Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

[If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends.

Time to worry about that was back in 2002. I was. Anyone who read those 2002 posts know damn well how much I feared the mistake now called "Mission Accomplished".

Three conditions are required for war. 1) A smoking gun. 2) A strategic objective. 3) An exit strategy defined by the strategic objective. These were posted here how many years ago? Five?

Your logic is too little too late. Damage was done long ago. Just another example of damage that does not appear in numbers until years later.

You are using the same logic that massacred so many of my generation. Those who have contempt for the troops used that rationalization. Even a poker player would never be so dumb as to use that rationalization. At the poker table, one who blindly used such rationalization becomes easy money for everyone else.

A smart man learns early when he has created an unwinnable situation - and folds long before the damage is evident. Our last hope for victory required 500,000 troops in country over one year ago. And that was a conservative number. Military doctrine puts the number at 600,000. You are supposed to know such basic concepts when somehow taking a Gen Curtis LeMay's 'big dic' attitude. Even LeMay conceded that Nam could not be won. But to get his attention, we even had to sacrifice 10% of this nation's nuclear bombers.

Yesman065 - at what point do you temper your reasoning by first learning basic military concepts and history? Three fundamental requirements are necessary for a military victory. None. Zero - exist in "Mission Accomplished". So you would throw away more good American soldiers? That is the definition of contempt for the troops.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Yesman065 - at what point do you temper your reasoning by first learning basic military concepts and history? Three fundamental requirements are necessary for a military victory. None. Zero - exist in "Mission Accomplished". So you would throw away more good American soldiers? That is the definition of contempt for the troops.

My reasoning is working just fine, thanks.

To me, trying to deny them financial support and treating them as pawns in an attempt to make your political opponents look worse - in effect - USING the troops so you may gain power--- That is the definition of contempt.

Oh hell I'll just post another link you won't read cuz it doesn't fit your agenda.

A War We Just Might Win

AND from the NYT of all places.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

My reasoning is working just fine, thanks.

I don't know. You are making claims from an article that does not say what you claim. First O’Hanlon and Pollack, as I recall, were two of the best Iraqi analysts who were attacked for removal by Rumsfeld because they were not saying the political agenda. They advocated nation building. They came to the Pentagon via Sec of State Powell because they were some of the best experts on Iraq. They were driven out by an administration of wacko extrmists who somehow knew "America does not do nation building".

And what do they write. Details that fit in exactly with what I posted. A War We Just Might Win

We are finally accomplishing something in Iraq, at least in military terms. We have been losing massively at every level for four years. Those who replaced knowledge with a poltical agenda are easily identified. They said we were accomplishing something where even simplest minds knew that was not true.

IOW with generals who were not selected and constrained by wacko political agendas, then we are winning tactically. Petraeus repeatedly said he can win tactically.

Did Yesman065 hear what massive numbers of analysts are also saying in response to this commentary and in agreement with Petraeus? "Mission Accomplished" cannot be won militarily. These temporary victories provide Maliki time to create a political solution - the strategic objective. So what is Maliki doing? Nothing. Not even basic legislation is being passed. Lawmakers all went home. Iraqis appear to be fortifying positions for a wider civil war.

Why does this commentary get big play? The wacko extremist propaganda machine is pushing this one commentary massively because they finally have an accomplishment that is not a lie. Why do wackos forget to mention the rest of what Petraeus says? Why does Yesman065 also forget same; confuse tactical victories with strategic success?

Again, Yesman065 - either you never read or did not grasp what was posted repeatedly even to you. How many times must this be repeated to put O’Hanlon and Pollack into proper perspective? Somehow you are assuming that victory in battle means victory in war. Only fools and those with a 'big dic' perspective believe that. "Our bombs are bigger. Therefore we will win?"

We won most every battle in Nam - and lost. That war could not be won for reasons even cited in 1960s by Halberstam and Sheehan's books. For reasons also cited by the 'wise men' in 1968. Same exists in Iraq.

Yesman065 - they are repeatedly talking in the news about tactical verses stratgeic objectives. Do you not yet get it? You are making claims from an article that does not say what you claim. By not learning the bigger picture, you fail to comprehend the point in that commentary.