America in Vietnam.
Russia in Afghanistan.

Two small countries. Two powerhouse countries. Two losses. It is easy to occupy, it is not easy to win.



No one hates America and few want us to lose. (Well, maybe Rev. Wright).

"Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war, it was between war and a greater threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. ." John McCain's 2004 statement aimed at Michael Moore.

If this war is won all mewling in the world about losing shows those mewlers (Pelosi & Co) to be pathetic, short-sighted, oportunistic politicians. This general is on the right track to bring some stability to this area of thousands of years old feuds to an end if... the next administration has the backbone to capitalize on our win.



It is a moving target, that answer. It is easier to say what is a loss: a terrorist state perhaps controlled by Iran.

The general is winning the battles. Backbone by our leadership will win the war.

Wow . . .

Well said, Bill . . .

How can the most powerful nation in the world invade a soveriegn nation and not have a definition victory? There's the old adage, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." That seems to be the reason our blood and treasure is being wasted in Iraq.

Dubya wanted to be a War President and the Wrong Wing Syncophants are desperately trying to change the goal to catch up with reality. That way they can feel good about this disasterous Administration and their immoral war.



How will you know? You don't even know what "a win" is.

We're sending our soldiers to die for an objective that remains a "moving target"? How would you like to have one of your children drafted--and then when you ask what he or she will be fighting for, to hear "that's a moving target."

That's the very definition of military failure. Thinking like that is why we lost in Vietnam. You don't go to war without fixed objectives that you want to accomplish, get it over with and get out. Oh, and also, according to the New York Times, the "Surge" didn't work. Violence has dropped in some areas of Iraq because we've been paying protection money to Sunni criminals who are now being cracked down on by the Iraqi government:

The American military began paying many members of the Awakening movement as the program expanded, even including Shiite members who make up about one-fifth of the program. Now they are paid roughly $300 a month by the United States to guard checkpoints and buildings and — for those who used to be insurgents — to no longer blow up American convoys and shoot American troops.

Although the “surge” is often described as the turning point that led to lower violence, a number of American officers contend the Awakening that began well before the surge in 2006 in Anbar Province and continued in Baghdad last year was the most significant reason for the decline. In some places, American casualties plunged within weeks of the Sunnis joining with American forces.

Are you happy to find out that your tax dollars are being paid to a protection racket run by members of Al-Qaeda?

Yeah, these turned out well.




Thanks for the quote. Further evidence of McCain's delusions.

How much evidence do some of you need? Hussein was not a threat to the US or to anyone else for that matter. He had no WMD. 2/3 of Iraq was patrolled by US and British air forces. 100% of Iraq was heavily spied on via satellite. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Hussein had been successfully contained and the military strength of the 1980s was long gone.



Stability? Surely you jest! After how many decades of occupation and how many millions of blackmail do you think this will occur? There is no win to capitalize on.




WTF? Moving target? That would be like saying the American Revolutionary War was won when they captured Fort Ticonderoga. Bah!



Yeah, just keep telling yourself that.