Their statements should say, "There is no military victory alone".

But, we all know that. We also know there is little chance of political stability and reconciliation without military victory, without some stability and security in the streets and towns and cities of Iraq.

There is little chance of political progress and reconciliation without the stability and security. That's what a military victory will provide.

Bottom line is there must be military victory.

Welcome, Cassy!

Can you imagine having had to listen to Barack Obama for the last several years, long before he decided to share his wisdom with the nation at-large? That's what it's like for those of us in Chicago.

At first I lamented the idea of having to listen to Obama more than I was already forced to by the fawning Chicago media. Here and now, however, I am finding it enjoyable. Why?

Becuase the man is a complete and utter jacka**, and my assertions that 'The Obama Factor' is nothing more than an empty cipher of a man are no longer falling on deaf ears. I've told friends that I would happily vote for an African-American, provided that he was intelligent, reasonable and Conservative. The more Obama talks about foreign policy, the more others recognize him as not being ready for Prime Time, and the sooner we can introduce a Michael Steele or J.C. Watts to the public.

Amen to that, John.

Might I add that it's high time people stop saying that the Iraqis can't do things - or aren't capable of doing things?

This is the cradle of civilization, after all.

These people are capable of a hell of a lot - weren't these the same folks we were afraid of developing nuclear weapons? That ain't no small feat.

Talking about them as lost children is not the right tact to take.

Eliminate the islamists and the Iranian influence (which is the main thrust of the military aspect) and I'd betcha' the average Iraqi will impress the shi'ite out of all us.

Unfortunately idiots like Obama characterize "political solution" to mean compliance with benchmarks or scenarios the democratically-controlled congress has created. Much like "if you don't play the game the way I say I'll take my ball and go home". And I thought the libs were the thoughtful, well-read (thanks Pat Schroeder) intellectuals who had all the answers.

Eliminate the islamists and the Iranian influence (which is the main thrust of the military aspect) and I'd betcha' the average Iraqi will impress the shi'ite out of all us.

How often do we hear the democratics berate al Qaeda in Iraq, the other terrorists or the interference of Iranians?

No, to the democratics and leftists, those groups are not the problem. The problem is President Bush, Republicans who support the war, the military and the Iraqi people and elected government.

But the democratics won't openly criticize Iran for meddling because that's inflammatory and provocative. They won't criticize the terrorists in Iraq because that's intolerant and "they have a right to fight for what they want". After all, the terrorists are just responding to our illegal and immoral occupation of their country. Except that most of them aren't even Iraqis.

What they are terrorizing against is a social and political climate that will reject their Islamic extremism and sharia.

The terrorists cannot win in Iraq alone. They can only win if they can convince Americans it's not worth fighting for. So far, the terrorists have convinced our elected democratics and MSM.

It seems that Obama is saying "we can't win - so let's send even more troops over there!"

The guys is just so in over his head.

Gee, it's funny seeing you 25%ers yuk it up about Obama- especially considering EVERYTHING your president has said about the war has been wrong for the last 5 years.

By the way, why no mention of the 14 soldiers who lost their lives today? I know you want to hide the war dead, but really. Have some respect for your fellow Americans.

I know this is nearly impossible for liberals to fathom, but the only reason Iraq has any resemblance whatsoever to Vietnam is because the liberals themselves have made it that way. They were a bunch of traitorous, white-feather-deserving, military-hating, America-loathing, cut-and-run cowards then, and they're a bunch of traitorous, white-feather-deserving, military-hating, America-loathing, cut-and-run cowards now.

If it wasn't for you meddling kids....then our master plan would have worked!

Meyers, you 14%ers, you need to update your talking points. We're 41%ers now (and growing).

"Have some respect for your fellow Americans."

If you understood what respect was you leftists wouldn't keep using the dead as pro-terrorist propaganda.

The terrorists aren't in Iraq, little boy. They are here. And Pakistan. And Afghanistan. Remember a guy called Osama bin Laden? That guy your president says he doesn't spend much time thinking about? Do a little research and don't come back until you've done your homework.

No terrorists in Iraq? Oh Meyers, how you project your naivete.
================

By the way, why no mention of the 14 soldiers who lost their lives today? I know you want to hide the war dead, but really. Have some respect for your fellow Americans.

Unless you have some more recent information, that helo crash was not a result of an attack, but rather, likely a result of a malfunction.

That in no way diminishes the loss of life.

But, that's what happens sometimes when you send an air machine into the air.

One might argue that if we weren't in Iraq, with the need to lift troops from one place to another, the crash, and ultimately the loss of life, could have been avoided.

If no one drove, we could avoid all loss of life due to automobile accidents.

The fact of the matter is, in war, in combat, in peace, in training, military life is often inherently hazardous.

Just in the past week, during training, in non-combat arenas:

A helo crashes at MCAS Yuma, killing four. Probably a SAR training mission. Haven't heard the cause of the crash, but it was a Huey of some model.

A few days ago, off the coast of Virginia, an E-2 Hawkeye crashes into the sea shortly after cat shot. Three souls lost. It was during training.

In the past couple of weeks, a helo near Baghdad crashes. Non-combat related. It was on a check flight. Three souls on board. Check flights are inherently dangerous as it's to operationally check for proper performance of the craft after a major maintenance evolution.

How many more do you want me to provide?

Of the 3700 plus military deaths in Iraq that are trumpeted by the critics, a bit less than 3100 are related to actual combat.

In no way does that minimize the total number of lives that have been lost by our military. Nor does it minimize the loss of those 600 or so not directly related to combat.

They all lost their lives in support of their mission. They are all valuable; they will all be remembered and honored - at least by most Americans. Some other Americans will just use their loss and sacrifice as a political club.

A few things we can agree on...

After 4 years...different Generals in charge (quick for 2 points who is our "War Czar?")
This mightiest..most technologically advanced military in the world...cannot stop what is happening...
Outside of a draft we will never have enough troops..

Find one General..past or present who believes military action WITHOUT serious diplomatic support... there can be "success"

I'm not a big fan of Obama...however,;
Which Republican Candidate for President has the best Plan for Iraq?
Does anyone even know their explicit views on Iraq?...(outside of Ron Paul ..of course)

That guy your president says he doesn't spend much time thinking about?

He's not your president, Meyers? Do you not live in the United States? You aren't an American?

If that is the case, as a court would say, you have no standing in this case.

If you are an American, or you live in the United States, then George Bush is your President. Whether you like it or not. So suck it up!

"They were a bunch of traitorous, white-feather-deserving, military-hating, America-loathing, cut-and-run cowards then, and they're a bunch of traitorous, white-feather-deserving, military-hating, America-loathing, cut-and-run cowards now. Is it so hard to figure out what the direct result of the decision to cut-and-run in Vietnam was? It'll be the same in Iraq."

I was wondering if any members of WingNut Nation would make reference to today's Bushistic analogies to Viet Nam.
Well, the subject is really Obama's stupidity, so let me say no matter how mind-numbingly stupid Obama is to open his mouth about foreign policy, he would NEVER say 10 years and 58,700 American lives spent was illustrative of 'cutting and running'. Yeah, we should have stayed another 20 or 30 years and sacrificed another 150,000 Americans.

Only the Presidunce
would have the single-digit IQ to make that
historic mental boner.

Semanticleo, I googled "white-feather-deserving" from your quote and, unsurprisingly, found exactly one hit: your comment here on Wizbang.

Nice "quote", nitwit.

For all the slams against him, this may be the most correct Obama has been yet in one of his foreign policy statements.

We are not going to "win" in Iraq with military power alone. The goal is and has been to leave a functioning country behind, and the political side of the process must work or we don't "win" according to our own terms.

On the plus side, Sadr has lost a lot of influence, especially since his "cut and run" to Iran. The Iraqi government has forged a couple of recent deals which isolate him further and freeze his bloc out of the overly influential position they had enjoyed.

We could easily kick their ass militarily if that were the only measure of success, and nobody except a few delusional islamic fanatics doubts that for a second. Take the restrictions off of the military and it'll be all over, but to what end?

Bottom line, Obama is correct in his basic premise, but I think he's wrong about his call to draw down the troops. Wait for the report, then resume your campaigning on the subject.

Ted;

The 'quote' was Classy Piano's.

That's the point. Get it?

Holy Moly.

Just heard on Hugh Hewitt, Captain Ed is reporting:

The leader of Iraq's banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party's former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.

"AlDouri has decided to sever ties with al-Qaeda and sign up to the programme of the national resistance, which includes routing Islamist terrorists and opening up dialogue with the Baghdad government and foreign forces," al-Jashaami said.

But there is no military or political progress in Iraq. Just ask the democratics.

"Believe it or not, there are models of what can happen if you let the military do its job correctly when it comes to re-building a country" -- Cassie

And what the [expletive-deleted] hell did the Lying Chimp that you installed as president tell the voters back in 2000 regarding his views on nation-building, Cassie? WELL, [expletive deleted]??? Cat got your tongue, Cassie?????

Maybe I can help.

"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do and WHEN IT GETS OVEREXTENDED, MORALE DROPS" -- The Retarded Chimp, Oct. 11, 2000

and

"[About Somalia...] It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war." -- The Immoral Chimp, Oct. 11, 2000

finally,

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence."
-- The Duplicitous Chimp, the day before the election in which Al Gore received the most votes from the American people.

Of the 3700 plus military deaths in Iraq that are trumpeted by the critics, a bit less than 3100 are related to actual combat.

And may I point out that whether you use the 3,700 figure or the 3,100 figure, that is approximately half the American soldiers that it took to take one single solitary little island in the Pacific Theater during World War II.

Iwo Jima.

We lost 6,825 Americans taking that island.

That should put it in perspective.

The terrorists aren't in Iraq, little boy.

I beg to differ.

Maybe it's time for your own research.

Idiot.

Now Barack, go be nice, and maybe a little bit later you can go play Battleship with Shrillary and the Breck Girl.

Very Nice! I like this guy already!

Meyers:

By the way, why no mention of the 14 soldiers who lost their lives today? I know you want to hide the war dead, but really. Have some respect for your fellow Americans.

"14 U.S. soldiers Killed in Chopper Crash."

There ya happy now that is mentioned?

And BTW, other than location of the crash being in Iraq, and not so incidentally was caused by mechanical failure not hostile action, what the hell is your point?

Other than a cheap assed and off-topic snipe attack I mean.

nogo:

Outside of a draft we will never have enough troops.. Find one General..past or present who believes military action WITHOUT serious diplomatic support... there can be "success"

Lets go... when does the draft start? No problems as long it has ZERO reasons for deferments not even for those in a wheel chair. Wheelchair bound you say? Fine you ride a desk at a military base in an allied country or at home to free up the able bodied to fight when needed.

College? Tough titties on a big kittty... it can wait "you're in the Army now!"

As far as the rest of your tripe nogo... why should I go searching for your mythical General. Everyone or nearly so would agree, and all that have been or are now in charge have also.

By serious diplomatic effort do you mean like this, from a government loonbats like you claim "hate" America.

Herman - aren't you tired of spewing the same tired Bush quotes after all this time?

Does it make your pee-pee grow bigger or what?

Pretzel Logic, this new contributor is a fine addition to Wizbang. But in case you missed Cassy's introduction, Cassy is not a guy. Not by a long shot!

"Of the 3700 plus military deaths in Iraq that are trumpeted by the critics, a bit less than 3100 are related to actual combat."

And fewer still were murdered by Osama been Forgotten on Sept. 11, 2007.

This should put the matter in even greater perspective: Bush and his "War on Terror" killing off even more Americans than Mohammed Atta and Crew themselves.

"She doesn't have the mental capacity to understand how it is that our military works or how a war is won."

And Bush does?

Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Bush wants to replicate Veit Nam and get 58,000 Americans killed; at least that is what he said today.

Herman:

And fewer still were murdered by Osama been Forgotten on Sept. 11, 2007.

Forgotten? How may NATO and U.S. troops are in active search of him and his henchmen right now?

barney:

Bush wants to replicate Veit Nam [sic] and get 58,000 Americans killed; at least that is what he said today.

Really? Can you provide the quote?

Ahemmm... while on the subject of dumb "Veit Nam"

Let me help you out... Vietnam, and not it's a single word.

Liberals are not cut and run cowards. There are certain wars they will never ever surrender in. Here is a list:

1. Legalized Abortion
2. Socialist healthcare
3. Higher Taxes
4. Man Made Global Warming
5. Absence of Religion

These are the wars liberals love to fight. These are the issues liberals will never surrender their position. Fight terrorism? Nah, not in their interest...or so they think.

Bush wants to replicate Veit Nam and get 58,000 Americans killed; at least that is what he said today.

barney, how many times will you have to be called a useless, leftist POS, before you just go away for goo