Do not let the anti-war crowd fool you - we are winning in Iraq. Nothing done by humans is ever perfect, but we are not in the doom and gloom, woe are we scenario so many liberals, Democrats and anti-American folks put us in.
In support of this, the following are excerpts from an article that appeared in the New York Times written by two gentlemen from the Brookings Institute. Now, for those unfamiliar with this "think tank", the Brookings Institute is not known for being a conservative/Republican/right of center place. In fact, liberals love to cite the works produced by the folks at Brookings.
For the full story go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ex=1186632000&en=e819b4554a3e5fc9&ei=5070
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. They have been to Iraq before and have been very, very critical of the war there for a very long time.
THIS IS WHY WHAT THEY WRITE IS SO IMPRESSIVE AND IMPORTANT!
"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."
One step at a time - victory will come. Why? Because we are Americans and we can do practically anything we set our minds to.
"Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."
Like Lincoln with Grant, Bush had to find the right person to be in charge.
"In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship."
STOP THE PRESSES! Why haven't we heard more about this?
"In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab."
Hold on now - I thought these guys couldn't get along.
"In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor."
This is really great news!
Again - why is this not trumpeted through our media outlets? Someone might say that this is published in that bastion of liberalism - the New York Times - but where else have you heard or seen this in the mainstream press? Where have the follow up articles and TV special reports been?
"Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life."
Wow. From the way our "unbiased" media and "patriotic" Democrat politicians (and some linguine spined Republican ones) make it sound, this cannot possibly be true. Of course, the media and Democrat politicians have absolutely no agenda......nah, didn't think so.
"How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."
A fair conclusion, given from where these gentlemen are writing.
If this does not make you feel a bit more confident and more proud of the efforts of our military and civilian workers in Iraq - I'm not sure what will.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 55
To answer your question, Joe Leiberman comes to mind. He may be an Independent now but has spent a lifetime as a Democratic member. But, if that's not enough for you, why should anyone be behind the war in Iraq? It's not about Al Qaeda or the war on terror. It's about GWBs agenda and you know it. You are too smart not to see it.
As far as your idea of it's not about Al Queda... I give you a quote from Washington Post reporter David Ignatius from Chris Mathew's Hardball show:
"These struggles are different fronts of the same war. The notion that, you know, a defeat to the United States and its allies in Iraq is costless in terms of the larger war against Al-Qaeda, is just wrong. I mean, you know, bin Laden said again and again, the Americans are weak; if you hit 'em hard, they'll run away. They were hit hard in Beirut; they ran away. They were hit hard in Somalia; they ran away."
We have to fight our enemy over there so we won't have to fight them over here!
I am tired of hearing several Democrats, mind you I did not say all, that in the beginning supported this war, but during the course of the last few years there have been many who flipped over to the other side, because in their opinions/minds GWB was taking the wrong course in fighting the war in Iraq, this has turned out to be another Vietnam (far from it!), and on and on with the excuses.
I ask what Democratic leader has stepped up to the plate and took on the challenge of fighting Al-Qaeda??? It is one thing to support the what the troops are doing in Iraq, but a totally different story to actually step up to the plate and play hardball with the big dogs (in a matter of speaking).
Appreciate you post positive perspective on the war in Iraq Dale!
It is astonishing how some members of Congress have worked to undermine the war effort. Voting for it then actively working to ensure failure, pushing this "Lie" story and working against legislation to protect the country all the while catering and sucking up to the big money from the left and claiming some "moral" high ground. It's pathetic.
Stay safe.
You're right - it's pathetic how the "lie" is spread on how poorly we are doing in Iraq. Particularly by people who know the truth.
Yet the authors – and the New York Times – failed to tell readers the full story about these supposed skeptics: far from grizzled peaceniks, O'Hanlon and Pollack have been longtime cheerleaders for a larger U.S. military occupying force in Iraq.
Indeed, Pollack, a former CIA analyst, was a leading advocate for invading Iraq in the first place. He published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq in September 2002, just as the Bush administration was gearing up its marketing push for going to war.
British journalist Robert Fisk called Pollack's book the "most meretricious contribution to this utterly fraudulent [war] 'debate' in the United States." (Meretricious, by the way, refers to something that is based on pretense, deception or insincerity.)
Neocon 'Full Monte'
Pollack's influential book offered the "full monte" neoconservative vision for remaking the Middle East, with the Iraq invasion as only the first step in the transformation. Ousting Saddam Hussein "would sever the 'linkage' between the Iraq issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict," Pollack wrote. "It would remove an important source of anti-Americanism."
But Pollack was wrong in his predictions. If anything, the Iraq War has deepened Arab-Israeli animosities while enflaming the region's anti-Americanism.
Also, in Fisk's view, "Pollack's argument for war was breathtakingly amoral. War would be the right decision, it seemed, not because it was morally necessary but because we would win. War was now a viable and potentially successful policy option.
"It would free up Washington's 'foreign policy agenda,' presumably allowing it to invade another country or two where American vital interests would be discovered. [Pollack's] narrative – in essence an Israeli one – is quite simple: deprived of the support of one of the Arab world's most powerful nations, the Palestinians would be further weakened in their struggle against Israeli occupation." [See Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilization]
After the U.S. invasion of Iraq failed to locate the promised weapons of mass destruction – and a stubborn Iraqi insurgency emerged – Pollack offered an apology for his high-profile role in promoting the war.
In fall 2004, Pollack told an interviewer for the New York Times magazine, "I made a mistake based on faulty intelligence. Of course, I feel guilty about it. I feel awful. … I'm sorry; I'm sorry!" [NYT Magazine, Oct. 24, 2004]
But now Pollack – having re-positioned himself from war booster to war critic – can reinvent himself again as a grudging convert to the wisdom of Bush's war strategy, without either him or the Times editors alerting readers to this reverse metamorphosis.
This idea of a critic reluctantly admitting the wisdom of a neoconservative strategy has long been one of the neocons' favorite propaganda tactics dating back to the Cold War days of the 1980s.
Thanks for a good article.
There are many players in this war in Iraq. Al Qaeda is a small part of the problem. Al Qaeda is making their comeback through the Taliban in Afghanistan but our resources are stretched too thin to do something about it. If the surge is working - great. It's unlikely that the Iraqi government will form a cohesive and effective unit to take over. That is winning. Perhaps, the best we can hope for is a three state solution with a limited central government. The Kurds are doing fairly well - which is good news. The Sunni and Shia factions are not doing so well. Time will tell but it is a little too soon to tell about the effectiveness of the 20,000 surge. Even GWB said that we won't know until sometime in September.
I agree, however the news is nonetheless encouraging.
"It's unlikely that the Iraqi government will form a cohesive and effective unit to take over"
Maybe, or maybe not. However, at least the surge will give the government some breathing room. One problem is that the Shiites believe if we leave that they will win. This is one reason why the Shia's have been unaccommodating with the Sunni's. Hopefully this will change.
"Because we are Americans and we can do practically anything we set our minds to."
I agree with the above statement, but that doesn't mean we can do whatever we *want* to. We are not above the law of the land. We found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We think it is alright to say oops we bad, we goofed, we were wrong but hey we can do what we want. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
We haven't won anything when we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them. Winning would be supporting our troops by bringing them home.
I rated this a 10 because I appreciate you pointing me to the article. Because I am glad to hear good news about a war we shouldn't have been fighting in the first place. Since our soldiers are fighting and dying over there, good news is good news. I can't support the war but do support our troops.
Benjamin Franklin once said; "Those who give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Our supposed fight on terrorism has done just that.
We are making progress militarily, and we are crushing resistance to our occupation.
NOW, is the progress toward conquest of Iraq ethically and morally supportable?
Do you actually think we have a right to CONQUER Iraq? Are we winning a war of conquest by KILLING all the opposition to our conquest?
What are we doing to ourselves in the process? Will we have to go on a world conquest binge to keep feeling "good" about ourselves?
Just exactly what are we winning? A war we started? A just and lasting Peace in the Middle east? Or are we winning a land base for expanding our conquest of Arabia and Persia? What is the objective? Do you or for that matter I know? If we go to the Bush Doctrine, given to Congress on September 22, 2002, we find that his objective is "Domination of the world economic and political systems." A new world order, with the USA dictating political and economic policy throughout.
Is that what you want to win?
"show me some Democrat leaders who are really supporting what we are doing in Iraq and the war on terror."
In reality, there are few politicians of either side who're either willing to continue supporting permanent failure in Iraq OR make the absurd leap that it has anything whatsoever to do with a "war on terror," let alone the fact that there IS no "war on terror." The jig is up, and has been for a long, long time. Time for you to start waking up, Dale. The majority of the nation has. Why are you so slow?
"We have to fight our enemy over there so we won't have to fight them over here!"
This is 100% pure bullshit. Tell me, why has England suffered terrorist attacks since they joined us on our illegal occupation adventure in Iraq, if your laughable statement is true, and what specifically is it about us fighting an entirely different "al Qaeda" in Iraq (the real al Qaeda is being sheltered and is growing significantly in Pakistan) (and the pseudo-al Qaeda in Iraq represents a TINY portion of the overall violence there, btw) that is preventing the REAL al Qaeda from hitting us here again?
Is it the fact that we've left our borders wide open that prevents al Qaeda from using them to pour through, along with 3,000 illegals every day? Where is the logic in that downright stupid statement that you people keep regurgitating ad nauseum? There simply isn't any. You just like to parrot it around, because it makes you feel better, for some stupid reason.
"I ask what Democratic leader has stepped up to the plate and took on the challenge of fighting Al-Qaeda???"
Excuse me, clueless, but Clinton held multiple cabinet level meetings every single week, in order to specifically discuss al Qaeda and the threat of global terrorism. And there's not a single democrat today who did not support rooting al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and destroying them. Unfortunately, Bush decided to root them out and let them escape into Pakistan, while he focused his attentions on a country that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11.
Once again, like mindless little robots, the foolish little republitards are proving how gullible they are, by swallowing every tainted word of yet another fluffy propaganda piece from yet another propagandist. You people are so damned predictable. No wonder Rove can manipulate you so easily. You don't think for yourselves, you just cling to anything that even remotely bolsters your opinion, and cast all else aside. Very stupid.
Here's a question for you permanent cheerleaders of failed policy:
How long are you going to keep cheering on disaster, and the endless needless deaths and maimings of US soldiers and Iraqi citizens? Is there a point, at say 58,000 dead Americans, per chance, where you'll FINALLY admit "you know...maybe we should get out of there now?"
How many dead Americans and Iraqis will satisfy you people?
Clark,
The problem is we are stuck. I will take any good news that is thrown my way. You posted an article awhile back which was similar to Biden's plan to split the country up along ethnic lines. Good solution. However no one is proposing it except Biden. Unfortunately, he has no chance of winning the Democratic primary. Due to the oil reserves and our vital interest in the region we most likely will in Iraq a long time. We now have a Democratically controlled House and Senate and nothing has changed in Iraq. Although they did have that sleep over in the House (an alleged all night debate) I suspect the same thing will happen if a Democrat presidential candidate wins.
Oh, by the way, having a college degree is not a guarantee the person has any common sense. Some of the stupidest people I've ever known possessed Phd's.
Always enjoy reading your opinions and comments! I have seen approximately the same thing on the evening news as what you have given here and to the extent that the "surge" is "working" I will applaud the effort. I applaud the effort of you and any other service personnel in this mess.
While it is my understanding that Al Queda is being beaten back by the Sunni and Shiite personnel, and rightly so. However, there were a lot more Al Queda there than there were before the war started so I'm not sure how much headway that is. Bottom line, we are in greater danger than before the Iraq invasion!
We won the war a month after it started. I cannot call what is going on there now a "war" as it does not meet that criteria. Al Queda can and will attack us in this country in the future regardless of what we do over there. But how many of them there are is tied to our actions over there.
I totally supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan because the cause was moral, ethical and justified. I felt the Iraq war was a tragic mistake as it made me for the first time in my life, ashamed of my country's actions.
And finally, regardless of what success we may have in beating back Al Queda, they are a movement without a country and will never be "beaten" or offer any surrender and agree to change their ways. So there is no way for us to "win" over an ideology. I don't expect that from our troops. It is asking too much.
If we get a government established there it will never have legitimacy in the minds of the civilians. And within six months after we leave there it will be gone with much bloodshed and sectarian violence. Saddam held them together by pure devastating force. Without that force you have anarchy and violence until someone comes out on top.
We went in on multiple lies and without a moral objective and it will not result in what was ostensibly intended.
I wish all the troops well and hope they can come home before another death occurs. They have done a remarkable job. My thanks to you and the other service people for their effort!
Winning the war is not defined here as a classic win where. It is critical that a level of stablity be established before we walk away, or it will happen again. We all know that in our hearts, but no one wants to acknowledge it.
Lastly, I find it interesting that with every other president, the press referred to him as "Mr. President", yet this president is referred to as "Mr. Bush." This is a clear indication by the press that there is a lack of respect. In my opinion, that lack or respect is indicative of an unwillingness of most of the press to print anything positive about him. In my opinion, we no longer have unbiased reporting relating to our President or foreign policy.
I don't necessarily agree with everything President Bush does, but at least I still refer to him as President.
Even though Biden seems to be the only one championing the divisioning of the country, I have a feeling others will eventually join that school of thought if it becomes evident that it can't work any other way.
After reading the comments, I believe Ron very effectively stripped the cloak off the credibility problem that, as a result, now seems apparent with respect to the motives of the authors cited here..... and with a nice assist from Devin....
Anyway I read your article and all of the responses... I think we need to go to Pakistan and wipe out the Bin Laden and company while... we work on the Iraqi government to learn how to keep the rebellions at a minimum. It will never be like it is here nor did anyone expect that it would be, however, it can work with training and time and once the people feel free to walk the streets and go to the market without fear of being bombed life will get better.
Dale again, welcome home. I have heard nothing but wonderful things about Petraeus from the Marines coming back from Iraq. Many have volunteered to go back because they feel the small successes and they feel pride the people of Iraq love the Americans for coming regardless of what the media prints.
I am appalled when I hear Clinton supporters talk about the "meetings that Clinton had to discuss getting rid of al Qaeda but HE DID NOTHING but talk! Where is the leadership or effectiveness in that? Clark Kent talks about being predictable and thinking for oneself -how about trying it FIRST?
This so-called surge was done, according to Mr. Bush, to give the Iraqi government some breathing room in order for them to do the hard work of reconciliation, rewriting the constitution, and negotiating revenue sharing. Would you like to guess how much of that got done? Would you like to guess where the Iraqi government is while our troops continue to die?
Even Petraeus has said that without political will and political action by the Iraqi government, all the success in the world on the ground with our soldiers will make any difference. Our guys and gals are dying over there while the government sits around the pool sipping tea on vacation.
They have, by their own admission, made absolutely no progress on the tough issues. We have more or less been told by the Al-Maliki government that we're not needed over there now, so why don't we leave?
The fact that this report along with the other positive news that comes out of Iraq and Afghanistan is not trumpeted by the media shows their bias against any good news for the US (read Bush). Just compare the coverage this report has had versus Abu Graib (sp?).
If you want to see more positive news on the war - go to the group Positive War News at www.positivenews.gather.com.
Being in the military and getting ready for depoloyment, I am well aware of the good, the bad and the ugly of what's happening over there. This is not a quagmire and will not be if we keep focused. Bush has kept that focus (unlike immigration) and has an excellent General in charge now.
The quagmire will only come if we lose our focus and try to be "nice" to everyone over there.
The disaster will come if we put our tail between our legs and slink home without defeating our enemies.
If that happens - they will come after us over here. Anyone care to argue this last point?
I wish I could share all the pictures and all of the stories from the Marines who have gladly risked their lives for the people of Iraq. They have water problems, they have electricity problems, they have daily fear to live with. Sometimes they have shootings in front of their faces.
Look at the life we have here. How did we get this? It wasn't because we did not have to fight for it, band together and work out a system of government. This is exactly what the Iraqi government is trying to do.
I firmly believe if we could get Iran to stop interfering this would be over soon. I still do not understand why Congress isn't looking at the big picture and only trying to defame our way of government.
That said, most reports I have been able to find are positive. Interesting to see that in the House, the majority whip admitted this could constitute a political problem for the Democrats if it continues.
Some of us think that we need, once again, to get back to a nation governed by it's citizens instead of a ruling class!
I do appreciate your view point as someone who has been there regardless of differing conclusions.
Did I say that? You're trying to think for me. But to start with we are in no danger of having a "liberal" government in the upcoming election. Probably never. But it's apparent to me that a hide bound neo-con government is not going to change things for the better either! Do you want four more years like the last seven? I sure don't! For the record, I'm a middle of the road type person and an independent and I don't want extremes of any ideology thrust upon our nation as has been under the shrub.
Perhaps, that's because they're sick and tired of him spewing utter lies every time they ask him a question or he addresses them. The man has earned nothing but contempt from anyone who truly loves this country, and who has any concern for the rule of law. It's about GD time the press core start to treat him with the respect he's earned. None. They need to start calling him "Mr. Lying-sack-of-shit."
"
I am appalled when I hear Clinton supporters talk about the "meetings that Clinton had to discuss getting rid of al Qaeda but HE DID NOTHING but talk!"
More unadulterated bullshit from the bush worshipping cult. Those of us who actually have working minds, can quite clearly recall how the republiCONs in CONgress vilified and attacked him every time he attempted to take Bin Laden out. That said, Clinton was at least man enough to admit that he failed to take him down. Bush not only has never admitted a failure, but has simply brushed aside Bin Laden as being completely unimportant.
And, isn't it interesting now, that the clinton haters, who rail against Clinton for failing to capture bin Laden, have no problem whatsoever with the fact that cheerleader Georgie has done NOTHING to even TRY to bring him to justice, and just "can't be concerned with him anymore," according to the fraud's own mouth.
Meanwhile, the FBI has never wanted Bin Laden in connection with 9/11. Despite what the MSM and the fraudulent, dishonest white house says, Bin Laden is NOT the "mastermind of 9/11," according to the FBI.
Btw, where is that darned anthrax killer, and why did he only target democrats? The anthrax was reportedly an extremely refined product with a remarkably sophisticated ionization characteristic to it that made it carry very far when airborne. It was military grade anthrax, and oh, btw, was reportedly produced by the US military. Only 100 scientists in the world were known to have any access to it, yet the "great Bush enforcer/decider/commander guy" has been utterly helpless to bring him to justice. I wonder why?
Dale, glad to see you're back. Sad to see you're still delusional. We never belonged in Iraq, and nothing good will ever come from us being there. This will go down as the greatest failure of policy in US history, and may rank near the top in world history as well. The best thing that could happen at this point would be for us to get the hell out of there, and to encourage neighboring nations and the UN to take over. There is nothing that we can do there, except offer our soldiers as targets.
Actually, I've been arguing this ever since the moment I first heard the idiotic talking point. Not once has a single delusional bubble person been able to explain this talking point in a rational manner, for some odd reason.
They cannot explain what our ignoring the REAL al Qaeda and allowing them to grow stronger in Pakistan has kept them from attacking us here.
They cannot explain why the al Qaeda in Iraq is different from the REAL al Qaeda, and how it really has nothing whatsoever to do with bin Laden, except that they adore the fellow, seemingly as much as Bush does, if not perhaps even more.
They cannot explain how leaving our borders wide open and allowing 3,000 illegal aliens to pour through every day, while we're focused on a nation that did nothing to us and posed no threat to us, is "keeping them from coming over here."
And, they cannot explain why Spain was attacked when they were "fighting them over there," and when they pulled out of Iraq, al Qaeda did not follow them home to attack them, nor can they explain why England, which as been with us since day one, has been attacked, even though they're "fighting them over there, so they won't have to fight them here."
Not a single delusional bubble person has been able to step to the plate and explain these facts away, and explain how their idiotic talking point mantra of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" makes any sense whatsoever.
That's the beautify of being a delusional bubble person, I guess. You can just carry around these dumb, illogical, pointless talking points, and pretend that they're real, and that they have real meaning. They're very powerful, because whenever somebody brings up some reality, you can just hoist up your favorite wing nut talking point, and brush that nasty reality aside.
You people need to stop being such tools.
Is bushism an actual "cult" ?
Don't ever gather together and drink kool-aid with him..............................................
Michael O'Hanlon: San Diego Union-Tribune OP-ED Iraq: A Mixture of Good News and Bad Oct 5, 2003.
Wait a minute!? Was that what the problem was? Our case wasn't convincing enough? Look into it. The case was very compelling. There were satellite photos, and mobile WMD labs (!?) built to stay two steps ahead of the UN Weapons Inspecters. Colin Powell was very effective in stating the case. The problem was that case was ENTIRELY FALSE. And we're supposed to believe this guys opinion who looks like he got his figures directly from the US Army PR Dept and is parroting the little triumphs he's fed all the while ignoring the reality of why we are there just blaming our position on simple mishandling?
From same article:
Wow that sure was reassuring at the time wasn't it?
As for this new article:
His version of a harsh critic of the Bush Administration is misleading because he considers himself a harsh critic as well. He's just an AmeriCAN doggonit! Not an AmeriCAN'T. Interesting choice of word though:
Tell that to the ones who will DIE with it.
OK, lets get the article of surrender drawn up. Now, who is going to sign them for the enemy?
...and cutting taxes on millionaires while drastically increasing debt spending = balanced budget, the nation is a "Christian nation," Bush is a "good, Christian man," only republicans can provide national security, we're "winning" the war on terror," the check's in the mail, and there really is an Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
This article reminds me so much of the press releases that we got for many years from the Johnson Administration, and then for several more years from the Nixon Administration, telling the American public about how well we were doing in the War in Viet Nam.
On May 2, 2003, President Bush dressed up in a pilot uniform, walked out onto the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, and announced, "Mission accomplished!"
How does the United States government define "victory" in Iraq? Or "success"?
We are not winning the war; not even close. I have been in contact with Iraqis who have lived through it, and are still living through it, and it is anything but what I would call "winning." You cannot possibly win a war on a noun. Look how badly we are doing in the wars on "poverty" and "drugs;" a war on "terrorism" will never work, especially when you consider that this war has nothing at all to do with terrorism.
God Bless Brother.