There have been quite a few 'news articles' recently regarding the home front. The first one was about how the 'protest movement' wasn't as active as it was in Vietnam. The second article was about memorials for fallen soldiers. In that article they failed to make the distinction between memorials that truly attempt to honor soldiers and the 'peace memorials' that attempt to make a political statement. Today, I saw an article that, once again, seemed to be complaining about the fact that most Americans are not directly affected by the war in Iraq. There seems to be quite a bit of nostalgia held by the media and by the protest movement for the good old days of Vietnam. Look through the political cartoons on Yahoo and you will probably catch at least one Nixon reference.

I think that you are already seeing the Democrats move on the issue given their proposal for a "secret" schedule of surrender.

this concept of "losing" the war is interesting. let's say the surge works. not that it is working incrementaly...let's say it flat out works. the civil warriors lay down their arms. baghdad is stable. we can start to safely draw down troops in a rational manner. does that mean we have "won" as those of you who see foreign policy as a football game like to say? let's check the score...al queda will be able to operate in iraq at a much higher level than they ever could before. in fact we will need permanent bases there to keep al-queda in check. afghanistan will still be a country where the taliban is on the comeback. iran will have far more influence than they had before. we will be no closer to annihilating the religious extremists who...and i love it when fear-mongers say this...WANT TO KILL US. we will have propped up an extremely weak, extremely corrupt government. sorry folks...this is a no-win situation.

It will be intersting to see if this change in the Pew poll of those who think the war is going "very well" or "fairly well" continues to grow as more soldiers enter Iraq, and if the number of those who think the war is going "not too well" or "nor well at all" drops further. This, of course, will be dictated largely by how the war progresses on the ground.

Yes, that will be interesting.

However, will you still be interested if the surge has the same results as all the past surges, and public support of the war continues to decline? Something tells me you won't.

The problem with your view is you actually believe the reports for those who have a self-interest in putting out "good" news (spin).

As for "winning the war," which war? The Iraq civil war or the "War on Terror?" No matter what Bush pushes they are NOT the same.

The "War on Terror" is centered in Afghanistan, not in the "al Qaida Recruiting Center" Bush has made of Iraq.

Iraq is a civil war and we should not be there, and WE will not "win" any war there. If we want to actually win a war it has to be in Afghanistan.

Jay, I don't think Iraq will become the Al Qaeda haven you think it will be. There seems to be quite a bit of Red on Red going on.

bohica22...what on earth is going to stop it?

The problem with your view is you actually believe the reports for those who have a self-interest in putting out "good" news (spin).

Hmmm... a lot was said in that one little sentence.

Technomage, is his wisdom, apparently think that I should perhaps trust those who have a self interest in putting out "bad" news? Presumably, he gets his news directly from insurgent videos posted to Youtube, and accepts no substitutes.

I've got a slightly more divergent reading list.

I read the feeds of the major wire services and newspapers, talk directly (rarely by phone, mostly via email) with non-combatant actors in the war zone, usually at least once a week, and get, in digest form, English-language transcriptions of Iraqi radio, television and newspapers every now and again when my source can provide it. Mostly, these people have a self-interest in describing reality as accurately as they perceive it.

As for Technomage's other talking points... well, he says exactly what I'd expect he would, considering that he admits he refuses to believe anything good in Iraq can be possible.

For Technomage and others like him here and elsewhere, continuing to believe what he has already determined to be the truth is by far the most important thing. Simply put, losing has become a matter of faith for him and others like him, and anyone who is willing to consider the good along with the bad is a heretic.

It doesn't make these folks bad people, but when someone immediately states up front he is unwilling to consider any point other than those that support his predetermined outcome, I find it rather difficult to take him, or others like him, very seriously.

i know losing is a rnc talking point. i want to know what we are "winning". at best after 4+ years it's a wash. saddams out. irans in. al queda is in. so what have we accomplished?

"what on earth is going to stop it?"
The Iraqis themselves will stop it. They are just now beginning to realize how one-sided their 'relationship' with Al Qaeda has become. Iraqis don't want Iraq to become another Afganistan. Hell, the Afganis didn't want Afganistan to be another Afganistan. That's why the Taliban collapsed so quickly. Turns out life in the Fundimental Islamic State is really crappy, and when offered an alternative, they go for it. Sometime it takes a little push or a little time, but eventually people learn that when terrorists run your country, it eventually turns to sh!t. Check out Gaza these days if you don't believe me.

Losing is a RNC talking point? It's an interesting alternate reality you inhabit. The rest of us see Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid, etc leading the charge to establish arbitrary withdrawal deadlines, not anyone else.

It was liberal anti-war protestors that burned an American solier in effigy last week and defecated on the American flag.

Losing is beyond a talking point for Democrats. Losing the Iraq war is now an article of faith.

Liberals see this as a Republican War, not an American one, and in the warped "reality-based" world you inhabit, you've convinced yourselves that an American loss is a Republican loss and a Democratic victory. You hate our President so much that you've chosen to side against your own country. You should be ashamed.

In four years, what have we accomplished?

We've killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, Saddam's spawn that were, according to many, even more brutal and sadistic than even their father. This presumably saved a future gneration or two of Iraqs from an even more bloodthirsty dictator. Their father, Saddam Hussein, saw his dictatorship overthrown, and free elections held not once, but twice, to establish a representative government in a land where no one living had ever experienced one. It is struggling, floundering and corrupt in spots, but making progress.

Saddam, a brutal dictator that financed terror, provided sanctuary to such noted terrorists as Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and Abdul Rahmin Yasin (the man who built the cyanide-laced bomb used to attack the World Trade Center in 1993), started two wars than led to more than a million deaths, paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers and ordered the torture and assassination of an unknown number of his fellow Iraqis, was tried by a court system operating from a new and free constitution, judged guilty, and put to death.

As a direct result of our attack on Iraq, Lybia gave up a WMD program (including a fledging nuclear program) and the long-range missiles it was developing to carry them.

As for the actual war itself, you seem to be sleeping though the news today.

al Qaeda is under attack on all sides, including from their former Sunni insurgent allies who are now increasingly of the opinion that the only good member of al Qaeda is a dead member of al Qaeda. The suicide bombings in Tal Afar today are a direct result of al Qaeda turning on their former insurgent allies, who are now in negotiations with the Iraqi goverment, while joining the IA and IP by the hundreds. al Qaeda, already decimated, has been forced to join up with other groups, and there it some expectation that with the current rate of attrition, the simply will not survive the next year in Iraq, with Sunni, Shiite, and Americans all gunning for them. A major car bomb cell cell that has killed up to 900 was destroyed today. That's progress.

The Shia militias which became a threat thanks to Iran, are without their leader al Sadr, who fled the country for Tehran over a month ago, and Coalition forces are talking with the "good" JAM to fill the power vacuum with pro-Iraqi sentiment, jobs and public works. Iran has had more than 300 of their network in Iraq rolled up in the past weeks alone. EFP attacks are way down. There are signs of progress in Iraq, because the average Iraqi doesn't want war.

The biggest threat to these Iraqis aren't the terrorists that Iraqis themselves are increasingly hunting or turning in, but American Democrats determined to lose the war to score a political "victory" against a President that they hate more than they love the concept of liberty.

first...it's not a republican war...it's bushs war. and the idea that dems want to lose it is a rnc talking point you love to parrot.
second...libya gave up these weapons as a direct result of us attacking iraq? check your facts. i know that's what bush wanted you to think. it's not the way it was.
third...in todays news al-queda is being driven from iraq. if that is true, then they will be driven from a place they weren't in before we got there.
fourth...you last graph is just a delusional rant.
finally...look...alot of what you list is exagerated, a lot is wishful thinking, and a lot of it doesn't really matter to the safety of the u.s. i stand by my statement...after four years this thing is basically a wash. there is no winning at this point. i know thats disappointing for those rooting for your favorite team...but that's the reality of it.

i want to be really clear...there's no winning and there's no losing...everyone is so wrapped up in this partisan pissing match. at this point iraq is what it is...maybe it gets a little more stable. maybe it doesn't. how much blood and treasure do you want to throw at it? we have spent trillions of dollars when you look at the long term implications of this thing. what analysis justifies the expenditure. and al queda is right out there...still.

how much blood and treasure do you want to throw at it?

I'll refer you to JFK's inaugural speech for the answer.

Jay, you hit the nail on the head. This isn't about winning or losing to those of us who are simply concerned with issues like war, peace and regional stability.

However, that has never been a GOP concern. They wanted a "win" so that they could continue to invade and conquer other Middle Eastern countries. This is spelled out very clearly in the Project for a New American Century.

(As an aside, the PNAC's primary objective has always been 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. That objective is still in no danger.)

Now that even the most delusional republicans are realizing that their war is lost (inasmuch as there will not be any endzone dances and fists in the air), the most important thing for them now is to not declare the war to be a lost cause before Jan 20, 2008. They desperately need a democrat to blame for all this, so they can avoid a painful moment of self-reflection.

To the republicans here: Iraq will be a disaster for a long time to come, regardless of whether you call win, lose or draw. The cause of that disaster will continue to be the US occupation. The cause of that occupation will continue to be the hubris of the Bush Administration. No amount of time is going to change those facts, only how you're able to spin them.

I'll refer you to JFK's inaugural speech for the answer.

So, Purple Avenger, how much have you done for your country? Typing up rants and cheering on unnecessary wars does not count.

c'mon, paul--go easy on 'em. these are the guys who shout to the rooftops that this is WWIII or an existential clash of civilizations but scurry away muttering excuses every time the army recruiters drive by. if they won't be tempted to get out from behind their computers in suburbia and rush to the front lines in this mammoth, manichaean struggle with islamo_____ (you fill in the blank) after something like 9-11, what are you expecting of them?

so let them blast libruls for "hat[ing] our President so much that [they]'ve chosen to side against [their] own country [and] should be ashamed" (if they're so afraid of The Surge collapsing, and with it the West, why aren't they enlisting?)--just don't be expecting any of them to pull a pat tillman any time soon.

Sorry:
not declare the war to be a lost cause before Jan 20, 2008.

Should be:
not declare the war to be a lost cause before Jan 20, 2009.

The Sunni and the Shia will never reconcile. It's too late. What evidence is there that they will? None.

The surge is not going to change this fact. The Shia militias and their Iranian backers control the interior ministry and domestic security forces. The Sunnis do not trust them and never will. Nothing America does in Iraq will change this fact. Only partition or civil war will change this fact.

The surge will not and cannot disarm the Shia militias. The surge will not and cannot end the emnity between Sunni and Shia. The surge will not and cannot end the supply of arms and money to the Sunni guerillas.

The Sunni and the Shia will simply wait until we leave. And then they will kill each other. And don't even get me started about the impending war for Kirkuk.

The American political right is simply incapable of understanding these dynamics. But then, they are the same people who thought Iraq would be a cakewalk and we would be greeted as liberators. They are the same ones who thought we would be down to 30,000 troops in country by 12/2003. They are the same ones who said Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war.

American troops should not die in order for an Iranian backed regime to take over Iraq.

Bush planned to lose this war and he has lost it.

"As an aside, the PNAC's primary objective has always been 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. That objective is still in no danger."

The PNAC? What are you, a frigging truther? The PNAC does talk about a permament military presence in the region, but they have never mentioned permament bases in Iraq, much less 14. The point is moot as we ALREADY have permament bases in Kuwait, Bahrian and Qatar. They actually like us in those countries so why in the world would we want bases where people hate us? Also, a little logistical lession, Iraq is esentially landlocked except for one small unimproved port, Umm Qasr. Meanwhile Kuwait, Bahrian, Qatar and the UAE all have deep water ports capable of taking on the largest of our transport ships.

"If definitive progress is made in coming months..."

If....

You guys have been saying "if" for over four years now.

If cows could fly, we'd all have to wear hardhats.

ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant.

Et maiores vestros et posteros cogitate, geordie.

I do, Confederate Yankee. That's why I am afraid.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791

The PNAC? What are you, a frigging truther?

I'm not a part of that 9/11 Truth Movement, no. However, I do value the truth, which certainly distinguishes me from you.

The point is moot as we ALREADY have permament bases in Kuwait, Bahrian and Qatar. They actually like us in those countries so why in the world would we want bases where people hate us?

Ask Bush.
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

Also, a little logistical lession, Iraq is esentially landlocked except for one small unimproved port, Umm Qasr. Meanwhile Kuwait, Bahrian, Qatar and the UAE all have deep water ports capable of taking on the largest of our transport ships.

Yes, but transport what? How about transporting the world's 2nd largest oil reserves? As the oil industry is well aware, peak oil will occur eventually if it hasn't already. That is expected to cause drastic disruption to the global economy. Who will rise to the top? How about the country that has 14 permanent military bases conveniently located near the oil wells?

Do you ever wonder why, when the Iraq war appears to be a failure on just about every level, that Bush and Cheney still appear optimistic? Could it be that they are trying to achieve different goals from the ones that they stated at the outset (all of which have either failed or were unnecessary)?

Yeah, the surge is really working! That's why the US Embassy just ordered all its workers to wear flak jackets whenever they leave the embassy (which is in the Green Zone, supposedly the safest place!--where rockets are raining down daily!) And as for Shia-Sunni cooperation, how about that massacre of Sunnis yesterday when Shia POLICE went berserk and exacted revenge on Sunni civilians--yeah, that's really worth losing American soldiers for! After all, Bush is getting the good news from two DENTISTS for God sake who probably get dictation from Karen Hughes--why don't he and McCain walk hand in hand through Baghdad--since it's so safe and all.