Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Breaking news!

We're still losing in Iraq!

So says Sen Reid, the same Senate Majority Leader that declared the war to be lost this spring.

From CBS news-

"Who's winning?" Reid asked a group of reporters. "Big oil, big tobacco. ... Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. ... The American people are losing."

Does he offer any proof for this notion? Nope, he simply repeats it ofton enough that he will believe it. Any proof to the contrary? Well, amazingly enough, Reid made his comments on the very same day that MNF released new stats on Iraq that show violence continuing it's downward trend.

From MNF-I, as posted on The Fourth Rail-

I can at least understand the pacifists who say that all war is wrong. I think they are naive and misguided, but I can understand their thinking. The MoveOn party however, is simply playing politics with the war, with the lives of our military in harm's way, and with the future of this country.

The biggest irony in my mind? Here in Minnesota we have thousands of football fans jumping back on the Vikings bandwagon now that they are winning. But in the life and death matter of the war, Sen Reid and Speaker Pelosi are about ready to be run over by the bandwagon of their fellow liberals because they refuse to accept reality.


Charley Underwood said...

Perhaps I just don't understand what is meant by "winning" in Iraq. Would it be a permanent military occupation by the U.S. with no Iraqi insurgency? Would it be the domination of one Iraqi ethnicity over the others, and if so which one should be dominant? Would it be the complete partition of Iraq into three separate countries or quasi-countries?

If the United States is still in Iraq, we need a new definition of victory. I mean, Saddam Hussein has been overthrown. Elections have been held. There weren't any WMDs. Those were the old definitions of victory, but we got past all that, yet the U.S. is still there. Why? What else are we there for?

SSG Thul said...

Charley, a good picture of winning in Iraq could be found in Kosovo. You remember that we still have troops there, right?
Kosovo is a cauldron of ethnic strife, much like Iraq. But actual violence is kept in check by the threat of force from the UN, and the US soldiers that patrol the toughest areas.

I understand your argument about definitions of victory. What you have to understand is that there was one battle to remove Saddam, which we won and which produced the mission accomplished sign that you libs love to hate. Then there was another battle with AQI, whose parent corporation's CEO is Bin Laden, and a battle by proxy with Iran. That is the battle that we are now almost ready to declare victory in.