic diagnosis?

First, the good news. For all the talk of a recent Tet-like offensive in Basra, the Mahdi Army of radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr suffered an ignominious setback when his gunmen were routed from their enclaves.

This rout helped the constitutional — and Shi'ite-dominated — government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki renew its authority, and has encouraged Sunnis to re-enter government. Two great threats to Iraqi autonomy — Iranian-backed Shi'ite militiamen and Sunni-supported al-Qaeda terrorists — have both now been repulsed by an elected government and its supporters.

Our armed forces are stretched, but Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and his colonels are quietly transforming a top-heavy conventional colossus into more mobile counterinsurgency forces.

Gen. Petraeus' recent nomination to CentCom commander suggests that, like the growing influence of Gens. U.S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman in 1863, or of George Marshall when he reconfigured the Army in 1940, we at last are beginning to get the right officers in the right places at the right time.


for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...012/commentary

[April15]

Half won or half lost, the war should never have been engaged!

[red states rule]

Half won or half lost, the war should never have been engaged!

Ah, another voice from the surrender and appeasement crowd

[Pale Rider]

Half won or half lost, the war should never have been engaged!

I agree.

[red states rule]

I agree.

Well as we have in the past Pale, we agree to disagree

I for one am vey happy over the succeses our troops are making, and how many terrorists have gone on to meet Allah

[Pale Rider]

Well as we have in the past Pale, we agree to disagree

I for one am vey happy over the succeses our troops are making, and how many terrorists have gone on to meet Allah

Yes... we do agree to disagree. Not only is it unconstitutional, but when all the multinational support pulled out, so should we have.

bush lied when he said, "no nation building." This whole Iraq fiasco is all for bush's big oil buddies.

[red states rule]

Yes... we do agree to disagree. Not only is it unconstitutional, but when all the multinational support pulled out, so should we have.

bush lied when he said, "no nation building." This whole Iraq fiasco is all for bush's big oil buddies.

Well Pale, 9-11 xhaged all the rules of the game. I am no problem with the US hunting down terrorists, and going after them in their back yard.

While I would rather see Iraq paying their expenses out of their oil revenue, I do not want the US to leave until Iraq is ready to stand on her own

Iran is hoping we leave early, so Little Adolph can step in and take over

Pale you are way to smart to think this war was for oil

[Pale Rider]

Well Pale, 9-11 xhaged all the rules of the game. I am no problem with the US hunting down terrorists, and going after them in their back yard.

While I would rather see Iraq paying their expenses out of their oil revenue, I do not want the US to leave until Iraq is ready to stand on her own

Iran is hoping we leave early, so Little Adolph can step in and take over

Pale you are way to smart to think this war was for oil

This war is for oil.

But, I'm all for hunting down the terrorist and kicking butt. I'm just not for us spending my tax dollars for occupying and nation building in another country. The President alone does not have the authority to declare war. It's unconstitutional, illegal. This war is bleeding our economy. It's wearing out our equipment and troops and it's not being replaced. We can't keep this up. We need to back up and regroup. A new strategy is needed, and I say it should be one of shock and awe or nothing. We either fight like devils on crack, or not at all. This occupying, nation building and playing mamby, pamby patty cake games with insurgents, terrorists, whatever you want to call them is bull shit. WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING THAT! Just wait brother... it's going to get worse before it gets better... top military advisers have been warning for a couple YEARS now that our military is worn out. Equipment is busted, troops are worn out, and the cost of the war is already in the YOU'VE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME amounts... so tell me... what are we going to do... what do we do when we run out of equipment? What do we do when we run out of troops? Draft? What do we do?

[gabosaurus]

RSR, why do you continually quote The Moonie Times? It's not exactly an objective source.

But there is logic to the "half and half" argument. Take, for example, when the subject of war casualties are brought up in the media and other such conversations.
The thinking side (Dems and such) come out with "we need to find a way to stop the carnage.
The braindead side (RSR and his conservative ilk) come out with "hey hey, he sure did blew up good!"

[April15]

Ah, another voice from the surrender and appeasement crowd

Take your mantra of cut and run or surrender and appease and place it firmly between your buttocks where it emanated from! Rove has pulled many an idea from that orifice and they all stink. If your hand is in the cookie jar it is not appeasement or surrender to admit you were wrong. But apparently by your misuse of logic it is!
This nation should not be involved with Iraq!

[red states rule]

RSR, why do you continually quote The Moonie Times? It's not exactly an objective source.

But there is logic to the "half and half" argument. Take, for example, when the subject of war casualties are brought up in the media and other such conversations.
The thinking side (Dems and such) come out with "we need to find a way to stop the carnage.
The braindead side (RSR and his conservative ilk) come out with "hey hey, he sure did blew up good!"

Dems are for surredner and appeasement. They want to offer understanding and therapy to the terrorists

Republicans (for the most part) see the threat and will either capture or kill the terrorists

Libs like Gabby are happy to bend over, and grab the ankles as a gesture of friendship to the terrorists

[mundame]

Republicans (for the most part) see the threat and will either capture or kill the terrorists

Or lose the war. So far all they've done is lose the war. Two of them, in fact. That's why I'm no longer a Republican.

[red states rule]

Or lose the war. So far all they've done is lose the war. Two of them, in fact. That's why I'm no longer a Republican.

Considering you ignore all the positive news, no wonder you have the fantasy the terrorists have won

[mundame]

Considering you ignore all the positive news

There never is any positive news that last more than three months. Look at the current upsurge in violence in Iraq now.

And Afghanistan is going down the tubes.


In general, I will not support a party that gets us into lots of wars ------------- and loses them all.

And I'm in the majority on that issue.

[red states rule]

There never is any positive news that last more than three months. Look at the current upsurge in violence in Iraq now.

And Afghanistan is going down the tubes.


In general, I will not support a party that gets us into lots of wars ------------- and loses them all.

And I'm in the majority on that issue.

Bull

I have posted artcile from the NY tImes, and other liberal papers, and you dismissed them as "propaganda"

I can't force you to read and learn - you choose to remain ignorant on the facts and swallow the surrender talking points