[Chain]

From the New York Post today...highly thought provoking.

HOW TO LOSE A WAR
By RALPH PETERS
November 21, 2005

QUIT.

It's that simple.

There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.

Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time.

That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq.

Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.

Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.

Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media. After all, one way to create the kind of disaffection in the ranks that the Dems' leaders yearn to see is to tell our troops on the battlefield that they're risking their lives for nothing, we're throwing the game.

Forget that our combat veterans are re-enlisting at remarkable rates — knowing they'll have to leave their families and go back to war again. Ignore the progress on the ground, the squeezing of the insurgency's last strongholds into the badlands on the Syrian border.

Blow off the successive Iraqi elections and the astonishing cooperation we've seen between age-old enemies as they struggle to form a decent government.

Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.

While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.

Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)

America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode.

So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war?

So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids?

So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?

For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?

Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won't say, "Boo!"

You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win.

The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.

There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Surrender is never a winning strategy.

Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what's at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.

What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.

As for the 2,000-plus dead American troops about whom the lefties are so awfully concerned? As soon as we abandon Iraq, they'll forget about our casualties quicker than an amnesiac forgets how much small-change he had in his pocket.

If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.

And they won't all be conservatives.

-Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer.

[luvtolean]

Very well said. He was on a roll for these 4 paragraphs:

There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

....
....


What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

[phobiaphobe]

Wow. And I thought the partisanship was bad in Canada. You're either with us or against us. You're either a Liberal or a Conservative. We're all smart and they're all stupid. We are the good guys they are the bad guys....

What I want to know is, how is the war won? What would signify victory? Every terrorist dead? Sorry, that's fundamentally impossible. And no, I don't claim to have the answers, only questions.

[sheepofblue]

Extremely well stated

[luvtolean]

That's a good question, and I think a fundamental one Bush screwed up. I think they (the Bush team) had more hope for the Iraqi Constitution, but of course, that did little.

The area must be secure enough that it's own government can run the show. That's a good start anyways.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Wow. And I thought the partisanship was bad in Canada. You're either with us or against us. You're either a Liberal or a Conservative. We're all smart and they're all stupid. We are the good guys they are the bad guys....

What I want to know is, how is the war won? What would signify victory? Every terrorist dead? Sorry, that's fundamentally impossible. And no, I don't claim to have the answers, only questions.

phobiaphobe it is not partisan, he pointed out that the Democrats were not offering vision and alternatives just a pullout. If this is wrong give me an example, if we had to parties pulling for and offering methods to suceed we would be MUCH better off. So I say go Democrats and please provide alternatives and your vision.

[Zippy]

It is well stated, and largely true. Too bad we didn't think of all those conditions before we decided that this action was a great idea. Those same issues were obvious before this war was initiated.

[jaim]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Wow. And I thought the partisanship was bad in Canada. You're either with us or against us. You're either a Liberal or a Conservative. We're all smart and they're all stupid. We are the good guys they are the bad guys....

What I want to know is, how is the war won? What would signify victory? Every terrorist dead? Sorry, that's fundamentally impossible. And no, I don't claim to have the answers, only questions.

Very astute. You get an A+. Seems some people here think you can fight an idea or concept. Kinda like the Vatican tried to do with the crusades.

[oldfogey]

..and now for some facts:

http://63.247.134.60/~pobbs/archives/002412the_rise_peak_decline_and_defeat_of_iraqs_in surgency.html

[Mojave954]

Good editorial. See if a Dem gets elected next time and see what they have to say then.

Remember, the only reason to turn the other cheek is so it can be slapped too and even out the pain.

Firm belief is that if Clinton would of been in for the towers, there would have been a few tomahawks launched and we would of called it good.

Sad part for the troops is this, due to the sensationalism of the news and the need to seel death and destruction we don't see the good that is going on over there for the people. Schools being built, people walking the streets without fear, hospitals being built and staffed again. So much good to make their lives better than it was before.

We pull out, the terrorist will be back and in power.

Again, well stated.