Replies

That we are not winning does not necessarily mean that we are losing. He didn't say we are losing, but answered a question about whether or not we are winning.

If he had said "Oh yeah, we're winning" then it would have been very easy to say that he is in denial about the gravity of the situation over there. I wouldn't characterize the current situation as "winning". We already WON the first phase, which was regime change; but now we need to win the second phase, which is to destroy the islamofacist al qaeda presence, and we are not doing that yet.

I wouldn't characterize the current situation as "winning".

I guess I have entered the gray area of nuance. Please enlighten me on how "not winning" does not equal losing. Is there some squishy middle? IMO, I would say that we are succeeding, but we have not completed the mission. What is the mission? An Iraq that can stand on its own two feet.

You people here on FR that are so "short-term solution oriented" need to look back at history. Missions such as this one take years if not decades.

Another big part of this that MANY of you are missing is the mental aspect. If the troops in the field, both Americans and Iraqis, keep hearing American figure heads say that we are not winning, we will NOT win. For example, if you are a coach, you do not tell your team in the middle of a game, "Hey losers, you are losing. In fact you have lost. You may as well quit the game." To continue to say that they are winning is as much inspiration as anything else. The game is not over and to announce in the middle of it that you have lost is the WORST thing to do.