Posted on 8/9/2007, 8:30:07 AM by Kaslin
Critics of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, called for by President George Bush in January, early on cited American losses and then announced the plan's failure. Supporters, on the other hand, have seen progress from new tactics (which, many argue, should have been adopted far earlier).
Such wide disagreement over a military campaign in progress is not that unusual. Sixty years after World War II, historians, even with the benefits of hindsight, still argue over the cost-benefit ratios and strategic results of diverse battles from Operation Market Garden to Okinawa.
The U.S. military reports that the surge in Iraq has helped reduce violence and defeat terrorists. But its officers also warn of manpower shortages, as well as commitments in Europe, Japan, the Balkans, Korea and elsewhere in the Middle East. We can't maintain the surge at present manpower levels in Iraq indefinitely.
So how do we know whether the surge is working - especially whether its apparent present tactical success will translate into long-term strategic advantage?
In September, Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, will issue a status report on the war to Congress. Experts then will study quality-of-life issues in Iraq, such as the status of water, power and sewage services. American casualty figures will be weighed against a sense of improving or worsening security. And we will again examine the Iraqi government's ability to provide effective anti-terrorist forces and relieve some of our responsibilities.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
It's really very uplifting. After being beaten down by Democrat propaganda for months upon months, it's wonderful to hear.
The thing here in particular, the reaction I'm seeing is consistent. People aren't just happy to hear we're "doing well", they are rejoicing at the news. That's how bad the Democrats have made it sound, that's how much they have overplayed their hand...
If President Bush can pull out some sort of victory out of this, "the issue blowing up in their face" won't be adequate to describe what will happen to the Democrat party in the next election. They are fully vested in absolute defeat.
The liberals are the part of defeat
part=party
It’s correct either way
Although it appears that way, I believe this is going to be a battle of PR efforts. Unfortunately, with the backing of the mainstream media, the Democrats will do everything they can to paint the results of the September report as badly as possible. They'll use all their favorite techniques, including attacking the general.
bump & a ping
Actually, they will have an overnight ‘change of heart’ (as always, based on some focus group or poll), and the American people will forget about pretty much everything they have said up to that point. Idiots...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.