Having staked their political reputations on the media-driven meme that the Iraq war is “unwinnable,” Senate Democrats and two Republicans (one of whom seems to be angling for the Pat Buchanan candidacy for President) voted 50-48 for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by March. That this vote comes at a time when the “surge” strategy being implemented by the DoD and Gen Petraeus seems to be paying dividends—however cautiously or conditionally this turnaround must be viewed—is further proof that today’s Democrats are about as reliable an ally to international democracy as were the McGovernites whom they seem to view with a great deal of skewed nostalgia.
Notable among the flipfloppers? Hillary Clinton, who evidently believes (erroneously, I think) that she’ll begin seeing an increase in support from the netroots for having caved to the progressive base. Oh well: you don’t have to fall in love, you just have to fall in line. Right, Senator?
From CBS/AP:
Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March, triggering an instant veto threat from the White House in a deepening dispute between Congress and commander in chief.
Republican attempts to scuttle the nonbinding timeline failed, 50-48, largely along party lines.
President Bush is said to be “disappointed” by the Senate vote, reports CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, but White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says the measure’s timeline for withdrawal from Iraq has no chance of becoming law – because if the bill ever reaches Mr. Bush’s desk, he’ll veto it.
The vote marked the Senate’s most forceful challenge to date of the administration’s handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops. It came days after the House approved a binding withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, and increased the likelihood of a veto confrontation this spring.
After weeks of setbacks on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid said the moment was at hand to “send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war.â€Â
—Which is an apt description by Reid, provided the troops remember to turn their backs on Iraq first.
Errors by realists such as Colin Powell and George H.W. Bush after the first Iraq campaign set the stage for the skepticism many Iraqis felt in the wake of the invasion that deposed Saddam Hussein. Not finishing the job back then, that is, allowed Hussein to exact revenge on his political enemies—who were left dangling in the wind by an ally that had promised to protect them.
And now, a decade and a half later, the US Congress is set to try the same thing—a move that will create further mistrust in the US as a reliable ally, and one that many progressives hope will force the US to become more of an international consensus-driven actor, having scuttled the last of its trustworthiness.
So in one respect, the press and liberal Democrats have had it right all along: the Iraq war will indeed be “another Vietnam,” given that they seem poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory—and in the process, open up additional killing fields.
All so that they can pretend they “care” about the troops.
As Roger Simon puts it:
The Democrats were in a bind. They had to … or thought they had to…. push this vote to appease their base at very moment the situation may be improving in Iraq. In fact, the bind was so tight most of these supposedly progressive politicians probably didn’t want to examine the situation with any care or specificity because it would only confuse them and cause ambivalence, second thoughts, all those uncomfortable feelings.
Now, since it is clear (and always has been) Bush will veto this legislation, the Democrats are more than ever in the position of having to root for an American defeat and the defeat of democracy in Iraq. They have bet their political lives on our failure.
Even worse, they have signaled that their political lives are worth far more than the lives of a bunch of Mesopotamian desert dwellers, whose freedom (or lack thereof) is only important in the abstract, and most certainly not when it costs anything to bring it about.
Somewhere, the ghost of Pol Pot is snickering over a bowl of bloodsoaked rice—while Harry Reid celebrates by treating himself to a bit of Nevada real estate.
Yep. With leftists it the intentions that matter, not the results. They’re all about tea and sympathy but no hard solutions.
BTW Jeff, the main post is not showing when I click on “comments”.
I was wondering if the lack of a filibuster is a gamble by the Republican Senators that the surge is working. Bush will veto, then get funding without the timetable. Then, the surge works, and the defeatists will have the votes thrown in their face for the 2008 cycle.
The new campaign slogan of the dhimmi’s;
America; Impotent as an enemy, feckless as an ally.
Funny how there’s no dire predictions in the media of the “consequences” of the Demo’s cut & run strategy.
The NYT and networks were full of predictions of massive casualites pre-war, the long slog it would be to topple Saddam and powerful army, and lengthy pieces on the “urban warfare” and enormous loss of life we’d experience.
Given the history of the Khmer Rouge’s genocide, plus the millions of Vietnamese “boat-people” and other refugees created by our premature withdrawl
from SE Asia well-known, how come there’s not a single story in the MSM discussing the obvious and tragic consequences to the region when we “surrender”?
The silence is deafening…..
I really wonder about the American public dynamic. The polls, often cited, state something in the 60s ( % ) “unhappy” or “think there have been mistakes” or “want out.”
Well, I’m unhappy, think there have been mistakes, and want out – but that doesn’t translate into lack of support for the war, for success, and for a stable, hopefully democratic, Iraq; denying a base for terrorism and providing a new paradigm in the area. All of the basic neocon points I guess.
So, what is the public reaction: have the dems who vote this way alienated significant portions of the electorate? Is there resurgence, a surge, of reconsideration among swing voters? If there were, would it show up given the way these polls are worded and conducted?
Obviously, they were never going to win my vote to begin with, and there are others, on the other side, who will not vote for evil rethuglicans™ under any circumstance; but I don’t know enough “swingers†to have insights into their thinking.
The Dems allies in the major media have probably already scouted out good camera locations in the Green Zone, to film the choppers evacuating people from the roof of our embassy.
John,
You make a good point. There are a lot of dissatisfied people with how things have gone, but it doesn’t translate into being a safe Catholic and pulling out early. I don’t think the Dims see the distinction.
They clearly lack nuance.
s/b “moldy”
I fervently hope that the Administration will lose no time or opportunity to point out those consequences, and what a sellout the Democrats are perpetrating. But, given their track record of being unable to articulate anything, I’m not optimistic.
Sorry for the confusion. I’ve got to learn to hit “submit”.
The Pol Pot reference brings to mind an oldy but modly:
So you been to school
For a year or two
And you know youve seen it all
In daddys car
Thinkin youll go far
Back east your type dont crawl
Play ethnicky jazz
To parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin that you know
How the niggers feel cold
And the slums got so much soul
Its time to taste what you most fear
Right guard will not help you here
Brace yourself, my dear
Its a holiday in cambodia
Its tough, kid, but its life
Its a holiday in cambodia
Dont forget to pack a wife
Youre a star-belly sneech
You suck like a leach
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss ass while you bitch
So you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you
Well youll work harder
With a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers
Till you starve
Then your head is skewered on a stake
Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
What you need, my son.
Is a holiday in cambodia
Where people dress in black
A holiday in cambodia
Where youll kiss ass or crack
Pol pot, pol pot, pol pot, pol pot
And its a holiday in cambodia
Where youll do what youre told
A holiday in cambodia
Where the slums got so much soul
Richard Cheese & Lounge Against The Machine do a brilliant cover of that, btw.
yokel,
The administration, in the persons of President Bush, VP Cheney, Sec Def Gates, Gen. Petraeus, and various spokespersons have been pointing out the consequences.
It seems to matter not to the NYT, the Dems, the left, the amorphous MSM. The rejoinder is something along the lines of: hatemongers, playing on the fears of the public, hysterical, and like.
I think it fairly “provable” – certainly more so than man-caused global warming being solved through driving ethanol autos – that dire results can be directly traced to premature withdrawal.
Curious that it is not covered, or even speculated upon.
John,
I agree with what you say. I’m just extremely frustrated that nobody in the Administration seems to be able to get the message through the curtain of flak. Maybe I’m too nostalgic for the days when the Great Communicator could take a 20 minute spot during prime time and MAKE people understand an issue.
Hell, yokel, the Great Communicator could – Jack Bauer like – do it in a sentence, while simultaneously convincing a Dem congress to see it his way, while …
Ah, the perspective of historical tinted lenses.
tw: sent24: How does it do that??!
This has been happening frequently. Mostly use Firefox, which upgraded itself recently, so that may have something to do with it.
This hits on a point that I’ve been pondering lately. The same jackasses that are agitating for withdrawal because the Administration refuses to “define victory” (even as it has repeated done so), are the same ones agitating for draconian economic measures to halt anthropogenic global warming.
OK, so we stupidly enact all these measures to satisfy these cretins and mollify Gaia’s anger. What if nothing happens? What if the Earth continues to warm? What if it starts to cool dramatically? Or put another way: how will we “define victory” over GW?
Fucking insanity.
Should the war end in a more positive fashion than was expected before the surge, expect the Democrats to claim that their “hardline” “you must sink or swim” policy forced the Iraqi’s to clean up their act.
Errors by realists such as Colin Powell and George H.W. Bush after the first Iraq campaign?
Criticizing the perfect war?
What was wrong with it?
Not long enough, maybe?
How ‘bout them Dems, huh?
Stay tuned.
The funding dries up April 15th, right? The Congress must either show its support for the troops by funding their efforts, or set them up for annihilation. Will treu Americans stomach that?
Will Bush have the guts to destroy the anti-Americans in Congress by refusing to bow to their symbolic and destructive politics?
Fuck off, alphie, you obnoxious little twat.
Uh-huh.
Algore the “we’re all doomed!” preacher is the same guy who shrieked “HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!!!” as a condemnation of Bush.
The same people screaming “CONSENSUS!!!” to any doubts about AGW as a looming disaster are the same ones shrieking “BUSH LIED!!!” about Iraq and WMD—a situation in which there was a clear consensus, within their own party and even on the lunatic fringes.
Don’t think about all that too hard. It’s a real mind-bender.
Remember Jimmy Carters stupid campaign that promised cutbacks in the American lifestyle, smaller homes, dismal little cars, and sky-high gasoline prices through taxation? This is the same thing: liberals demand that Americans give up on themselves and their nation, abandon development and wealth, and surrender our sovereignty to powers having no interest in our security and welfare.
alpo, has anyone told you recently that you’re an obnoxious little twat?
Yeah, Rush Limbaugh kept saying that the Democrats are banking on defeat of America, that’s what they need for success and victory for them, and in the past I have considered it hyperbole, but lately it’s been literally accurate. America’s loss and humiliation is their gain, their victory, they have positioned the entire party to be in that place.
What a way to run a party. Just tells you how repugnant the GOP got to people and how hard the press has been fighting and propagandizing to get a Democrat win.
Hey, has that obnoxious little twat alphie popped up in this thread yet?
The ghost of Creighton Abrams is riding shotgun with Petraeus now.
Let’s hope Petraeus takes his advise.
This is off-base a bit I think. Senator Hagel looks very nice when he wears a blue tie – it really brings out his eyes. He also has a really great, presidential, head of hair – Pat Buchanan has to do that nasty combover thing. Also when you hear Senator Hagel speak you definitely get the sense that he loves his family very very much.
We should invade Cambodia?
Alphie, you’re the most historically ignorant sack of shit to grace these pages in a long time.
I’m getting angry phone calls from obnoxious little twats about people using the name of their community to describe alphie.
Just so you know.
Oh, great—now I’m gonna start hearing from the historically-ignorant-sack-of-shit community.
Today’s Dwimmocrats are a pathetic bunch.
What happened to the likes of Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK? They were real Americans who put the country’s interests first.
The current Dem leadership is a bunch of clowns who should be shot for treason.
The very same leftists that are agitating for the US to send troops to the Sudan to stop a “genocide” are demanding that we premptively withdraw our troops from Iraq, which would certainly ignite a genocide.
Never underestimate the complete lunacy of the progressive leftists.
No, I don’t think they will, however I believe the Democratchik leadership feel secure in the notion that all consequences of our premature withdrawal from Iraq will only be laid at George W. Bush’s feet. Do they have any basis for this in objective reality? Well, Big Media surely won’t call them on it.
Should the President prevail in the political battle, and Gen. Petraeus’s plan secure Baghdad, they may still get to mutter “We supported the troops all along.” Will anyone buy it come 2008 and beyond? Doubtful.
I found this very funny.
alphie must not think much of Petraeus, if Petraeus, in alphie’s mind, does not merit the advice of the greatest American general of all time George Meade.
What did Petraeus ever do to you, alphie?
Well, LO,
The great George Meade was willing to sacrifice his carreer for victory.
Up until now, the stain of Iraq could be blamed squarely on the neocons.
Petraeus’ hubris has now made the failure in Iraq the fault of the U.S. military.
I doubt it will recover its reputation in our lifetimes, if ever.
Kinda sad, actually.
Rumsfeld was willing to sacrifice his career for victory. I love him.
Yeah, well, your heroes are still kicking ass and lighting flames, alphie.
Maybe our boys will take some notes and start working on rebuilding your trust, asswipe.
Dammit, I meant to link this update.
It takes a special kind of moron to think that we’re failing in Iraq and Patraeus is to blame. Either that or someone so blinded by partisan hate and zealotry they know the truth and simply deny it.
Nice use of Hubris, though… clearly the product of some professor’s recent use of the term to refer to the good general.
alpo, you obnoxious little twat, you’re not worthy to lick the mud from my sons boots.
FOAD.
Petraeus’ hubris has now made the failure in Iraq the fault of the U.S. military.
I doubt it will recover its reputation in our lifetimes, if ever.
I’m going to regret this, but. . .can you elaborate, Alphie? This makes even less sense than most of what you post.
Alpo’s a jihadi propagandist. Either consciously or “innocently” because he’s an idiot. He’ll take whatever position, say whatever he can, to discourage US victory in Iraq.
“The great George Meade was willing to sacrifice his carreer for victory.”
Twaddle. Grant made Meade a Major General in the Regulars, the ultimate advancement at that time. So Grant got all the press, so what? How would resigning have advanced his career? I rather like Meade myself, enough to know enough about him and the army in which he served to know that that statement is nonsens.
Welcome to alphie world, an alternate universe where black is white and white black, where questions are either deflected, ignored or straw-manned, where George Meade is the bestest, greaterest General in American history, where the passive voice rules, and where alpo really doesn’t know the color of the sky.
But notice that our lying little twat never complains about the cost of either materials or personnel of that the battle that made Meade famous, a little over 400,000 IIRC… so apparently modern day American service men’s lives are now worth 129 times as much – of course his currency is measured in traitorous political gold. Or maybe he just gets a rise from Americans killing Americans?
Oh, not another Civil War deconstruction. If I want Ken Gordon, I’ll get Ken Gordon. Despite isolated atrocities, it does seem like this surge is making some brutal progress. And that’s what it needs to be: brutal, because the Iraqis can’t find their spine with both hands.
I credit General Petraeus with this limited progress, because he seems to understand the landscape. To dems: Give the troops their time and damn money. Lay off the political semaphores. To repubs: You didn’t know what you wanted in the first place; quit moving the endzone.
Yup. Objectively pro-terroism. Why I’ve been calling him ’jihadi boy’ when I reference his crap in the third person. Stopped and won’t ever again acknowledge his existence directly.
sorry, pro-terrorism
Oops, I meant Ken Burns. Ken Gordon is someone else.
No, no, it’s just alpo with one of his delusions of gender, pretending he knows American history.
If he weren’t so pitiful, he’d be laughable.
Ken Gordon, if you’re reading this, it was totally my typo. I did not mean getting you the way I said. Shit.
If Petraeus is making so much progress, then why is it a problem if we start bring our troops home in a year?
And if Meade was such a great general, why did some of the Civil War’s bloodiest battles occur after his victory at Gettysburg?
TW: alphie has reached83 the full potential of his stupidity, and may now be safely ignored.
couldn’t just let that go unequivocally could you?
Brutal for whom? And please provide some substantiation. Because if it’s brutal for the terrorists that’s a good thing now isn’t it?
Could you guys let the rest of us know exactly how you’re measuring the progress that’s being made?
Is there some objective measure you’re using here?
Advice from the Shade of GEN Abrams for Aphred and the Democrats:
“When eating an elephant take one bite at a time.”
-and-
“They’ve got us surrounded again, the poor bastards.”
Not that Alphred or the Democrats can recognize the wisdom or even the meaning of these quotes.
Phred:
Read the press releases from CENTCOM. If you can’t glean the information for youself, you’re doomed never to get it. It’s long been demonstrated that you don’t understand what you’re told here.
ThomasD: I thought I made that clear. It’s brutal for all involved. Plus, aren’t you a refugee fron RedState? Why come here?
Aaah,
The releases from CENTCOM look no different today than they have for the past 4 years.
And how to spin the king of Saudi Arabia saying today:
In the beloved Iraq, the bloodshed is continuing under an illegal foreign occupation and detestable sectarianism.
I think the wheels are comin’ off.
little tw”a”t said:
There’s your problem
Just believe, PMain?
@All,
I am probably putting words in Cynn’s post, but as I took it, it wasn’t an argument entirely dissimilar from those who suggested that what Iraq needed was a more serious engagement, or even a full-blown insurgency beatdown. Apologies if I am not interpreting this correctly.
BRD
Alphie,
In this, and similar discussions, you’ve seemed to hew very closely to a combination of ‘Chicken Little’ and ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’. I’ve not seen you, thus far, do anything other than establish a point and then display an impressive array of sophistry and fallacies to buttress your original assertion.
What would be a fantastic change of pace, at least for me, is for you to make a specific, verifiable, falsifiable assertion, produce evidence to support that assertion, and then debate the methodology and conclusions drawn. While this may be too much for me, as an online pseudonym, to ask, it is in keeping with the basic ideas of the scientific method. So, to that extent, I would like to request you make an assertion that’s not pointless and provide some means of backing it up.
BRD
BRD,
Assertion: The pro-war crowd have no objective standards to measure progress in Iraq with.
evidence appearing in 3… 2…. BWAH HA HA HAaaaaa, who am I kidding?
And I would like to live in Candyland, where the unicorns frolic in the gumdrop meadows, the elves live in taffy houses, and the rainbow leads to a milk chocolate pot chock full o’ leprechaun gold.
Don’t get yer hopes up.
Well maggie,
The only objective measure of the surge I’ve seen is the fact that “only” 15 U.S. troops died in combat in Baghdad during the first month of the surge.
This was claimed as a sign that the surge was a success by the pro-war crowd.
We’re now less than 2 weeks into the second month of the surge and 16 U.S. troops have died in combat in Baghdad.
What does that mean?
Cynn you made nothing clear and still haven’t specified just who is being brutalized. Everybody? That’s hardly specific much less useful. Again, do you have a problem with brutality as applied to terrorists? Are US troops suffering more than the enemy? Substantiation might help your case.
As for being a refugee, I am not. Perhaps you are confused on this also, since I have never – to the best of my recollection – posted even a single comment at Redstate. but even if I had I never realized that that would be a bar to posting here. Do you have some say in this matter? Or are you just on a roll tonight?
Phred,
You are correct in this assertion. We have no objective measures to measure progress in war, because there are no objective measures to measure progress in war.
Wars are won when the other side quits. That’s the only constant and objective fact of war.
TW: only79th time you’ve been told this.
RTO,
That does not seem to stop the pro war crowd from latching on to some random statistic and hailing it as “proof” that we’re now “winning” the war in Iraq every few weeks as politics demands.
And I don’t think your “Japanese soldier hiding in the jungle” mentality applies to conventional wars where there are moving battlelines and both sides have a reasoable idea of the other side’s level of reamaining troops and equipment.
Maybe in a fight against an insurgency where we really have no clue as to how many people we’re fighting and where they’re getting their stuff from.
NB: Alpo demands objective measures of success for the US, yet will declare any random jihadi attack to be a success and despite being pressed, never define what he means by that. In other words, he sees nothing but jihadi successes and nothing but American failure.
Furthermore, look back a few threads when alpo started bleating about two prisoners who died in custody at Bagram. Has anyone ever heard alpo get the least bit worked up over the fate of those captured by the jihadis? Beheadings, rapes, being half-buried in wet concrete… none of it rises to the level of his attention. Hell, every action the Iranians have taken with the Brits they captured, starting with the capture, has been in violation of the letter of the Geneva Conventions, and alpo seems utterly untroubled by it.
So I submit to you—if alpo were a jihadi tasked with trolling to drive down US morale, how would his behavior be any different?
They are getting arms from Iran and moral support from you. Set any 4 year olds on fire lately, scum?
None whatsoever. And in this one small corner of the net, jihadi boy is moderately successful. Not in driving down morale, but in continually hijacking the narrative. Does jihadi boy ever convince anyone here that black is white? Nope. Not here. But he does get folks to take the bait and address the question.
I think Guiliani said it best during a recent interview (I may be off a bit in the quote since it’s from memory): “What successful military venture in the history of the world ever told the enemy what the date of retreat is?”
It means that our troops and the Iraqi Army and police are engaging the enemy, you ignorant, obnoxious little twat.
alphie,
I’m sure you’ve never engaged in any type of sport or competition, as I picture you as a frail, birdlike little person who sometimes accidentally puts his head through the top button hole of his shirt and then just wears it that way, because, what’s the diff?
So, my take is that you’ve never known anything worth winning, or worth the strain of testing yourself against others. It doesn’t make you a bad person – your personality does.
But for the sake of argument, let’s just say that your subscription to Teen Beat Magazine was up in April, and you needed to scratch together the $12.99 for renewal. And then let’s say that you still have both teams in the finals of the NCAA Championships and you are assured to win at least 15 bucks. You can almost taste the Justin Timberlake interview with photo-shoot!
Then in the first half, Nancy Pelosi calls Atlanta and tells them that since no California teams are in the game, they can finish the half, but UCLA will be declared the winner by Congressional decree because “there’s a new congress in town”. ……..oh and the fans are allowed to shoot at the players as they try to exit the arena and the fans are told what time the players will be leaving and where.
No Ashton Kuchar recipes. No J-Timbo. No Britney updates. you. would. be. pissed. You’d be shooting.
BTW, the NCAA Championships is basketball. And of course, basketball is not war, but I’m sure it’s equally confusing to the likes of you.
Alphie I haven’t fed you before, you little troll, but it’s time.
You’re a fatuous little punk whose only gift is to be able to say things that are merely 90% off point and wrong. You add nothing to the conversation or debate, and remind me of a guy I used to drink with whose main party trick was to drop his pants and shit on people, or on their coffee tables or sofas, or on some poor girl he picked up, when he got into his cups. It’s funny to hear about somebody that stupid, it’s even funnier to see it in action once or twice, but he wasn’t the kind of person whose company was wanted or enjoyed. Truth told, we all thought he was a moronic walking freakshow who was a walking disaster area, a human stain, a complete jackass.
You are like that guy, except without his redeeming qualities.
There, you can go jerk off now knowing you got some attention. This should be enough to tide you over until you can check out the new Martha Stewart line of control top panties when the Spring Sears catalog arrives in a few weeks time.
Don’t tell alphie, but our kill ratio is something like 16:1. It’s brutal, as cynn might say. Command just refuses to do Body Count, ‘cause that’s what was done in Saigon, and we simply won’t do that anymore.
They simply do not beat us, even Al Qaeda. This war is so lopsided it’s not funny. Right now, we’ve run up to Diyala Province to clean out Baquba where the AQ fled. Tough going, especially since they decided to establish an “emirate” there.
The good thing is that they’ve decided to gather in one place again, apparently.
Dead men tell no tales.
Too bad the Dems want us to lose this thing.
<blockquoteThat does not seem to stop the pro war crowd from latching on to some random statistic and hailing it as “proof†that we’re now “winning†the war in Iraq every few weeks as politics demands.</blockquote>
It’s a vain effort to satisfy people like you who keep demanding proof.
Like WWI, eh?
You have no clue. Leave those of us who are doing the lifting out of your equation.
FOR GODS SAKE PEOPLE, DON”T FEED THE ALPIE.
The zookeepers will be around soon to walk him and hose the shit off the floor of the cage.
Well, RTO, do tell.
How many people are we fighting in:
1. Afghanistan?
2. Iraq?
Phred:
You don’t have a need to know.
Old TX Turkey has the right idea. alphie has no interest in actual debate, not even in changing minds. He’s interested in derailing threads, and we help him achieve his goal by “engaging” him.
Conversation, even electronic conversation, requires some measure of good faith. alphie has none, and I for one am tired of his yammering.
In other words, we have no idea, RTO?
Do you own fucking research, you obnoxious twat.
My understanding is if we’re killing more of the enemy then they are of us, we’re winning. Also, when Iraqis have schools where they used to have Bathaaist torture chambers, I’d also consider that a pretty good measure of who’s winning. When IRan is kidnapping british sailors in retaliation for capturing a bunch of their terrorists in Iraq, thats winning.
The one way you don’t measure victory in war is by setting a time table. Sports yes, wars, no. Serious people know that.
As is so often the case, Winston Churchill said it most eloquently:
“…. You ask, What is our policy? I will say: “It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.” You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory – victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
Notice the absence of time limits. One suspects that Lincoln would’ve answered in the same sort of way.
But then, there are those who celebrate Chamberlain and denigrate Churchill, so YMMV.
ThomasD, your email address doesn’t look valid, so I’ll reply to you here, if you’re still reading. Sorry about the Redstate swipe; that was inappropriate and irrelevant. As to the brutality issue, I have thought hard about this. I think brutality is essential in any conflict, because that is factor that can end that conflict. And who in their right mind but terrorists would want to prolong conflict?
That’s facile, I know; but I just can’t get past this sick realization that the U.S. has embarked on an unending jihad of its own. Or, in more pedestrian terms, another manifest destiny. Do we have the stones for it this time around? Forever is a long time.
oops, already a qualifier: I meant brutality in the sense of the war for survival of civilizations. Minor point, but I am very inarticulate.
“General, you don’t have to wait until after you’re dead to see how the Democrats are aiding and comforting the enemy; you have more sources of info than I did instead of just the MSM. What you have to remember is that your oath to defend the country also applies to domestic enemies, so if they pull your troops out of this front, you can just advance in another direction.”
Yep, sounds like Abrams has the proper perspective now.