Gates Says U.S. Is Not Winning Iraq War

AP via Drudge ^ | Dec 5, 10:45 AM (ET) | ROBERT BURNS

[RVN Airplane Driver]

It seems as though everyone has forgotten that we are in a global conflict...... We took out Saddam and his henchmen in a matter of days....that battle was won, but no, the war on terror has not been won.....and won't in all likelihood for quite some time...but we sure haven't lost. In terms of winning it could be argued we have won for the last five years because we have not been attacked. Last night here in the Dallas area there was 3 murders....I suspect we didn't lose that many soldiers yesterday in Iraq.....this is a very low numbers war in terms of deaths compared to previous conflicts. The only way we can lose is if the American people continue their brain dead approach to the WOT...Thank God we have a President who understands the threat and is doing everything in his power to keep America safe.

[Gritty]

He also just told Senator Bird (blech) that the President does not have the right to go into Syria or Iran, and that Bob Gates has no intention of going into Syria, and we shouldn't go into Iran either. Oh he also stated that Iran cannot militarily attack us.

You're right. If he said this and believes it (as he must), and we act on it, we are done. The War may as well be declared "over". The Middle East is "gone", and probably Europe with it.

If we are at that juncture, it is time to remove and save our resources, pull our troops out immediately and bring them back into Fortress America - where we can start prepping for the Final Battle, which will inevitably take place on our own soil and among our own beleaguered people.

Maybe the enemy will be merciful to us and kill us last?

[af_vet_rr]

Maybe we are not winning, but I don't hear anybody talking about victory as an objective.

Nobody wants to come up with an end-game and/or victory conditions, because they are very long-term conditions IMO, and politicians generally don't like to talk about things beyond their administrations. The conditions aren't exactly neat and tidy either.

If Iraq is stable, friendly, and vaguely democratic/republic 10 or 20 years from now, we'll have won, and it would have been worth it. If Iraq resembles Afghanistan from the 1990s, 10 or 20 years from now, then we've lost.

I like what I'm hearing from Gates. He is not spreading the B.S. around too thick, I like his stance on Taiwan, and I like his stance on not leaving Iraq if it's not stable.

[crz]

By the time they are done argueing if we are winning or not we will have settled the matter and won, and will have moved on to another issue. I figure they'll piss and moan over this for quite a few years and we might well have fought and won quite a few wars in the meantime.

Polititions and lawyers are lower than prostitutes...matter of fact, a hooker is by far a better citizen than either of them.

[AmusedBystander]

But save your strength, you're going to have a couple of very rough years.

No worries mate. A bad day with GWB is better than a good day with Al Gore or John Kerry.

Mr. Bush has earned my gratitude forever for this one item alone.

[firewalk]

No worries mate. A bad day with GWB is better than a good day with Al Gore or John Kerry.

Mr. Bush has earned my gratitude forever for this one item alone.

yep (:

[Danae]

Damn good Point!

[jveritas]

Great Post Sir!

[varon]

Maybe we are not winning, but I don't hear anybody talking about victory as an objective.

Well then, what is the objective? What is the latest spin from the WH as to why we are there at all?

[SMM48]

Carl Levin's pre-questioning speach was a disgrace. A partisian hack if there ever was one.

Gates is a weak, spineless piece of crap. The RATs should love him.

[Vigilanteman]

One the alternative to not winning is turning the areas which won't be pacified into a giant box of kitty litter, you will see Iraqis emerge that fear us more than they do the terrorists.

This theory has, to some extent, already proven true in parts of Anbar Province. The problem is that there is no well to turn this theory into consistent policy.

[Sabramerican]

The election is long over.

Some people also care about the actual governing. And the consequences.

[TexKat]

George W. Bush: I told him that we're not satisfied with the pace of progress in Iraq, and that we want to continue to work with the sovereign government of Iraq to accomplish our mutual objectives, which is a free country that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself; a free country which will serve as an ally in the war against the extremists and radicals and terrorists.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061204-7.html

[Malesherbes]

Right. I haven't the sligtest idea what "victory in Iraq" means. Does it mean that the Sunnis and Shiites stop hating each other? If so, lots of luck.

[rubeng]

My feeling is that Bush is indeed a brilliant military strategist on the level of, say, a Patton. All of this hoopla is to trick the terrorists into thinking that they are winning. Then Bush will unleash a military strategy for victory, which is coming any day now. He is much smarter than his opponents believe. It must be frustrating to have his level of genius and be so under-appreciated.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Since we already won the "Iraq War", this is nonsensical.

I wish people would stop referring to the current military effort as "the Iraq War", as if it's the same exact effort that we waged in 2003 to oust the Hussein government. That only confuses matters. Even 95% of Freepers seem confused about it.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Facing the facts of a war HE didn't screw up is not being a loser.

[CottShop]

exactly wolfstar- Keep the troops there- keep them out of harms way as much as possible, and let the insurgents kill themselves- Use their own hatred against them- let them fight among themselves until they are dwindled to the point of no return! http://sacredscoop.com

[NY Attitude]

Somehow I do not ever remember hearing those kind of words uttered by the administration during WWII.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Maybe we are not winning, but I don't hear anybody talking about victory as an objective.

The victory-objective was to oust the Hussein government. This was achieved in 2003, hence, we won "The Iraq War".

Our military presence there now has a bunch of (not-really-warfare) objectives involving safeguarding the new government. Since it's not "the Iraq War" anymore, "victory/defeat" per se don't enter into it. So it's normal that it doesn't look like we have victory as an objective.