Are we killing more of them or are they killing more of us?

End of discussion.

There's only ever been 2 possible "exit strategies". There are only 2 such ends for any military engagement at any time, any where, ever.

1. Win.
2. Lose.

All this "exit strategy" nuance is product of mental masturbations from intellectual inbreeds and cowards.

Ah, Mr. Grimmy, well, we concur with your initial proposition but we think you are just angry in your "exit strategy" conclusions.

The exit strategies being fronted today are not the product of unsanitary mental recreations. They are limited political ideas for the purpose of devastating the oppostion. Exiting has nothing to do with the troops, the mission, national security, or Iraq. Exit is the code word for "retreat" and retreat is the plain word for "lose", which you identify above as the two possible outcomes of war.

To exit is to lose. And to lose is to destroy the support, the credibility, the standing of this president. Of course all the open talk about exiting also undercuts the effectiveness of the coalition troops, lowers their morale, plays to the enemy, boosts their morale, and does much to confuse plain-thinking people (such as we count ourselves) about it all being a failure of the Iraqis.

There is plenty of room to debate issues concerning a war in progress. What seems to us to be dangerous, perfidious, is to signal the enemy that our will is spent solely for political gain. What seems to us to be ludicrous is to quit a war we are winning. And what seems to us immoral is to leave the field when so much more than Iraq is a stake.

With the Democrats in power, will American troops be out of Iraq by 2K8? No. Of course, Democrats will have their reason. Many will be the very same reasons this president gives for America being there in the first place. But there will be a crucial difference: The Democrats wil be in power. Mission accomplished.

Confusing. But we are plain-thinking folk.

DGB

"What seems to us to be ludicrous is to quit a war we are winning."

...

That's a pretty uncommon statement to describe this bloody mess. I bet that the israeli government made such statement 30 years ago.

Ah, M. Stéphane,

Yes, well, you see, war is a bloody mess. This is the reason that wars are not usually fought in polo whites.

And the vast majority of wars have been a great deal bloodier and messier than what you find in Iraq. We are always surprised by our surprise when people post about bloody war as if that is a telltale sign that something is terribly wrong.

What then is your measure for a losing war? A winning war?

We are keen to know.

Regards,
DGB

Damian

That's not me who's saying that the coalition is losing the war, it's Colin Powell (on CBS two days ago).

That's not very funny to play on rhetoric, when I talk about "bloody mess", I mean that this situation is out of control because there's no actual police force to secure Baghdad (as Mr Powell says). If people have a right to happiness etc, they should be able to walk in the streets whitout fearing to be blown up. We shall consider that the war is won maybe after these fears are over.

I fear that this bloodshed has been nurrished by more than ten years of embargo, you see, when people are put down on their knees, it's easy to turn them into fanatics.

Oops, I forgot to add something to meditate about:

The greatest conquerror is the one who can vanquish without any battle.
(Lao-Tseu)

"What then is your measure for a losing war? A winning war?".

Has president Bush ever been asked and honestly replied to this question by the American media ?

I think, this article, pretty much sums up what a Vietnam style defeat, looks like really.

FFF,

A Vietnam defeat looks like a well-appointed conference room in a fancy French hotel.

Stéphane,

Perhaps you are quoting Lao-tzu, though we couldn't find a citation. It is similar to this Sun Tzu quote:

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

But, dear boy, most fighting wars are not excellently waged. Hardly any. Recognizing this, Sun Tzu offers a great deal of advice for waging less-than-excellent wars.

DGB

Damian,

Sun-Tzu's art of war is not actually applied in Iraq, maybe it should be, I don't know...

But I think that 'breaking the enemy's resistance' is an idea that can lead to many abuses (like embargos).