[Joann37]

keep for later

[Polybius]

How We'll Know When We've "Won"?

1. When a power extremely hostile to the U.S. (be it Baathist Iraq or Islamist Iran) in the Persian Gulf has not yet developed nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

2. When the Persian Gulf Oil reserves that comprise 70% of the World's know reserves are not yet denied to the Free World by said hostile power.

3. Everything else is strictly optional.

4. You "win" by not "losing" on Points 1 and 2 and losing is not an option.

5. This will take as long as not losing South Korea.

[Defiant]

We already have won. The media haven’t given up yet, though. It’ll be over when they stop making every car bomb a lead story. When the terrorists stop getting attention, they stop committing terror. The media are complicit in the terror, and the Dems encourage the media. At some point, they will concede that we have won the ground and the country, in spite of occasional terror that is not unusual in Phillipines, Thailand, Nigeria, or anyplace where muslims abound.

[Just A Nobody]

Did not bother to read past this:
let us consider in detail one of the most important of these arguments: that no one has offered any clear definition of success in Iraq.

Brain dead morons!!!

President Bush has defined success in Iraq for years!

The simple explanation:
1. When Iraq can GOVERN itself
2. When Iraq can SUSTAIN itself
3. When Iraq can DEFEND itself
Our Troops will come home with the honor they deserve!

[llandres]

Thanks for posting this!! To Mr. Kagan - right, right, right, spot on, should be required reading for all. For what it’s worth (which is not much), BHO reservedly told Chris Wallace today on FNC that he agrees with, and supports, the choice of Petraeus to head Central Command (caveats and Bush slams included, of course). Then there’s lunatic Howard Dean (I can’t stand that supercilious twit) on Meet the Press, when asked about the unfair twisting of McCain’s “100 year statement”, saying yeah, okay, BUT McCain’s still totally wrong - that ANY continued U.S. presence there in whatever capacity will mean continued attacks and more lost lives are inevitable.

[DGHoodini]

We’ll know we’ve irreversibly won, when the lying DemoCowards start rushing in front of the TV cameras to take credit for it.

[Christian4Bush]

mark

[neverdem]

Accepting the Premises (of man made global warming) Newt has lost his marbles too.

The New Dissidents (Global Warming Deniers)

The Green Phantom - Global warming's curious absence as a campaign issue.

Undoing America's Ethanol Mistake SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Uncle Ivan]

Can we question their patriotism yet?

[Tolik]

Frederick W. Kagan:

Virtually everyone who wants to win this war agrees: Success will have been achieved when Iraq is a stable, representative state that controls its own territory, is oriented toward the West, and is an ally in the struggle against militant Islamism, whether Sunni or Shia. This has been said over and over. Why won't war critics hear it? Is it because they reject the notion that such success is achievable and therefore see the definition as dishonest or delusional? Is it because George Bush has used versions of it and thus discredited it in the eyes of those who hate him? Or is it because it does not offer easily verifiable benchmarks to tell us whether or not we are succeeding? There could be other reasons--perhaps critics fear that even thinking about success or failure in Iraq will weaken their demand for an immediate "end to the war." Whatever the explanation for this tiresome deafness, here is one more attempt to flesh out what success in Iraq means and how we can evaluate progress toward it

<... Long list of facts to support his opinion and to be ignored by the anti-war-mongers...>

...These facts will surely not put to rest the debate over definitions and measures of success in Iraq. Certainly, the American people have a right to insist that our government operate with a clear vision of success and that it develop a clear plan for evaluating whether we are moving in the right direction, even if no tidy numerical metrics can meaningfully size up so complex a human endeavor. As shown here, supporters of the current strategy do indeed have a clear definition of success, and those working to implement it are already evaluating American progress against that definition every day. It is on the basis of their evaluation that we say the surge is working.

The question Americans should ask themselves next is: Have the opponents of this strategy offered a clear definition of their own goals, along with reasonable criteria for evaluating progress toward them? Or are they simply projecting onto those who have a clear vision with which they disagree their own vagueness and confusion?

Here is a gauntlet thrown down: Let those who claim that the current strategy has failed and must be replaced, lay out their own strategy, along with their definition of success, criteria for evaluating success, and the evidentiary basis for their evaluations. Then, perhaps, we can have a real national debate on this most important issue.

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[Skooz]

bump