« "Momentous Consequences of defeat" | Main | Vets for Freedom: 10 Weeks to Testimony »

July 13, 2007



Democrats and the few defecting Republicans on Capitol Hill would do well to remember that George W. Bush is commander in chief. He is the top soldier. He should be respected as such. He did not get into Iraq to achieve a political end, but his opponents want us out for political reasons. That's very sad.


Yes, the Democrats would sell out our country and our troops for political reasons, their motives are crystal clear. It's a shame. And so many millions of Americans will keep voting for them.


"Ferris" (sic my name is FARRIS)"Not winning is the same as lnosig in that situation.That depends what your timeframe is. Pick a date at random between 1950 and 1990 and ask yourself""NATO vs. the Soviet Bloc: Winning or Losing?"Alliances of governments against each other not the same thing at all as a government vs an internal insurrection. Almost the entire cold war was stasis with the occasional blip."United Kingdom vs. IRA: Winning or Losing?"Losing in that the IRA got the british government to negotiations and most of what they wanted. But framing the conflict as IRA/UK is simplistic as it ignores the loyalist paramilitaries which all together were more violent than the IRA."Peru vs. Shining Path: Winning or Losing?"The Peruvian government was mostly winning that in that Shining Path never got broad peasant-based support and only ever had any success in a few provinces."Israel vs. PLO: Winning or Losing?"See-sawed but the PLO basically won the first (long round) gettingtIsrael to negotiations and concessions from them. Yes, being Palestinians they quickly squandered the fruits of victory but the first intifada was very much a Palestinian victory. Though again that's not so much government - insurgents as a long protracted territorial conflict that will continue in stasis until one side or the other gives up as there's not enough will on either side to get along.Getting back to Iraq, the problems are far more extensive than the simple US/Iraqi government vs insurgents. The sectarian paramilitaries are more interested in killing each other than the occupiers or their proxy government. Nationalism in Arab countries is always a problematic thing as Arabs are highly motivated by questions of group loyalty that are only activated at a higher level of opposition. That is, Iraqis don't exist in Iraq but only in contrast to Kuwaitis or Egyptians. There's no positive value being Iraqi for its own sake. Within Iraq, group loyalties are tied up with religious and ethnic identity (though there's always been lots of intermarriage). That is, there aren't 'muslims' in Iraq there are Sunnis and Shias who can only unite against the threat of another (non-Muslim) religion.So, fighting for the future of the country is a non-starter for most Iraqis, fighting for the future of their family, clan or religious sect is something they believe in very much.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Federalist Papers

  • Degree of Madness
    "...... ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm.....But what DEGREE OF MADNESS could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity." Federalist #46 James Madison

My Niece Gena