AMEN!!!!

Well said!

This ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around.

If this Iraq enterprise works out well, no one will remember the comments of hand-wringing twits and CNN reporters.

A last bloody phase is near. The Sadr militia and other vile types infesting Bagdad and Shia sections of Iraq are about to be extinquished. I think the Sunni insurgency is fairly exhausted and is mostly playing defense against the Shia. Al Queda is fading. Once the Shia militias are defeated the Sunni holdouts will be able to give up and join the political game. That Sadr fellow should have been eliminated two years ago.

It is hardly surprising that the violence has escalated at this point. The jihadist murderers in Iraq were, perhaps, counting on our attention being elsewhere (like Israel).

They are losing, IMHO, and they know it (but won't admit it) and desperate men can do desperate things.

Here's a question to which I really WOULD like an answer: These jihadists in Iraq are killing innocent women and children on a daily basis in the HUNDREDS and NO MORAL OUTRAGE from Europe, the U.N., Hillary Clinton - nodamnbody!

Gayle Miller:

Here's a question to which I really WOULD like an answer: These jihadists in Iraq are killing innocent women and children on a daily basis in the HUNDREDS and NO MORAL OUTRAGE from Europe, the U.N., Hillary Clinton - nodamnbody!

There are many reasons for this, but the two that come immediately to mind are:

1. They view it as our fault, as in if we weren't there, the murderers wouldn't be killing people. It's a slight extension of the "we're creating more terrorists by fighting them" argument. That's why we seem to bear the brunt of the criticism, as we're apparently forcing farmers, dentists, doctors and retailers to suddenly become hardcore fundementalist "freedom fighters".

2. That's what they do. No one is surprised, no one expects the terrorists to not kill innocent people, so critics of the war don't show outrage over it, because they're not outraged or surprised that it's happening. This almost in essence makes it seem like they approve. I don't think it's the case, but it would certainly help their image if they just tried a little.

Overall, I'd say things are going all right -- but not great....Hundreds of thousands of Shiite demonstrators were in Baghdad today shouting "Death to Israel, Death to America" in a Iraq defense ministry approved demonstration. So how goes the battle "to win the hearts and minds." And these are the Shiites, our nominal allies, never mind the 5 million Sunnis who are de facto sworn enemies in Iraq. Judging by the enormous 'demos 'anti-american' feeling is increasing which is helping to spawn militia rule, and a looming sectarian civil war, which provides the chaos and lawlessness that are the conditions in which terrorist groups like Al-queda thrive.

Good post JT. Thanks.

Steve,
Your strawman demonstration is not the point of JT's post. Remember that it is a democracy now, as fledgling as may be, and there are quite a few folks there who doubt our word that we will leave. That's understandable - and would be in any country occupied by the invader.
You are positing something with no patience. Sadr is a shite and hates America. The Sunnis, while hating America because they made up the Bathists, are now asking for America to help cleanse Bahgdad of Sadr's Mehdi militia. And Iran sees such an opportunity to keep it stirred up.

It's a war zone and it's not pretty. But our guys fighting there haven't given up. Why should we?

A secterian civil war is exactly what we've got NOW, the Republican adminstration is just too dishonest to admit it. Rumsfeld should resign immediately for lying to the American public.

Jay,
The bigger criticism against the administration is that the plans they had in the first place specifically disregarded this set of events and instead counted on a rosier scenario, not so much that the Administration is not revealing they're plans now (since we essentially know them - "Stay the Course"). The plans they had for reconstruction and occupation were (wildly) off the mark and had to be changed, which is the thrust of your argument, but that's the exact problem: THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE PLANS! At what point do you demand that our policy makers do something different to get better results? Personally, I've reached that point.

So, you can keep preaching on all you want about being a mindless drone who asks for no accountability from our elected leaders, after all that is your right. But some of us actually want some evidence that the plan currently being implemented is actually working, you know by having some of those milestones you casually dismiss. You can say, and you may be right, that having milestones makes them targets for the insurgency, the terrorists, the Shi'ite militias, or whoever our enemy is now. But clearly true success is if those milestones improve in spite of opposition. And the problem is that the opposition to achieving those goals is increasing, both abroad and domestically.

Now, you can blame the media or the liberals or whoever else you want for that, but that does us no good and in no way strengthens your argument that all we need is more time and flexibility to prevail. Something needs to change, but one of the many problems is that Bush has painted us into a corner where it's either withdraw (and lose face, plus whatever nightmares the Right can conjure up) or invade a new country (ahem-Iran) at the cost of thousands of lives and billions more dollars (which the will be proclaimed as glorious victory).

But what do I know, I'm just some loony moonbat.

Lefty:

A secterian civil war is exactly what we've got NOW, the Republican adminstration is just too dishonest to admit it. Rumsfeld should resign immediately for lying to the American public.

You, above all others are quailified to say there is a civil war, I suppose. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, just don't mistake it as fact and damn others who don't share your thoughts as "liars".

Herlader, Aren't you aware that two Pentagon generals testified yesterday that we are in a Civil War in Iraq? I heard an ABC News report this morning that said the same thing. Wake up and smell the Republican failure. Admit your mistakes, it's good for the soul.

It's time to do something about it, not just follow the same, failed policies. Don't you agree that Rumsfeld should resign for the good of the nation? I just received an email from my Uncle this morning, a Marine Lt. Colonel. He said there are strong feelings in the Marines that they want Rumsfeld out.

One of the best explanations of this issue I've seen yet. Some of the criticism out there is well intended and warranted, but much of it is opportunistic, dishonest or uninformed. Alot of the predictions of doom are self-fulfilling and frankly, that seems to be the point.

It's hard to win a war when you aren't really willing to kill your enemies.For example, Sadr is still alive.People on our side in Iraq-and everywhere else-are at risk of death at any time and place but our enemies can only be killed if they happen to be caught when pulling a trigger.Well,this isn't a recipe for victory. Osama bin Laden said that all the firepower of the West was worthless because we lacked the will to use it.Iraq is an excellent example.War is hell and you cannot refine it.Stop trying.

The left wing demorats could care less about winning the war. Just like Vietnam they want an 'American' failure. They were responsible for thousands of American deaths and millions of Southeast Asian deaths but they don't care, America lost, and that was their plan.
They have the same plan for Iraq, they (demorats) have already caused hundreds of American deaths and thousands of Iraqi deaths and again they don't care as long as America loses.
Yes, you can call them unpatroitic and anti-american, They can deny and deny but the facts are in their words and actions. They only care about the power they have in D.C. which will also come to and end when "America" fails, and that's not long in the future if the demorats continue on their path of destruction.

sean/nyc proclaims: "... one of the many problems is that Bush has painted us into a corner where it's either withdraw ... or invade a new country (ahem-Iran)"

Hokum pulled from your butt, sir. Having a focused strategy that includes tough diplomacy to prevent more despots from obtaining the bomb and feed Islamic terrorism is not equal to invading new countries or withdraw. Your argument is black and white with the pretense that we're all screwed by the Bush admin. It's the libs who have painted themselves into a corner by demanding a withdrawal. See MoveOn.org strategy to remove Lieberman through an anti-war country club challenger destine to split the party and lose congressional seats. See Rummy effectively counter all of Hillary's sound bites on the Hill yesterday. See NYTs treasonous reveal of our espionage ... it's pathetic.

Scarapiron:
Are you drunk? I hope so. That could be the only excuse you have for your ignorant rant. Can you name just whothese liberals are who have: ".......the power...." Last time I checked it was the wingnuts who were in charge of everything.

Lieberman no longer represents the ideals of liberal voters. His removal from office is being democratically, and will represent a choice by the people made at the ballot box.

That's how a real democracy works, but conservatives no longer hold to those ideals. They use corruption and greed to obtain their goals, and lie to the American people in the process.

Scrapiron

I don't knbow why I'm bothering, because you're obviously an ignoramus, but please specify how the Democrats are responsible for hundreds of deaths in Iraq.

And again, if you go into a venture with only half a plan, you don't get credit for that half. If I invite you to as ball game, and when we get there I reveal that I don't have any tickets, I don't get to claim credit because at least I got us to the ball park.

If you guys don't want to believe there's a full scale civil war in Iraq, fine. But when you have senior members of our military, as well as senior members of the Iraqi governemnt, saying there is a civil war, it's just plain dishonest to claim that it's all a fiction made up by "the Democrats."

JT:
Good post. If you are a student of history, all it takes is a brief glance at our own history to see example after example of how not to win a war. The first one, the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, WWs I and II, and Viet Nam - all of which presented the administration of the day with faults, failures, plans and more plans.

How many times during WWII did the Allied leadership have to meet to redo the plans and direction of the war. And if you want to take a look at the progress there - that was a real live case of what losing looks like. From the start of major hostilies in September 1939 (lots of other stuff going on prior I will admit) to the Summer of 1942, virtually all of Europe and all of the western Pacific had been lost to the Axis Powers. Germany was knocking on the door of Stalingrad and the oilfields of the Caucasus while Japan was threatening India, Austrailia and the Chinese heartland. And they were on a roll!

Kinda looked like a loser didn't it?

Then there was the shining example of Viet Nam - or how to fight a war not to win but by trying your damndest not to lose.

So if you want to call Iraq a loser - go ahead. For me, I'll wait til one of two things happen. 1) We follow the lead of such leading luminaries as Cindy Sheehan and John Murtha - who would just as soon have us all kneel, bend over and offer our throats to our new Muslim masters (Can you spell Dhimmitude?). Or 2) We get collectively serious about winning this frigging war and JUST DO IT! and Devil take the hindmost.

We follow #1 - we got us a loser here - get in line for your personal set of knee pads. We follow #2 - and we got a chance to win. Where are we now? Somewhere in between.

Lefty claims: "It's time to do something about it, not just follow the same, failed policies ... I just received an email from my Uncle this morning, a Marine Lt. Colonel. He said there are strong feelings in the Marines that they want Rumsfeld out.

What "failed policies" are you referring to or are you just waving your white flag in protest? Assuming he's an active soldier, please ask the Lt. Colonel why the USMC wants Rummy out and let Wizbangers know. Nice source, no explanation = bluff.

Scrapiron has lead for brains... you're wasting your time Chris. He is convinced we should still be fighting in Viet Nam and Korea.

Like most conservatives, he's only happy when the sons and daughters of America citizens are dying needlessly. He's happy when that happens, because it helps keep greedy republicans in power.

Look at the defeat of the minimum wage increase today engineered by republicans! They won't help struggling Americans unless it lines the pockets of millionaires as well. Scrapiron won't respond until he's finished celebrating today's mininum wage defeat, don't hold your breath!

"But when you have senior members of our military, as well as senior members of the Iraqi governemnt, saying there is a civil war, it's just plain dishonest to claim that it's all a fiction made up by "the Democrats."

Nice spin. But not really correct.

Read the transcript. Neither General said there's a Civil War underway in Iraq. Both said that the fighting had worsened, and that it could descend into a Civil War.

Gen. Abazaid: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”

Gen. Pace: "“I believe that we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact.”

Lefty:

Herlader, Aren't you aware that two Pentagon generals testified yesterday that we are in a Civil War in Iraq? I heard an ABC News report this morning that said the same thing. Wake up and smell the Republican failure. Admit your mistakes, it's good for the soul.

Two Pentagon generals? What about the rest?
As far as ABC, well, they form opinions just like everyone else. Hey, when we have a consensus on the issue, I think you'll see more people think the way you and some others do; but until then, as I said before, don't make the mistake of thinking your opinion is universal fact.

It's time to do something about it, not just follow the same, failed policies. Don't you agree that Rumsfeld should resign for the good of the nation? I just received an email from my Uncle this morning, a Marine Lt. Colonel. He said there are strong feelings in the Marines that they want Rumsfeld out.

You say it's time to do something about it as if we're just sitting over there looking at the scenery. Iraq is an ever-changing situation, as I'm sure you agree, and as I'm sure our military decision makers agree.

Why should rumsfeld resign, because he's republican? Or because a few retired generals out of thousands decided they don't like his leadership?

As far as your uncle is concerned, good information. I'm sure I could contact someone in the military that would tell me opposite...unless of course, your uncle has spoken to every marine in the military.

Again, all I ask for is a consensus. When a few people say something that you agree with it doesn't magically become reality.

Lee:

Like most conservatives, he's only happy when the sons and daughters of America citizens are dying needlessly. He's happy when that happens, because it helps keep greedy republicans in power.

That's quite an accusation Lee. So you think most conservatives are happy to see soldiers, friends, family members get blown in half by IEDs?
You know, this ignorant post just killed your credibility in the argument.

Chris: "please specify how the Democrats are responsible for hundreds of deaths in Iraq"

The words and actions of most democrats, and especially those of John Murtha, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and Howard Dean have encouraged, aided, and abetted the enemy in this war. Had America presented a solid front and shown the terrorists that their only options were surrender or death, then things would have been a lot different in Iraq and throughout the global war on islamofascism.

But with most of the democrats in this country rooting for the enemy and hoping for America's defeat it's no wonder the islamofascists have had the will to fight on. And that is why you, Chris, and your kind are mostly responsible for the problems we're having today. Not just in Iraq, but also Iran, North Korean, Afganistan, and Lebanon.

By the way, good post SShiell.

Heralder,

When have secular-socialist/communist talking points that Lee regurgitates here ever had any credibility?

P Bunyan

When your toilet leaks I suppose that's a liberal/left/commie plot/responibility also. Sheeeesh you wingnuts are truly nutss. About 30 years ago you'd all be lucked up in a state mental hoispital.

My first thought when the planes struck on 9/11 was "OK, that's it. Time to take off the gloves and start fighting at their (the terror masters) level." To sort half-quote Patton "It's time to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Or, in this case, his religion.

For a brief time we did just that. We kicked Al Qaeda and Taliban ass in Afghanistan and made no apologies for putting the terrorists into places like Gitmo. It was simple: Put down your gun or we will kill you. Clean, assertive and deadly.

Now we're back to fighting a politically correct war. We hand wring over small events (in grand scheme of a protracted war like the GWT) like Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Gitmo and prisoner "rights". We fret over winning "hearts and minds" and pissing off the "Arab stree" (as if they weren't pissed off before Iraq, etc.) We put them prison, debate whether or not they should be there at all, should they have a military trial or a civil trial and on and on. We let imams use mosques as recruiting bases for jihadists because-as near as I can tell—we want to protect the very religion that seeks to destroy the Jews, the West and all non-believers. We let thugs like Moqtada al-Sadr live and create problems.

In short, we've too f-ing nice in the Iraq War.

When General Abazaid basically says things are FUBAR, then we've got major issues (not that we didn't before). And it concerns the hell out of me because we've got to win this one.

The way I see it—and I'll expand on Jay's sports analogy—we're 3rd and 8 on our 39-yard line, leading by 2 points and not much time on the clock. The momentum's with the other team. If we don't make a couple of first downs, we'll have to punt and the other side's gonna get great field position. Worst of all, our defense (aka: national will) is tired and worn out.

So we have one of two choices: 1.) Step up and make some serious big-time plays and get the momentum back, or 2.) lose the game and go home broken.

And #1 is our only chance and hope.

Hugh,

When my toilet leaks I fix it.

When a lefty's toilet leaks they:

1. blame George Bush

2. call the goverment demand that the government send someone to fix it

3. hire a lawyer to sue the toilet manufacturer, the plumber who installed it, and the person who sold them the house

4. call for a congressional investigation into why toilets leak

5. try to pass legislation to outlaw toilets because some of them might leak

They want timetables, they want measurable, quantifiable progress, they want commitments.

That, in my consideration, is precisely the wrong thing.

Plans are transient things. They are fluid. They cannot become fixed in stone, or they will fail.

What are needed are clearly defined goals, accompanied by flexible plans towards achieving them. And the failure of a plan is not the failure towards the goal.

That is why Operation Market-Garden (Allies WW2) and the Battle of the Bulge (Germany) failed so badly. There was a ridged timetable that had to be adhered to. One little misstep and the whole thing goes to hell in a hand basket. That is why the American military is the best, they adapt and improvise, something that other armies have not done before or since.

Heralder,

Saying Lee has credibility is like saying deafening silence, it's an oxymoron, they are mutually exclusive.

The moron takes a post about the current situation in Iraq and talks about a vote in congress about the minimum wage, talk about off topic.

P. Bunyan: best damn discription of a liberal yet.
Wondered how long it would be before old "pucker puss" (lee lee) would chime in with his same old same old.

I never wanted us to start this war. Not because it was'nt right, but because just what is happening on this page was going to happen.
The Administration started fighting with one eye on the response of the electrorite to the media. Should never fight that way.
Now that we are there and "broke it" as Colin would say, we do have to fix it.
I see that the administration has made many mistakes, but they have changed some things in an attempt to straighten this out. I just hope it's good enough, and soon enough.

Among the many questionable justifications in Jay's sunny outlook, this one has to be the most off the mark. Ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who went 2-3 years without running water or electricity,not to mention the destruction to the oil infrastructure which damaged the ability to get the oil to market, which was supposed to finance the reconstruction process. Does no one else have a problem with the fact that we