Mitch-

I think you're overstating your case a bit with this line about enemy capabilities post-Tet:

"The media stood firmly on the "anti" side, having declared the war "unwinnable" in the midst of the greatest military victory of the war, in a battle that broke the back of the enemy's ability to carry out any cohesive offensive operations for the next five years."

While the VC were certainly dealt a blow that they did not soon recover from, the North Vietnamese were most definitely able to carry out "cohesive offensive operations" less than five years after Tet.

I was referring to the Viet Cong; they were basically driven from the field after Tet. Most "VC" for the rest of the war were actually NVA that had been infiltrated to buttress their guerrilla allies.

Until the US abandoned the South, the NVA wasn't able to launch a real conventional invasion that was able to conquer the RVN; the vast bulk of their operations were infiltration to support the remains of the VC.

But I didn't state it in as many words, you're right.

FYI, you said the '72 election was a referendum on Iraq. I think you meant Vietnam.

A natural mistake - so many similarities, after all.

And he also wrote: "whose candidacy for predident".
So what? The only similarity to Vietnam is the liberal's inclination to surrender and run and hide like a pack of angry clowns. (John Dean voice: Yeeeeaaaahhhh!!!)

Mitch - define for us, no, enlighten all of us on the meaning of winning in Iraq?

When do we know when we've won?

I understand what you are trying to do here Mitch, and sympathize what you are saying. I want to support our President and his policies. I want our troops to bring peace and stability to Iraq. But as this administration has failed it's troops, and unfortunately the people of Iraq in this venture, I cannot support this administration. Howard Dean is correct that we can't win this war... not as long as it's managed this way. Belittleing Howard Dean and others won't help your argument, or draw us to your side.

To your loaded and unfair question, here's a fair answer...

As long as we have an administration who won't have a dialog with the american people, you can be sure that support for this administration will continue to decline. As long as the President wraps himself in the flag, shouts "Freedom" and "Liberty" to his dwindleing faithful, and fails to make corrections in his policy in Iraq, you will hear more from Dean, Murtha, others like them.

So here's my unfair question to you... (assuming you've been drinking kool-aid too)

How do you feel about the President's mismanagement of the war in Iraq, and his ineffective policies in the War on Terror in general?

Saying the US can't win the war as it is currently being prosecuted is legitimate (misguided in my opinion, a counter productive self fulfilling prophecy in my opinion -- in that it gives aid and comfort to our enemies -- but legitimate if heartfelt). Suggesting a pull out at this stage is beyond irresponsible, on the same scale as John Kerry testifying before Congress that pulling out of Vietnam would adversely affect a few thousand people.

Doug, would you say that we are "winning" or "losing" in Iraq as judged against any reasonable historical standard?
> Saddam out of power
> Sons dead
> Vast majority of the country running well and prospering
> No more genocide, no more mass graves
> No more aggression against neighbors
> No more support of terrorism
> No ability to redevelop WMD (or use the ones they hid)
> Iraqi people in polls saying life is better now, and will be better still next year
> al Qaeda losing support in Muslim world as its attacks increasingly target innocent Muslims (This must be true, I heard it on NPR)

But, as long as you want to follow the keen political instincts of Howard Dean, far be it from me to stand in your way.

"I," I will also answer your question: President Bush's prosecution of the war on terror, and the subsequent liberation of millions, will go down in history as one of most successful campaigns for reshaping the world for the better, ever. His poll numbers are similar to those of Abraham Lincoln at this stage.
Not bad for a chimpy moron.

But...but... but...there are still bombs going off. BOMBS! Bad people! America can't possibly win. Not while there are bad people with bombs! Surrender is the only option!!!!!

Doug: We'll know we have won in Iraq when we've reached the same level of troop activity as we enjoy in Germany, and Japan, and South Korea, all formerly conflicted areas now brimming with freedom and money.

Or are you talking about bringing home ALL the troops from everywhere in the world, create a Fortress America and give up all forward bases?

.

Chriss, Are these your criteria for how we know we've won?

> Saddam out of power
> Sons dead
> Vast majority of the country running well and prospering
> No more genocide, no more mass graves
> No more aggression against neighbors
> No more support of terrorism
> No ability to redevelop WMD (or use the ones they hid)
> Iraqi people in polls saying life is better now, and will be better still next year
> al Qaeda losing support in Muslim world as its attacks increasingly target innocent Muslims (This must be true, I heard it on NPR)

Looks to me like, by your standards, we've already won.

You're not playing by the rules chriss. I asked, "how do we know we've won". It is a really simple question - just answer it.

Doug, those are my criteria to know that we're WINNING, that everything we have accomplished is far superior to having done nothing (known in dance clubs as the UN Shuffle).
But OK Doug, I'll play by your rules. We'll know we have won when all the bad guys fall prostrate on the ground with white flags in the air and beg for forgiveness and the land flows with milk and freakin' honey. Oh, and I forgot: We need to find a box in a basement of one of Saddam's palaces labeled "Really, really bad weapons Icky icky" with a Mr. Yuck sticker on it. Everything short of that is a failure.
Oh, you're right, we can't possibly win.
Let's quit and do nothing.

I'm still trying to figure out if we've won WWII. It's so hard to know what with troops stationed in Japan and Germany and the host countries wanting them to stay. I just can't see how functioning democracies can be established in either country given their histories.

Mitch, Doug's question would make a fun post. "How do we know when we've won in Iraq?"
It has Foxworthy-esque potential, "When X happens, we have won in Iraq."
Such as "When the media pulls out, we have won in Iraq." Or "When Liberals say it wasn't worth the price, we have won in Iraq." (Thanks to "The Mac-Groveland Republican" -- yes there is one -- for the ideas.)
It would also be a helpful service to our liberal friends, so they know what to look for.

Chriss -

"President Bush's prosecution of the war on terror, and the subsequent liberation of millions, will go down in history as one of most successful campaigns for reshaping the world for the better, ever"

I wish I had your faith, and I'll be glad to admit that I'm wrong when history suggests this. As I'm sure you'll admit your errors if this finishes with Iraq is in a civil war.

"Oh, you're right, we can't possibly win.
Let's quit and do nothing."

The issue isn't black and white. Very few are calling for outright immediately withdrawl. In fact, almost everyone, including this administration, are calling for troop levels declining in 2006, but the difference is in degree. But when Dems say it, conservatives suggest we are defeatist.

Thanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.