http://tinyurl.com/j8pbl

On mission accomplished. The mission was to defeat the Iraqi military. It was our military vessel. The military controls what goes up on that vessel. The military won the major ground war in Iraq. The military acomplished their mission. Its that simple. Guess who the military commander is?? Entirely appropriate.
Now you may well argue that there are other missions or jobs for other than the military (and secondarily for the military) that remain to be accomplished. Agree.

Agree that the terrorism battlefield is WW. We are in Iraq now.

In Afghan we have a sufficient military presence to control the situation. In Iraq ’strategic deployment’ means pulling out altogether. IE, Iraq is not as stable as Afghan. Pulling out now will be seen by the terrorists as a clear cut defeat and will encourage more terrorism – IMHO.

And Condi did not say “excuse our mistakes because our intentions were good.” Reread the quote. She spoke of tactical errors- which all armies, all leaders, all states make. Many are not honest enough to admit it.

Dugger, Absolutely a P*ss Poor Typist

“I believe strongly it was the right strategic decision,” Rice said Friday.

“But when you look back in history what will be judged on is” whether the “right strategic decision” was made.

Never has it been better illustrated how the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

About that mission–could the right, once and for all, clarify what that mission was? Because if the mission was only to make Saddam run away, we should have left immediately after we caught him.

The enemy we face isn’t going to “respect an AC-130H so as not to attack”–all they’ll do is not attack the AC-130H, and instead go after, say, a nightclub in Bali.

All your talk about the battlefield leads me to believe that you’ve forgotten the lessons of not only 9/11, but also 3/11 in Madrid and 7/7 in London–that the battlefield is the entire world.

The remnants of Al-Qaida in Afghanistan ceded the country to our superior firepower, but they didn’t meet us afterwards and sign a treaty, hand over their sabers and hope for mercy. Instead…they redeployed. To our ally Pakistan. And later, after the climate was ripe, to Iraq.

That doesn’t sound like “surrender.” Why is it “surrender” if we do it?

And it wasn’t just the CINC ‘crowing” about mission accomplished! it was me and a bunch of soldiers. That mission was accomplished very damn well, thank you. (BTW, why does the left hate it when soldiers take pride in winning a hard fought battle?)

And we should care how the terrorist view us if in fatc that ‘view’ encourgaes more attacks than otherwise. I could care less if they hate my decadent infidel guts as long as they have sufficient respect for the likes of an AC-130H so as not to attack.

And who says it isn’t working? it takes along long time to satbilize a region. We ‘mission accomplished’ the big war early. The insurgency is a diffrent proposition.

Dugger, Look. We are there. Might as well do it right.

Lead. Follow. Or get the hell out of the way

Sorry for delay in responding.

No. Democrats went to war – along with Republicans. Been my point all along. Dems voted for war and then they and their supporters starting pretending their vote for war wasn’t a vote for war.

And I’m all for fighting smart. But giving up in Iraq ain’t smart IMO. But no amount of Democratic or RINO Newspeak baloney will transform ’strategic redeployment’ into anything other than what it is – surrender. Our troops know that and the terrorist/insurgents know that – even if the American left pretends otherwise.

Dugger, Congratulatuions Gen Custer on your Strategic Redeployment at Little Bighorn!

Look, this is very simple–what we’re currently doing isn’t working. Let’s try something new instead of “staying the course.” Maybe get the troops out of harm’s way while doing so. Maybe go after that asshat Bin Laden.

And why should we care how the terrorists view us? You think we’re going to somehow change their minds and their hatred just by handing them defeat? Do you know nothing about zealots at all? If we “surrender,” they become emboldened, if we “defeat” them…guess what? They get emboldened. They’re not out for winning themselves a peaceful life, they’re out for winning themselves a peaceful afterlife.

Who we should be worrying about are the ordinary, middle-of-the-road Muslims–and our PR with that population is terrible.

The Bush “strategy for victory” was asinine. “In order to achieve victory, all we have to do is win.” Give me a break.

framefan: Wowzer! You nailed it!

Is anyone else besides me pretty darn sure that “framefan” is just Frank_D posting under a different name? Sort of like Frank Burns posting under the name hawkeyeandBJsuck.

What do you have against fighting smart? The winners learn to adapt; the losers hope they’ll get lucky.

He’s at the Marriot in Houston.
Ask George HW to ask OBL’s dad. They play golf, don’t they?

Let’s see how many qualifiers a leftist can use in one short sentence: “pretty much…” “relatively small”….

But heh, its EASY! Just ask Jade, the military tactician! Shoot, the tribal areas of the hindu kush, childs play for the Jadester….

As bugs bunny used to say….”What a maroon….”

t’s great that the Democrats have finally gotten on-board with the War on Terror. It’s a shame that it’s taken them 4 1/2 years. I wonder if they’ll also be as “tough and smart” when dealing with Al Qaeda sleepers in the US – you know, the ones t…

I mean heck, as long as we are dishing out mindless, thoughtless political rhetoric without demonstrating exactly HOW we are going to do it,, I thought I might get in on the action….

Exactly how is Dummy George Bush planning on getting us out of the mess he created?

All I’ve heard out of him is the same old Bushit.