« Conventional Wisdom Wrong Again | Main | Strange Rumors about Governor Sebelius and those Iraq comments »

"I Don't Want to Come Home Until We Win"

In my Townhall column this week I talk about how important it is that we don't surrender in the Iraq media war.

In Arlington last week, someone asked military blogger Jim of Sgt. Hook what he would say to those who want to support the troops by bringing them home. He said he would tell them "I don't want to come home until we win."

Increasingly the prospect of winning in Iraq is presented by the Democrats in Congress, and most of those reporting in the mainstream media, as a pipe dream. Ignore the defeatists. You might have to look a little harder to find them, but there are many who believe victory in Iraq can be achieved and that it will be in spite of the efforts of those in the U.S. Congress and the media - unless we surrender, that is.

Speaking on a panel at the milblog (short for military blog) conference last weekend, Bill Roggio, who has embedded as a journalist in Iraq and Afghanistan, said it is well known through documents we have discovered that much of the enemy's strategy revolves around manipulation of the media. He said the enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so they employ a strategy of attacks planned specifically for maximum media coverage and effect. This strategy has been quite successful.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "I Don't Want to Come Home Until We Win":

Comments (25)

It's tough in the hall of m... (Below threshold)
kim:

It's tough in the hall of mirrors. Something too few of radical Islam's fellow journeyers realize is that nihilistic religious fanatics and US Marines are both capable of breaking a lot of mirrors in a New York Nacht.
======================

Look quickly to find those ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Look quickly to find those who believe that a meaningful victory in Iraq is still possible. There will be fewer tomorrow than there are today, and fewer the day, week, month after that. By the time the "surge" is proven to be just an extension of the ongoing tragic waste of lives and resources, there will be virtually none left whatsoever. And then will it still be the media's fault?

But what would victory look... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

But what would victory look like? An Iraqi government and military that is able to stand on it's own? The disarming of the Sunni and Shi'ite militias, or simply an end to the sectarian violence between them? It's important to state celarly what we mean by' winning'or victory, since some objectives we might be able to achieve in a year or two - others might take ten years or more. Does anyone really support maintaining the current level of US engaement in Iraq for ten more years?

Kim: What does that mean? You seem to be confusing treaty of Versailles that ended WWI (signed in the hall of mirros at the palace of Versailles) with the Nazi pogrom of 1938, commonly reffered to as the krystal Nacht. Machts nicht sense!

Any scintilla of accuracy ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Any scintilla of accuracy in the Townhall article goes out the window with the use of the red meat word "surrender." That term of course is an untruth - so when one writes an article about manipulation of the media by terrorists, one probably shouldn't use untruths to manipulate those who believe like you. Other than that, it was OK.

War cheerleading is ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:


War cheerleading is like a drug the War Cheerleaders -- it makes them feel okay for a while at least.

Free Frank Warner nails it ... (Below threshold)
George:

Free Frank Warner nails it again with "When The Chicago Tribune tried to get Chicago out of the Civil War."

Everybody was gung-ho when we went after Saddam; now they want to pretend they weren't and surrender to the fascists who are attempting to undermine our mission.

Holy crap Lorie, must have ... (Below threshold)
metprof:

Holy crap Lorie, must have hit a nerve. All the "defeatists" and "surrenderers" come crawling out from under the rug, Kos talking points in hand. btw, a few tips for all of you...

1) The president has clearly stated what victory looks like, weren't you listening? (oh, that's right. He's just a lying chimp)

2) Calling "surrender" a "red meat" term is assinine. Oh, I get it. Let's call it "blue". That way all you who look for our surrender will feel much better about yourselves. ie "we didn't surrender dammit, we blued. There's a BIG difference. Now let's all just get along...." When the Iranians and foreign fighters begin the slaughter we can call it "pink".....remember, it's not slaughter, there's a BIG difference. Just ask the dead vietnamese and cambodians....oh wait, they can't speak for themselves. But then it's not about them, it's always about you.....

3) Fewer of us believing victory possible every day. I guess you've missed recent testimony by General Patreus (I know, just a lying shill for the president). You must have been, like Pelosi, too busy to hear from the commander about progress. Or you may have missed recent articles in the LATimes about Iraq's in Anbar Prov and Ramadi standing up to foreign fighters....etc. I know, it doesn't fit the Markos/Howard Dean message so it's of no value to you.

4) War cheerleeders......haven't seen any of them lately disclose classified information via the WAPost or NYT. Haven't seen any of them in leadership positions telling the enemy we've lost the war. These folks don't compare our troops to Nazis, Pol Pot, or call them terrorists. I've not seen any of these attempt to violate the seperation of powers in an attempt to dictate foreign or military policy, all for political gain. (references for above are: Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry. Just in case you forgot)

metprof you are the one who... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

metprof you are the one who seems to be overly sensitive.
You wrote:
"The president has clearly stated what victory looks like, weren't you listening? (oh, that's right. He's just a lying chimp)"

That is a willful misprepresentation of what I was saying. I didn't call the president a chimp (you did). How about a quote (with a link to the source) from the President, where he clearly states what victory would look like. Or would you rather just foam and froth at the mouth some more?

Far from trying to post "surrenderist" talking points, I was trying to engage a discussion on the most pressing issue facing the country right now.

It's important to discuss exactly what we mean by victory. The situation in Iraq is very complex. It's easy to imagine a number of different outcomes beyond a simplistic wim/lose dichotomy. For example, what if Iraq freely elects a government that is hostile to the US and Israel? What if the Kruds decide to split from Iraq, but the Sunnnis and Shi'ites object? What if the Sunnis oust Al QUida from their midst, but then a full scale civil war erputed between them and the Shi'ites?

So the examples above are off the top of my head and not meant to be too realistic, but instead to illustrate my point; there are a lot of potential outcomes in Iraq, and separating what we want to acheive, and what we can achieve is critical to "winning" in Iraq.

If they aren't claiming tha... (Below threshold)

If they aren't claiming that those supporting the war are claiming "military victory through military methods only" and saying how that's not going to work, they're pretending that absolutely nothing else matters.

Nothing reported in the media matters.

Nothing said by any pro-surrender/redeploy/we've lost, Democrat matters. (not when Gore said Allawi was a puppet, not when Kerry said Allawi was a puppet)

Nothing matters *except* military action.

And the rest of us have been trying, for *years* to get into thick skulls that the military is only the smallest part of it and doing everything possible to destroy every other aspect and then claiming a military loss is the worst sort of self-fulfilling prophecy if not treason...

And then we get these "it can't be won with with the military only" high and mighty statements as if that's not what we've been *saying*.

I swear people are lying on purpose.

Lorie, Thanks for t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lorie,
Thanks for this post. We know that the liberals in this country want American defeat in Iraq by their words and actions. Again these people know that they stood on the wrong side of history in the cold war. Now they are on the side of defeat for America (and implicitly victory for America's enemies). If we win in Iraq, they will lose their political power. So they must spin (ie l*e) to discredit the magnificient our military has done there in Iraq. They don't even have a hint of shame when they come here to talk about "chimp".

This is sensible article (e... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

This is sensible article (esp from Mort)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/plan_b_for_iraq_winning_dirty.html

These people seem to know what they are doing. The liberals are the ones who don't know what they are talking about. Just look at Pelosi and Reid for an example of clueless incompetence. All they can do is to say we lost and Bush is dumb.

Big liberal cities are far ... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Big liberal cities are far more expensive, and far deadlier than Iraq is.

I think we need to cut n run from the welfare, homicides, handouts, etc from Blue cities, there is NO progress right?

All liberals want defeat i... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

All liberals want defeat in Iraq, we want surrender, we don't want to win, we want to make it easier for Al Queda to fight us over here instead of over there, we stand on the wrong side of war, we don't want the surge to work, we are traitors and anti american, we don't believe Iraq is making progress, we hate Bush and Cheney and Rove and all the corrupt Republicans. Oh and we are evil socialists.

Did I leave anything out? Something I missed?

There once was an America I knew from a long time ago where religion wasn't the government and the goverenment wasn't a corporation. Where people were able to discuss differences because moral absolutes were not so fiercely protected. Where individuality was revered. A nation where education was on the upswing. A time when fear was not used as an resource to dominate our people.

I am very sad for this nation. I am not worried, just sad. The earth has begun a process to cleanse itself. Man has brought himself to this point but nature will take care of it. Too much evil from a former beacon of hope. So sad, so irretrievably sad.

A suggestion and a predicti... (Below threshold)
marc:

A suggestion and a prediction:

It's time to surrender... to the Dems wishes. Time to pull every last man, woman and Humvee out of Iraqi in the fastest way possible.

There you are dems, happy now?

To be fair dems, they aren't coming home as you wish. Every last man, woman and Humvee will be redeployed to Afghanistan. (as opposed to Okinawa)

Prediction: Within 6 months or when it's obvious full scale slaughter is occurring in Iraq, the dems will all be screaming in unisan and off key:

IT"S BUSH'S FAULT! (back-up singers provided by the U.N.)

AND, the likes of Sheehag, Michael Moore and the rest of the appeasement monkey's will be leading the charge (and getting all the free "unbiased" TV air time possible) to pull out of Afghanistan.

All liberals want defeat in... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

All liberals want defeat in Iraq, we want surrender, we don't want to win, we want to make it easier for Al Queda to fight us over here instead of over there, we stand on the wrong side of war, we don't want the surge to work, we are traitors and anti american, we don't believe Iraq is making progress, we hate Bush and Cheney and Rove and all the corrupt Republicans. Oh and we are evil socialists.
--------------------------------------------------
We cannot have perfection for sure. In the US Senate about 99% of the liberals fit this descrition, with the exception of Lieberman. In the US house, there are about 13 blue-dog dems out of ~300. So 95% of the dems in the house fit this description.

So this is a pretty accurate description of liberalism today.

cb grouses uncivilly in the... (Below threshold)
kim:

cb grouses uncivilly in the corner, something about the 'stupid, foolish, French'.
================================

I am very sad for ... (Below threshold)
I am very sad for this nation. I am not worried, just sad. The earth has begun a process to cleanse itself. Man has brought himself to this point but nature will take care of it. Too much evil from a former beacon of hope. So sad, so irretrievably sad. Posted by: civil behavior at May 11, 2007 02:32 PM

Oh good lord, go crawl back to the rock you emerged from you pathetic little cockroach.

Hey Steve, Kim, did you hea... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Hey Steve, Kim, did you hear the news?

"I do not have enough soldiers right now in Diyala province to get that security situation moving," Mixon said. "General Odierno intends to give me additional forces as they become available." Mixon has already received extra troops, but violence in Diyala is on the rise, he said, because more militants have moved in.

But, but but,....Did Lorie miss something? Her very quote written yesterday drawing on another delusional blog is quite revealing of Wizbangers accuracy in assessing the state of Iraq.

"The Democrat's and al Qaeda's worst nightmares apparently are taking shape in Iraq's Diyala's Province. The model of success seen in what was the insurgent/al Qaeda stronghold of Anbar Province is now taking shape in Diyala as the Arab/Muslim street is rising up - against al Qaeda!"......"What this means is the picture presented of Anbar and Diyala in the coming months will be one of huge progress and success."

Earth to Wizbang....connect the dots dingbats......foolish stupid americans who would kiss Bush's feet if asked. I too would have to resort to stupid comments if in fact I had nothing more to base my comments on than loyalty to party. Instead I see what my country is doing. Too bad you don't. Sad and pathetic.

I talk about how import... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I talk about how important it is that we don't surrender in the Iraq media war
Stirring words from Lorie, that recall Churchill's fighting words againgst Nazi Germany after Dunkirk ,in 1941, "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"
But what did Churchill think about trying to occupy Iraq?...From his letteras Secretary of War and Air. to Prime Minister David Lloyd George September 1, 1922. (It begins)"I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming imposssible..(and ends) The victories of Turks will increase our difficulties throughout the Mohammedean world. At present we are paying eight million a year for the privilege of living on a ungrateful volcano, out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having...This is the other side of a unbowed Churchill, an unblushing British empire imperialist, he realised a questionable victory in Iraq, particularly one that would be questioned in Iraq, the ungrateful volcano, was not worth paying any price.

Since Bushie got installed ... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Since Bushie got installed president by the U.S. Supreme Court after getting half-million fewer votes than Al Gore, The Chimp and Osama Been Forgotten have engaged in a little friendly competition as to who could kill off the most Americans. Osama struck first on September 11th 2001, but couldn't quite reach the 3,000 level (though close). Then The Chimp took charge, sending thousands upon thousands of Americans to the one part of the world where they're just about most likely to be killed. Bushie has soared past 3,000, and is closing in on 3,400 dead Americans in Iraq.

You hear that, conservatives???? DO YOU, DAMMIT??? More Americans have lost their lives in Bush's "response" to September 11th than on September 11th itself!!!

You have the audacity, chicken-hawks, to declare that you "support the troops"???? LIKE [expletive-deleted][expletive-deleted] YOU DO!!!! It's you who want them in harm's way, to assuage your[expletive-deleted] paranoia.

And what about Mr. been Forgotten? You know, the guy that actually attacked us, the guy Bush promised "Dead or Alive" then later asserted he was "not concerned" about??? Osama glances at the situation, pleased that he's not the top priority in this "war on terror," and even more pleased as the number of American casualties continues to go up. He doesn't mind losing the competition to his buddy, Bush!

Herman...ah the hell with i... (Below threshold)

Herman...ah the hell with it. Scream at your monitor all you want cockroach. No point in arguing with you since you look like you do nothing but spittle out stupid talking point platitudes and libtard propaganda.

Herman:You hea... (Below threshold)
marc:

Herman:

You hear that, conservatives???? DO YOU, DAMMIT??? More Americans have lost their lives in Bush's "response" to September 11th than on September 11th itself!!!

You have the audacity, chicken-hawks,............

Wouldn't supporting the troops, as I'm sure you would claim to do, also mean your a genetic variation of a chickenhawk as you sit at your keyboard?

That aside more Americans died in Southeast Asia than did at
Pearl Harbor.

Your point... again?

What about my suggestion above Herman... where do you stand?

Would you be in favor of ALL us troops being pulled out of Iraq as fast as possible? Then redeployed in (all 150,000 of them) Afghanistan.

Hows that bucko? Sound good to you?

BTW, in keeping with history (Afghanistan never having been successfully occupied or taken over by a foreign power) in 6 months or a year after the redeployment and "Mr. been Forgotten" is still on the loose would you call that was "lost?"

Would you call for another redeploment? (Okinawa?)

As an added bonus question... how do you think the death or capture of "Mr. been Forgotten" effect anything beyond extra ink being expended by the print media?

Oh... and BTW Herman. Is it... (Below threshold)
marc:

Oh... and BTW Herman. Is it safe to say you have also directed your hate and vile bile towards Jim of Sgt. Hook?

Silly, cb, the Sunni Arab a... (Below threshold)
kim:

Silly, cb, the Sunni Arab are seeking shelter from the storm, and their pals south of the border told them to trust us.
================================

I would have to say, with a... (Below threshold)
kim:

I would have to say, with all due respect, that nailing bin Forgotten, but not Gone, is worth it. Like it or not, he has been adept politically. Just how his rhetoric has neutered moderates within Islam is a continuing mystery to me.
=====================================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy