Democrat Senate seats are Harry Reid's pieces of silver.

Man, I cant stand Harry Reid. How can he claim he knows what going on in Iraq while skipping meetings the good General. He's saying the war is lost becuase it will get him some more seats in the next election. He's got the poll numbers to prove it and they are very exciting from what I hear.

yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or at least the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP's voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA's. it sucks that iraqi's have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say "hey thats not nice" again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time

Theres a good soldier doing his duty and telling it without politics, but with PATRIOTISM. Maybe the American people should listen to him and others like him instead of Anti-war Liberals. Its like asking France to plan a Fourth of July parade.

I think we should insist that turn tail harry is hounded from the Senate. He is obviously a liar and a coward. He is truely the leader of the Democrats.

In 2005 we were also hearing that we were "winning" and that things were "getting better." Can you blame normal people for believing the facts, as opposed to the statements of people like Krauthammer who have been consistently wrong on national security? Or Petraeus, a good soldier whose job it is to carry out Bush's stupid plan? (That's nothing against Petraeus; as a general, he has to carry out Bush's plan, and should. But it also means that he cannot and should not tell the whole truth: even if he knows we cannot "win," it's not for him to say so.)

The truth is that American "progress" in Iraq is irrelevant: it's an Iraqi civil war and the only thing that really matters is inter-Iraqi violence. (Al-Qaeda, Iran, etc are minor factors by comparison.) This means that America cannot "win" unless America takes sides in the Iraqi civil war.

So people who are serious about America's national security, like Harry Reid, want to do what's in America's interest: find a way out of Iraq. Bush hates America and wants more Americans to die (and waste more American taxpayer money) to avoid admitting that we cannot "win" in Iraq.

So do you stand with America's interests like Reid, or do you stand with Bush, who wants us to do what is not in our interests (stay in Iraq forever)? Apparently you folks love Bush more than you love America. Sad that you want to sell out our national security interests for the sake of Bush's ego....

What's sad is those who are claiming progress in Ramadi don't seem to realize that the insurgents have picked up on the fact that the surge is building in that area, and consequently have moved on to areas like Diyala and areas around Mosul.
Same goes for those who are reporting progress in Baghdad. Sectarian violence, one component of the violence, is down (there's been a big uptick in car bombings though), but does that mean it's been neutralized? No, it's because Sadr has commanded his followers to lay low for the time being. Those militia members are still out there, they've still got guns, and their bloodlust for Sunnis is not going away.
In other words...whack-a-mole, anyone?

Shorter M.A.:

"I don't understand a thing about the complexities this war, that "the plan" is Petraeus', not Bush's, and I don't care that Iraqi soldiers, journalists, and civilians, and American ground troops (not just generals) are all reporting seeing signs of progress.

"What I do understand is that Harry Reid says the war is lost and that General Petraeus must be a liar if things aren't as dismal as I want them to be."

I think that about sums it up.

"The plan is Petraeus', not Bush's

Ah, Confederate Yankee doesn't understand the concept of civilian control of the military.

Whether Petraeus agrees with the specifics of the current plan, it was not his decision to escalate the war, nor his decision to declare that we will stay forever; that's Bush's job to make those decisions. Any person in charge in Iraq would and should carry out Bush's plan of escalating the war and staying forever.

And of course, the same reports of "progress" are heard every year, nay, every month; as witness the article linked above. They are always wrong. Apparently you're like Charlie Brown, Bush is Lucy, and the football is the idea that we are "winning" in Iraq.

Again, those who are serious about America's national security interests want to get out of Iraq; you hate America and love Bush, so you want America to stay in Iraq forever. Sad, really.

Ah, so even though Petraeus literally wrote the manual on counter-insurgency, Bush gets credit for it? I see we're dealing with a true intellectual giant here, ready to ignore any fact and gloss over any inconsistency in his own argument to keep pushing "Bush lied, people died."

I'm still waiting for such smart people as M.A. to explain how abandoning Iraq is in this nation's long-term national security interests. They're kinda like the underpants gnome auxilliary of the Cindy Sheehan Glee Club.

They're quite sure that losing the war is somehow in our country's long-term best interests, but they're never able to explain how or why losing is good for either Iraqis or non-liberal Americans.

MA,

Again, those who are serious about America's national security interests want to get out of Iraq; you hate America and love Bush, so you want America to stay in Iraq forever. Sad, really.

Is good national security giving Iraq away to the jihadists and telling them we dont have the stomach to finish something WE started. By WE I mean the Dems and the Republicans. I can bust out about 30 quotes of Harry Reid, Billary, Pelosi and many many other Dems DEMANDING we go into Iraq, starting in 98 so dont tell me it was because big bad Bush bullied them into it.

Saying conservatives, including Bush, hate america is truely crazy. If you really believe what you said, then I truely pitty you.

The troops say they are seeing progress. The Iraqi people are saying they are seeing progress. I think the scariest thing to every Liberal in this country right now, is victory. And you know it.

"What I do understand is that Harry Reid says the war is lost and that General Petraeus must be a liar if things aren't as dismal as I want them to be."

I agree he definetly hit the nail on the head with that one. Thats why the Dems refuse to hear Petraeus's report. Once they hear exact details of how progress is being made they would have to lie about it, and then they would be busted. Why are they scared of the facts?

Ah, so even though Petraeus literally wrote the manual on counter-insurgency, Bush gets credit for it?

Petraeus's counter-insurgency tactics are just that: tactics. That's up to him. But the actual plan -- in this case, escalating the war and insisting that we stay in Iraq forever -- is up to the civilian leadership.

The point is that this is more of Bush's usual cowardly tactics of pretending that attacks on him are attacks on Da Troopz. Stop pretending that Bush's plan is validated because a General whose job it is to carry out the plan is, well, doing his job. It is Petraeus's job to pretend that Bush's plan is working, just as it would be his job to pretend that Jimmy Carter or Clinton's stupid plans were working, if they were in charge.

I'm still waiting for such smart people as M.A. to explain how abandoning Iraq is in this nation's long-term national security interests.

All I need to explain is that staying in Iraq forever is not in our long-term national security interests.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse things will be when we finally leave. Look at Vietnam: because we stayed too long, Pol Pot was able to take over Cambodia. That doesn't mean that Pol Pot was our fault, but it does mean that people who claim we pulled out too early are wrong; a bloodbath happened in part because we pulled out too late.

By insisting that we stay in Iraq, you are not only going to get more Americans killed, you guarantee a worse bloodbath when we finally do leave.

Iraq will not be wonderful and happy no matter when we leave; that simply proves it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, topple an anti-Islamist dictator, and set up an Iranian client state. But since we cannot "win" in Iraq, and since the longer we stay the worse things will be when we leave, it follows that anyone who doesn't hate America must want to leave as soon as practically possible, while those who hate America (like Bush) want to prolong the occupation and guarantee a worse bloodbath.

DEMOCRATS HAVE A VERY GOOD REASON FOR OPPOSING THE WAR! With the communist scare gone, Socialism is now safe, just call it ‘Progressivism’.

“Liberalism (Websters): noun 1 : the quality or state of being liberal 2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free--competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party.”

George Bush Jr., Cheney, McCain, Gingrich, etc., constantly talk about these topics.

“Socialism (Websters): noun 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, etc. constantly want expanding government controls, economic leveling, controls on capitalism and competition, and top-down political structures where citizens are not trusted to govern themselves. The Democrat manifesto quietly chips away at the foundations of liberal democracy ‘progressively’, as socialists have been doing in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere for decades.

Socialism’s scope is global, they want global economic controls, global environmental controls, global government, and no wars between nations because they do not believe in nations. They want to stop all American wars, since these would be victories for Republican liberal democracy, not socialism. The Democrats support Islamists and apologize for them because both groups want to defeat Republican liberal democracy. An American defeat in Iraq would be a victory for Socialism, just as Vietnam was. To Democrats and their fellow-traveling main-stream media, anti-war posturing is not treasonous, because they are not loyal to America. Like most socialists, they loathe modern liberal democracy, and especially George Bush’s use of it, because it is their main competitor.

Make no mistake: militarily, this war is lost. You don't have to take my word for it, just ask General Petreaus himself: "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html

We are wasting our military capability in Iraq, and a few anecdotes and emotional emails from troops in the field don't change this reality. Sure, they believe they are succeeding, and in their small part of the sandbox they probably are. But you can't post these today and just ignore the eleven soldiers who won't be sending any more emails because they died today in Muqdadiyah and Anbar. Or the fact that it has now taken us longer to subdue these insurgents than it took us to defeat the Nazis. This is not because our soldiers are incompetent, or even because Democrats don't support them. It is because "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq." Thus spake the expert.

Withdrawing from Iraq makes the US more secure in at least three ways. First, it frees our military forces for action in Afghanistan, where the people who started this entire thing still hide and plan their next attack. We took our eye off the ball.

Second, it gives us back a strategic reserve. Should we need military forces to respond to threats from China or North Korea, we have nothing. This is folly, and our enemies know this.

Finally, it would make it easier for us to recover our respect as a world leader and work with other countries on problems like nuclear proliferation and financing of terrorist organizations.

You can argue that we don't need to worry about any of this--that all of our problems will be solved if we can just kill all the right Iraqis. Or maybe plant democracy there (at least until these newly empowered voters elect a government that adopts Sharia law and really begins to support our enemies).

But someone has to pay for it, and someone has to fight. What I'm getting sick of is not Democrats telling us the truth about our situation in Iraq. It's people like you using quotes from soldiers in the field--many who have spent two of the last three years dealing with this--to attack political opponents when you can't be bothered to join up and fight this war for our way of life yourself.

All of you who think we can solve the terrorism problem with military force need to get used to the idea that we will need a much larger military force to do so. I've been there, and I can tell you that what we have is almost broken. Just ask the Generals: http://www.washingtonpost (dot)com/wp-dyn/articles/A51687-2005Jan5.html
http://www.pbs (dot) org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/themes/broken.html
http://www.antiwar (dot) com/pat/?articleid=10193
(URLs edited to pass through spam filter)

Saying the war is lost or the Army is broken may or may not embolden the enemy--but actually losing the war and breaking the Army certainly will. But instead of calling your representatives and asking them to raise your taxes to buy uparmored Hummers, body armor, and medical care for wounded troops you demand more money in your own wallets. And instead of enlisting yourselves, you rely on some 19-year-old corporal to make your political points for you.

If you were half the man you think you are, CY, you would call your local recruiter today. The number in Raliegh is 919 - 873-0797.

Can someone define victory in Iraq? Seriously. For awhile you all were talking about how certain you are that we will leave behind a vibrant Democracy. I haven't heard that much lately. It seems like now you all think quelling the violence is the goal. Is that true? Just curious.

"Be glad of the good news: America is mired in the swamps of the Tigris and Euphrates. Bush is, through Iraq and its oil, easy prey. Here is he now, thank God, in an embarrassing situation and here is America today being ruined before the eyes of the whole world."
--Osama bin Laden, video message broadcast October 18, 2003

A looney, bloodthirsty zealot is saner than many of my fellow Americans. Nice job, boys. I take some satisfaction in the fact that the nation has turned its back on your president and your war, but not much. Mostly I'm depressed.

I understand why you keep smearing Reid and Pelosi. That's all you've got. You're bankrupt.

So do you stand with America's interests like Reid, or do you stand with Bush

Neither. I stand with the guys on the spot who know of what they speak.

Petraeus's counter-insurgency tactics are just that: tactics. That's up to him. But the actual plan -- in this case, escalating the war and insisting that we stay in Iraq forever -- is up to the civilian leadership.

Thank you for once again showing your ignorance of the difference between strategy and tactics, which is just one of many reasons I find liberal attempts to explain why the war is lost from a position of ignorance to be so amusing. Paetraeus crafted both the strategy and the tactics, based upon successful the successful pioneering work of French Lt. Col. David Galula. These tactics were highly successful in the area under his control battling the insurgency in Algeria, and were used successfully by the British in the Malaysian Emergency.

All President Bush can be given credit for is turning the war over to someone whom knows what he is doing, and taking his recommendations.

All I need to explain is that staying in Iraq forever is not in our long-term national security interests.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse things will be when we finally leave. Look at Vietnam: because we stayed too long, Pol Pot was able to take over Cambodia. That doesn't mean that Pol Pot was our fault, but it does mean that people who claim we pulled out too early are wrong; a bloodbath happened in part because we pulled out too late.

By insisting that we stay in Iraq, you are not only going to get more Americans killed, you guarantee a worse bloodbath when we finally do leave.

Do you have any credible links you can cite to back up your assertions? Somehow, I suspect not.

I'd like of you to find someone in a position of power that says we want to stay in Iraq "forever." I suspect that is an outright lie on your part.

Nor do I think you will be able to find any legitimate expert who will agree with your unsupported assertion that things must be worse when we finally leave. In fact, most experts tell us that if we do withdraw precipitously as liberals desire, that Iraq is far more likely to fail, and fall sway to outside influences from Saudi Arabia and Iran. There is a consensus developing, and this is a consensus of both military experts and long-term journalists in the area that understand the regional politics, that Iraq could develop into a proxy battleground between the Saudis and Iran, and that there is a risk that a liberal-abandoned Iraq could develop into regional war. With Saudi Arabia on one side of the Persian Gulf and Iran on the other in a shooting war, the Persian Gulf would be shut down. This would destroy the economies of emerging nations that rely upon Middle Eastern oil, and would plunge this nation into a recession, not to mention providing a fertile crescent for terrorist groups to train and develop in a failed state in Iraq. Please, explain to me how any of this is in our nation's best interests. The simple fact of the matter is that it isn't.

Iraq will not be wonderful and happy no matter when we leave; that simply proves it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, topple an anti-Islamist dictator, and set up an Iranian client state. But since we cannot "win" in Iraq, and since the longer we stay the worse things will be when we leave, it follows that anyone who doesn't hate America must want to leave as soon as practically possible, while those who hate America (like Bush) want to prolong the occupation and guarantee a worse bloodbath.

All dogma, no bite.

Iraqi Sunnis that once supported the insurgency have turned against it, and are now joining the IA and IP faster than they can be trained. They are setting up their own checkpoints, and capturing or killing insurgents. Al Anbar tribes formerly aligned with the insurgency are joining the political process, and have openly stated that they view America as their best chance.

I'd invite you to read up on how counterinsurgency operations very similar to the one in Iraq have in fact worked, and why they can succeed in Iraq. You won't of course, because failure has become your new religion.

Make no mistake: militarily, this war is lost. You don't have to take my word for it, just ask General Petreaus himself: "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq."

What a masterful job of selectively quoting the good General.

If you've done any reading on COIN, or listened to Petraeus' full comments on the subject, you'd be forced to acknowledge that what he was actually saying is that there cannot be purely a military solution, not that the military isn't part of the solution. The larger battlefield, of course, is political, cultural, and economic in nature, and Petraeus is making sure to engage on those levels as well, though that aspect goes woefully underreported in the media. The biggest and most important part to "draining the swamp" is to provide potential insurgents with better options than fighting. Read the "gravity well" link in the post above for a good description of the analogy.

But you can't post these today and just ignore the eleven soldiers who won't be sending any more emails because they died today in Muqdadiyah and Anbar. Or the fact that it has now taken us longer to subdue these insurgents than it took us to defeat the Nazis. This is not because our soldiers are incompetent, or even because Democrats don't support them. It is because "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq." Thus spake the expert.

Milking selective quotes of all they are worth, in order to avoid reality. Nice.

Perhaps a bit of history is in order. The Germans were a very rigid military society, and therefore, once we beat them on the conventional battlefield, they were effectively finished. The various insurgent groups, Sunni and Shia, are decentralized guerilla movements. History tells us that it take a good 10-20 years to completely quash such movements. We won't have to be there the entire time of course, in the numbers in which we are presently engaged. Based upon past implementations of COIN and the new willingness of Sunni al Anbar tribes to join the political process, we may be able to start substantially drawing down our forces within the next few years. History shows that while it is time and resource intensive, most insurgencies fail.

Withdrawing from Iraq makes the US more secure in at least three ways. First, it frees our military forces for action in Afghanistan, where the people who started this entire thing still hide and plan their next attack. We took our eye off the ball.

Second, it gives us back a strategic reserve. Should we need military forces to respond to threats from China or North Korea, we have nothing. This is folly, and our enemies know this.

Finally, it would make it easier for us to recover our respect as a world leader and work with other countries on problems like nuclear proliferation and financing of terrorist organizations.

Pipe-dreams, every one.

As noted earlier in this response, a too-quick withdrawal from Iraq to a far more unstable Middle East, and therefore threatens not just our economy, but that of the emerging oil-starved world. This makes us all less stable, not more stable. Second, you seem to lack a grasp of the differences between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an entirely different kind of war, far lower in intensity, and projected to last far longer than Iraq.

If you haven't been keeping up--and obviously, you haven't--those who attacked us on 9/11 are not thought to be in Afghanistan, but across the border in the tribal regions of Afghanistan, and they aren't fairing all that well. Within the past few weeks there have been intense red-on-red conflicts there, with elements of the Pakistani tribal Taliban overrunning al-Qaeda-aligned terrorist groups.

As for threats from North Korea and China, you seem to forget that the two branches of our military most likely to respond to aggressive acts from either of those countries, the USAF and Navy, are hardly tied down. To say we have "nothing" is frankly inaccurate, and deceptive, and perhaps purposefully so.

And do you honestly think that if we are defeated that we will gain respect? Upon what sort of daft reasoning is that thought based? Please, show me the countries that fled the battlefield and were more respected as a result of deciding to fail.

Nuclear proliferation and the combating the financing of terrorist organizations are not military battles, but diplomatic ones. It is a pity you would attempt to conflate such different things for such nefarious purposes.

But someone has to pay for it, and someone has to fight. What I'm getting sick of is not Democrats telling us the truth about our situation in Iraq. It's people like you using quotes from soldiers in the field--many who have spent two of the last three years dealing with this--to attack political opponents when you can't be bothered to join up and fight this war for our way of life yourself.

Oh, the dreaded "chickenhawk" argument.

Yawn. How original.

If you were half the man you think you are, CY, you would call your local recruiter today. The number in Raliegh is 919-873-0797.

Somehow, I doubt I'll have any better luck with them than I did with the Marines on 9/12, or the NY National Guard in January of 2004.

But thanks for hiding behind personal attacks. It shows just how weak you and your arguments, really are.

I've read the comments and would like to add my two cents. I wrote an article on my blog called "US Government, the war in Iraq, and Public Opinion". It is too long for the comments section but reflects what many Americans that love this country believe.

http://www.dipnomad.blogspot.com/

Safer here than there? A Marine son of a Christian friend was killed in a car accident here in Maine after coming home from his third voluntary trip to Fallujah! His brother(there are10 home-schooled kids in the family) signed up and will head to Iraq in May. Army infantry.

God Bless them all. We pray for them daily and I get really mad to think these traitors are using this war and the troops safety for political reasons. Mind you it is all about abortion and sexual immorality and Supreme Court nominations.

http://jcrue.wordpress.com/recall-reid/

Semper Fi.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 04/25/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

"History tells us that it take a good 10-20 years to completely quash such movements."

Name one that was "quashed," even after 20 years. Algeria? Viet Nam?

You may want to try the whole enlisting thing again. Standards are lower now because the challenge of conducting sustained operations using a volunteer military force is straining our forces. I don't see a rebuttal of that argument. Or you could see if Blacwater will take you--they could use your weapons expertise, they pay well, and you would be "supporting the troops." At any rate, if you really believe in this war, and you don't mind risking your life to help fight it, you will find a way.

And besides claiming that our Air Force and Navy could handle other crises without ground forces, you do not substantially answer my point that this operation is causing a serious deterioration of the quality of our military forces. There can be little doubt that it gives potential enemies the perception--probably correct--that our capabilities are strained and tied down. The bottom line is that our military establishment generally must be much larger if we wish to sustain operations on this scale while maintaining a robust, deterrent military force.

And speaking of Afghanistan, take a look at this:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20070323000905700.htm&date=fl2405/&prd=fline&
We are losing there because we took our eye off the ball--several times. That one warlord attacked another says no more about what is really going on there than what a corporal says about a small portion of the sandbox.

You can accuse me of quoting selectively (though you managed to quote only soldiers who agree with staying in Iraq--see http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php, and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/22/60minutes/main2505412.shtml).
You can yawn when I call you a chickenhawk. But I don't see any links you more complete quotes from General Petraeus, nor any substantial rebuttal of my argument. I don't see your call for a draft, or for higher taxes to pay for the war you favor so.

We are not losing this war because our troops aren't brave enough or can't do their jobs. Brave men and women fight and die every day doing the best they can with what they have. We are losing because the incompetent boobs running the show from the White House didn't have the brains to properly prepare, act strategically, or shift tactics when necessary. We sent too few troops, equipped them poorly, and managed the reconstruction according to ideology, without regard to the people who live there.

Largely this was because the Administration, and the Republican Congress, could not bring themselves to truthfully inform Americans about the true nature of the war we would be fighting. Instead of getting the entire nation behind this, calling for sacrifice (another percent of taxes from the super rich, for example), and listening to experts from all perspectives, Bush decided to deride experts like Shinseki and ask us to all go shopping.

People like you believe that there is no need for you to actually fight--or at least pay for the war you support. It is enough to put a yellow ribbon on your car, attack Democrats who want to change a policy that is clearly not optimum, and say you want to "win" and that you "support the troops."

You won't win this thing by talking about it. I believe that if you believe in a cause, you should take action to support it besides flapping your gums.

"Retired Marine Gen. John Sheehan summed up the military's skepticism in explaining why he turned down White House feelers to become 'war czar' for Iraq and Afghanistan: 'The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going.'
--David Ignatius

Shinseki, Odom, Sheehan, Zinni, and Schwarzkopf are all prominent retired generals who regard the Iraq war as a mistake.

"History tells us that it take a good 10-20 years to completely quash such movements."

Name one that was "quashed," even after 20 years. Algeria? Viet Nam?

The Malayan Emergency, where the British won in 12 years. The Spanish Civil War, where Franco defeated Republican Spanish rebels in three years. The Second Boer War, which lasted three years. None of the examples is completely analagous to what we are facing in Iraq, but no war is completely like another, and in all three circumstances, insurgencies were defeated.

As for Algeria and Vietnam, Galula's doctrine (which formed a basis for that of Petraeus and others around the world) was highly successful where implemented, but left-wing politicians in France forced other actions, which led to a final French defeat. Sound familar? Likewise, the Viet Cong were destroyed as a viable insurgency during the Tet Offensive, but American liberal politicians forced us out of that war, as well.

As for your continued, rather craven "chickenhawk" squawking, there is little I can do in the military with surgically (partially) repaired knees. I've tried repeatedly, even attempting to convince the NYNG recruiter that the unit I was attempting to join was mounted, and therefore my knee problems shouldn't prohibit me from joining, but they saw it differently, much to my dismay. As for Blackwater, based here in NC, they hire only those with applicable military backgrounds.

All that said, I am doing some work for the military using the skillset I do have, though I will not discuss it here. I'm doing as much as I can in my limited capacity, while you're doing as much as you can to lose, including attacking those who want to win.

You can accuse me of quoting selectively (though you managed to quote only soldiers who agree with staying in Iraq...

But I don't see any links you more complete quotes from General Petraeus, nor any substantial rebuttal of my argument.

Here is a more accurate description of Petraeus' remarks:

Gen Petraeus said improving the situation in Iraq required more than armed force.

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," he said.

Military action is necessary to help improve security... but it is not sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect."

He said some groups "who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them" would have to be engaged in talks.

Just as I said previously and accurately, there are multiple aspects of this conflict, and the military does play a role, just not the only role. As is readily apparent, you are guilty as charged of selectively quoting the General, stripping his words of context. I think your credibility is now at something of a low ebb.

I'll also warn you that I grow tired of your personal attacks. Debate the issues with facts, or find another venue.

Now, now, CY - let's not confuse the issue with facts!

Fact: Despite localized success stories, the war in Iraq is being lost as a military matter. Security is insufficient to promote reconstruction. American soldiers are dying every day. Insurgent groups have turned on al-Q'aida, but they are beginning to form a united front against the US. Iraqi forces have not been effectively trained, and in fact may be riddled with insurgents who take their training and weapons to use or sell for use against us. The Iraqi Parliament rarely meets, and when it does it cannot agree on organizing principles (federalism, sharing of oil revenue) for a stable government. Insurgent groups can operate more or less at will in most parts of the country, and the "surge," at least at the tempo and size it operates today, can at best secure portions of the state. It is difficult to figure out how anyone can define this as anything but "losing."

Fact: More and more serving and retired officers and soldiers believe that the war was either not a good idea in the beginning, is being lost now, or both. They believe this is because of the general incompetence of the civilian leadedrship. General Sheehan, when asked to become a "war czar" (itself distinguishable in what way from a "Secretary of Defense," or "Commander in Chief") said no because he believes the current administration has no idea what the heck it is trying to do. To Mr. Steele's list of generals who now believe that the war is being lost and a change of direction is needed you can add Colin Powell, Wesley Clark, Greg Newbold, John Batiste, George Trainor, Paul Eaton (with whom I served in Bosnia) and others.

Fact: The war is also being lost diplomatically. We transformed a neighboring state, Iran, which sought accomodation with us after 9-11 by helping us stabilize Afghanistan into an enemy state with a client on its southwestern border. We have alienated traditional allies, or at least their populations by sending innocent people to concentration camps and using torture to extract information from those who have none. Most of the world today considers the US a more dangerous threat than terrorism because of our apparent willingness to trump up charges against states and leaders we don't like and then bomb their populations more or less indiscriminately.

Fact: The war is costing billions of dollars every day, and we are risking our economic security by borrowing the money to pay for it because the wealthy in this country are happy to profit from a stable, well-defended state but do not wish to pay for it. Instead of calling for sacrifice in the form of a draft or higher taxes or even some sort of voluntary program to help wounded soldiers, our government told us that we could fight a war while going about our business as usual--we could pass the sacrifice along to a small group of soldiers and their families.

Fact: Our military forces are strained, and experts say they are at the breaking point because of the volunteer forces--with personnel recruited in competition with the rest of the economy--easily supports a peacetime or cold war military, but cannot supply the manpower to sustain operations long term. We have a back-door draft through "stop-loss" programs, and our forces at any rate must be expanded to provide the personnel and material resources to keep the op-tempo in Iraq while ensuring we can deal with other threats as they arise. Still, many of the people who support the war cannot be bothered to fight for their country because they are too busy accumulating wealth, and they make themselves feel better by putting yellow ribbons on their cars.

I find your concern over personal attacks from me--for perhaps incorrectly suggesting cowardice on your part--interesting given that you don't seem to mind name calling on your own part ("Senator Lost," "White Flag Harry Reid") or by your other commenters ("douche," "turn tail Harry," "liar and a coward"). Personal attacks appear to pass ethical muster when aimed at your political opponents.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings--my apologies if I misjudged your willingness to serve--even if you have no such contrition for the personal slurs aimed in the other direction. But you set the tone for the discussion in your original post, and if you think this is inappropriate you should look in the mirror for the problem. Or you can just make those who disagree with you go away--it is, in the end, your website, and you can ban inconvenient facts and uncomfortable challenges from it. But you can't change the facts--or the reality that many of the people with the most expertise in the field agree with my version--by quoting a few grunts from the sandbox or getting rid of me.

Fact: Despite localized success stories, the war in Iraq is being lost as a military matter.

Not a fact at all, and approaching delusional.

Security is insufficient to promote reconstruction.

Depending on the part of the country you're in. The Kurdish provinces to the north have booming economies, and Iraq's Taleb Tabtabai is about to go digital in efforts to keep up with the increasing number of applications by foreigners who want to invest in Iraqi companies. Obvious, reconstruction is happening, if not at the pace most of us would like.

Insurgent groups have turned on al-Q'aida, but they are beginning to form a united front against the US.

Patently false. The insurgent groups are being picked to pieces by the Sunni tribes that once supported them, and the survivors are coming together as their individual cells and groups are rolled up, or rolled over. We're seeing just that in al Anbar, Diyala, and in Kirkuk, where Baathist dead-enders are boxed in and are lashing out against anyone and everyone is a desperate bid to keep from being overwhelmed. It's far more accurate to call it a survivor's support group than a united front.

Insurgent groups can operate more or less at will in most parts of the country, and the "surge," at least at the tempo and size it operates today, can at best secure portions of the state.

I'd love to see you cite evidence or where insurgent groups can operate "at will" anywhere in Iraq, much less your preposterous claim that they operate at will in "most parts" of the country. Please, show me where Insurgents openly parade down city streets and control entire towns as they once did. Not in Kirkuk. Not in Fallujah. Not in Ramadi. Not in Baghdad. Not in Basra. In all of these places, they are the hunted, not the hunters.

As for the goals of U.S. forces, out goal is not to secure the entire state, and that simple fact of the matter is that not all of the state is insecure. Of 18 provinces, we have little or nothing to do in seven of them (3 Kurdish, four Arab) where the locals manage their own affairs. Some are suggesting that perhaps three more provinces may be turned over to local Iraqi control by late 2008, a number that is not unreasonable. When Iraqi forces control 10 of 18 provinces--more than half--will you still declare this a lost war?

Somehow, I'm quite sure that you will.

As for what will happen if we should follow liberal suggestions and turn tail and run from Iraq, Peshmerga General Mam Rostam reflects on how that will affect the region:

"If America pulls out of Iraq, they will fail in Afghanistan," Mam Rostam said.

Hardly anyone in Congress seems to consider that the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan might become much more severe if similar tactics are proven effective in Iraq.

"And they will fail with Iran," he continued. "They will fail everywhere with all Eastern countries. The war between America and the terrorists will move from Iraq and Afghanistan to America itself. Do you think America will do that? The terrorists gather their agents in Afghanistan and Iraq and fight the Americans here. If you pull back, the terrorists will follow you there. They will try, at least. Then Iran will be the power in the Middle East. Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism. They support Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Ansar Al Islam. You know what Iran will do with those elements if America goes away."

Of course, he's only been fighting in Iraq almost his entire life.

Harry Reid will probably consider him a liar, too.

A little more reality for our "reality-based" commenters, showing precisely what General Petraeus actually said:

Q (Through interpreter.) ... You said that the host country can determine who are the reconcilable groups. But everybody should be under the supremacy of law, and all military activities should be cancelled. So how are these people going to be part of the solution?

GEN. PETRAEUS: ... With respect, again, to the — you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to — in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.

A political resolution of various differences, of this legislation, of various senses that people do not have a stake in the success of the new Iraq, and so forth, that is crucial. That is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. And again, that clearly has to include talking with and eventually reconciling differences with some of those who have felt that the new Iraq did not have a place for them, whereas I think, again, Prime Minister Maliki clearly believes that it does, and I think that his actions will demonstrate that, along with the other ministers...

Saying that the war cannot be won solely militarily, but instead requires a combination of military and political action, is a far cry from the purposeful misstatements made by those who would (unsuccessfully) seek to trick us into believing that Petraeus thinks we are fighting a lost war.

Of course, this also points out something else quite obvious: Harry Reid, who considers our troops, their generals, and their all CiC liars, is a liar himself.

Shocking, I know.

You Libs keep saying "we need a change in direction" to win this war. Isn't Patraeus and the surge a change in direction? Thinking pulling out is a good "change in direction" that will surely change things for the better is wrong. And those generals you named above, when exactly did they make those comments? A year ago? Maybe two years ago? Throwing the Iraqi people to the dogs is a horrible idea.

I suspect that those American soldiers mentioned here and elsewhere are starting to draw some conclusions themselves about which side in this country meets the definition of "domestic enemies" mentioned in their oaths. M.A, R.Stanton Scott, and Lex Steele might want to think about that.

SDN: It sounds like you are accusing a a twenty year veteran and former combat soldier of treachery against his country. Am I a "domestic enemy" because I think that our civilian leadership is incompetent and the war against our enemies is going poorly? Because I exercise my right--the one I personally defended--to disagree with my elected officials? Do you really want to go there?

If they decide to do something about those of us who think the war should end, they will have work to do policing their own ranks: 42% disapprove of the conduct of the war and half think it can no longer be won (http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php).

Many of these people are former colleagues and personal friends of mine. We've shared beers and MREs and subzero nights downrange. I taught some of them marksmanship and helped them muscle a tank tread back onto a sprocket. I'm not worried.

We could go back and forth forever trading quotes from soldiers in the field, generals, and Pershmergas without changing any minds. At least we learn something--you folks have pointed me to sources of information about which I was ignorant. For me they need some vetting, but I don't dismiss them out of hand.

Or at least I did. You people don't seem to have the capacity to consider opposing viewpoints without name calling ("delusional," "douche," "liar," "coward," "domestic enemies"). Anyone who suggests that after four years a different strategy might be called for is a traitor or worse (and by the way: the surge is not a new strategy--we may have pushed down on the gas pedal a bit, but we're still on the same road, and even if it is paved with good intentions, it still leads you-know-where).

The policy problem, in a nutshell, is that 67 months after the attacks on the World Trade Center the leader of those who planned and executed the attack is still at large, despite President Bush's promise to bring him to justice. His organization, in the larger sense, is stronger than ever as our policies promote resentment against the US and recruitment to his cause. Our military forces are largely tied down in Iraq, and even if they are successful there will still have to face enemies in Afghanistan and potentially China and North Korea. The volunteer Army is largely broken, with many troops getting out and others wishing they could, held back only by stop loss. Our military leadership and our soldiers have done everything we have asked them and more, but the civilian leadership that makes policy has screwed it up every step of the way. Now we have most of our effective combat units in Iraq while our enemies recruit new forces and improve their political and military positions everywhere else. Beyond what General Sheehan calls "shorthand" talk about establishing a democratic Iraq, our government can't even tell us what success there means.

The solution you prefer is to just keep doing what we are doing. As a soldier, I know that sometimes you have to back off because what you are doing just isn't working. Sometimes we had to do the right thing--even while everyone called us names--and tell the boss that he's screwed up. In the Army we call this moral courage, and I'll stack mine up against anyone's.

RSS, moral courage does make you right. It just makes you sure of your own views. OK, don't denigrate others' views. They're not truths. History will show us truths, probably after we are both gone.

CoRev: No, moral courage does not validate views. And you may be right that the real facts on the ground--who is right about the course of this war--will only come out over time as history is written.

But a sense of moral courage does require that I stand up for what I believe the correct policy to be, based on information about what is taking place in Iraq every day, even when if causes people like CY and SDN to say or imply that I don't support my former colleagues or that I don't love my country.

Harry Reid is doing what he thinks is right, and so are you guys. That should command respect, but in this venue it does not. I am not the writer here who denigrates others' views--I denigrated actions (or inaction--more below). I do not believe you guys have the facts straight, and therefore disagree with you about the course of the war and what a better policy would look like. But read the original post and the thread it inspired, and make an honest evaluation about the source and targets of the aspersions cast here.

Reid no more thinks the soldiers quoted in the original post are lying than I think CY is. He may think they are misinformed, or convinced based on what they see that the war goes better than it does--as I think Mr. Owens is. But he never called them liars--CY implied that he thinks they are in an effort to "denigrate" his views.

It is true that I have little truck for people who think we are in a fight for our lives but can't be bothered to contribute to the cause in ways that risk themselves or their wealth--and I don't mind saying so. Some Americans do this, and criticizing their actions--and hypocrisy--is fair. (Take a look in the mirror. You know who you are). Note, however, that after hearing evidence against my inference that CY is one of them I agreed that I got it wrong.

CY, and many of the commenters here, have little truck for people who disagree with our current government's war policy, and they don't mind saying so. Fair enough. But the first tactic used here was a personal attack on a political opponent based on name-calling and implying that he holds views he probably does not. And after hearing evidence that at a minimum suggests that the question of the progress on the war is more complicated than what individual soldiers see on the ground--and that valid evidence exists for both points of view--no one here wants to admit that maybe opponents of the war are not traitors. We are American citizens who dissent from current policy and have mustered the moral courage to say so.

I don't personally think you do yourselves any favors by carrying on a conversation about the war that favors insulting political opponents over careful consideration of facts on both sides. But it is, again, Mr. Owens' web site to operate as he pleases. Perhaps the goal is to increase traffic, and over-the-top discourse will probably do this. If the goal, however, is to contribute to a reasoned policy debate, this sort of rhetoric is less useful.

Do what you can afford.

It isn't possible to be a military hero and a traitor? Tell that to Benedict Arnold. Welcome to an unfortunately not select club.