Dear Mr. President, I disagree
And I lament your abandonment of the word "victory"
By haystack Posted in War — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The President I voted for twice, and expected to see in the "Way Forward" speech was anything BUT this guy...
The President I saw instead, was this one:
and, quite frankly, he looks like a deer in the headlights; stiff and upright and tentative and fully aware of how many people seeing him this way are delighted and hopeful they can completely destroy whatever strength and courage he has left in his bruised and battered soul.
The long-awaited, and much-anticipated address regarding the way forward in Iraq has come and gone. The speech was a miserable failure, and serves as the primary indicator that our way forward leads down the throat of capitulation and deep into the bowels of equivocation. The proposed troop increases and all the "Accelerated" this and "Improved" that are clear signs that our fight in this war has "evolved" from crushing our enemy with the full might of the American Military, to that of hurrying up and getting done the best we can before the rails of protest and threats of de-funding dig any deeper into the backs of those of us who actually want to WIN this thing.
More below the fold...
Most fascinating of all perhaps was the extent of media hype and leak analysis in the days BEFORE the speech. We were all sucked into it; wondering how many troops he would REALLY deploy, and debating what we hoped he would include in his speech BEYOND the troop level issue. I was completely floored that, on the morning AFTER the speech, the top Drudge headline was about Beckham coming to the US soccer world, with the coverage of the President relegated to a footnote half-way down the page.
Congratulations America, you have found a way to repeat history. Kudos are in order, as well, for those who have worked so hard to beat down and break the back of an otherwise proud American who once believed in something with a profound faith, a rigid determination, and a steadfast vision of a nation he will never see come to form.
The opening salvo in President Bush's speech goes like this:
Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror and our safety here at home.
Missed opportunity number one.
The Armed forces are not engaged in a struggle, the American people and the rest of the freedom and peace loving world are in a struggle. That this phase of the struggle HAPPENS to be on the backs of the US Military is lost in this President's words, and the lack of "framing" this war to the American people as one of phases (in which this is the early one) only further serves to disconnect this man from those of us DESPERATE to find new ways to stick with him.
When my Commander in Chief tells me someone else is fighting, why should I concern myself? It IS, after all, a problem far enough away that I can get on with my daily life unhindered by foreign wars and unseen enemies, right? What stake do I have in this?
Apparently none.
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
So, what was our course before the speech? To help us NOT succeed.
And about this new word "succeed", Mr. President. The last time you talked to me about Iraq, I clearly remember you talking up this "victory" catchphrase. Did I miss that memo, or did you just hope I wouldn't catch your abandonment of the notion of "victory", and settle on some diluted and hollow ideal of "success" that is an obscure and subjective new paradigm in fighting war against terrorists, jihadists, and the mujahideen?
Should I consider this retreating from killing bad guys, and moving onward and upward to new heights of capitulation to the weak-stomached cries of pacifists who would die at all costs to avoid war?
The speech transitioned to one of explaining the causes of the failures he would take responsibility for half-way through. By starting out suggesting that the Iraqi elections were ultimately a waste of time, however, the President succeeded in congratulating the insurgents and the terrorists on winning what they have been after for a year. Moving on to suggest that the violence REALLY began to take hold in the wake of Samarra was, for me, a cheap excuse and utterly wrong from where I sit.
If you want turning points, let's talk about Fallujah. Success in Fallujah, in your new vernacular, would likely have prevented Samarra Mr. President.
The violence in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaida terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.
They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate.
Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
And so it continues. "The situation is unacceptable", "there have been mistakes", and "I take full responsibility". "We figured out we needed to make a change", "we asked lots of people for their opinions", "and we all agree that failure would be a disaster".
"The consequences of failure are clear":
"Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits" [too late-it's already happening, sir]
"They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions" [too late-it's already happening, sir]
"Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons" [too late-it's already happening, sir]
What troubles me, among so MANY areas in this speech, is the idea that we really can't get this done - that it is somehow Iraq's problem (or at least it is ultimately up to them to fix it). I have a real big problem with that in the short term. I have an even bigger problem with this:
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved.
Well, that is not a good sign for what to expect going forward, regardless of whether we send 20,000 troops or 20 million.
I am not going to be presumptuous enough to haggle the details of troop levels or the placement of same; my knowledge of such matters is as insufficient as the so-called journalists out there who believe themselves to be experts. I CAN, however, be critical of the big picture as far as why we have been there this long, while now being asked to scratch that and look at it in a different light. I have a serious problem with that.
Gone is the Islamo-fascism rhetoric which, frankly, got me pumped up. This has been replaced with a toned and watered down relic of something I can't even grasp:
victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world -- a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them -- and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and our grandchildren.
This sounds all well and good, but is atypical of ALL of her neighbors, and sounds very little like victory and defeat of an enemy. This doesn't get me up from my couch with my hand over my heart, goosebumps of patriotism, and a desire to grab my M-16 and get to the front lines,. Mr. President.
Where is Churchill, FDR, or even Truman and Eisenhower? Where is Patton?
Whatever "way forward" awaits us in Iraq and the war on terror, this speech did nothing to encourage me personally and sadly only serves to further embolden the bad guys. If I am left feeling a little empty, how must they perceive our Commander in Chief's tone and body language?
I venture to guess they think holding on a little bit longer is a fine strategy-it has worked thus far, and should continue to serve them well.
Mr. President, PLEASE, get your strength back, and PLEASE resurrect that forceful table pounding "this will not stand" attitude you once had. If you can tell the troops, the very day AFTER this speech, that "these people need to be stopped", "the purpose really is to crush these insurrections now", would you PLEASE get back to that with the rest of us?
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Discussing The President's Speech With Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — Comments (8) »
Dear Mr. President, I disagree 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
He's right, this is not like any other war we have been involved in; there is no standing army to defeat. There is not even a country involved.
There are indeed numerous countries involved in this war; countries who fund, train, arm, and supply man power to the global effort of terrorizing America and her allies.
Its amazing to me that more than 5 years after 911, and after all we've learned about the key players in world-wide terrorism (as if we didn't know before 911),this whole, "We face a stateless enemy, this is unlike any other war," meme still gets so much traction.
Its readily apparent that we are once again prepared to stick our collective heads in the sand (as we did through the 70's and 80's. Its not like islamic terrorism is a recent phenomenon), ignoring the fact that a concerted effort has indeed been made by several nation states to brow beat us into submission.
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
I must have slept through that news. The last time I recall before toppling of Saddam's regime the US fighting anybody wearing the uniform of a nation state is when they were fighting Serbs in Bosnia. Hezbollah and Al Quaeda are not nation states. Instead of just throwing stuff at this wall to see what will stick, can you provide evidence of nation states are brow beating the US into submission?
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Do we really need to go over this ground again and again? Do the key players in the spread of islamic terrorism really need to be named all over again, when their track record over the past several decades has been documented time and again (insert names of various Middle Eastern theocracies here)? Do terrorists just spring up from the ether? Do we really need to recall the President's promise to go after terrorists and "any state that harbors or supports them?"
The fighters in Afghanistan weren't wearing uniforms, but it is an undisputed fact that we not only fought (and continue to fight) a war with them, but that they were harbored and supported by the government of that nation (i.e., the Taliban).
Have you been sleeping the past 5 years?
Here's a news flash for you; terrorism works. The current spineless, "let's pretend this was an isolated event the past 50 odd years" attitude among both the US citizenry and political establishment is precisely what brought us to 911, and is precisely what will bring us to the next one.
The enemy soldiers in this conflict don't wear uniforms, but that doesn't mean they aren't soldiers, or that the rise of islamic terrorism isn't part and parcel of a war being waged against us by several nation states.
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
The enemy who we are fighting are not nation states. This enemy doesn't care to recognize nation state sovereignty. They are a movement that have a vision of a New World Order. The world is one completely controlled by Sharia Law as written in their Koran. It has nothing to do with the last 5 years. This movement has been around for a lot longer than that.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
What, exactly, was Afghanistan under the Taliban? They were a nation state that exported terror as a weapon against the US and her allies, and 911 was their broadside in a war that has been raging for decades.
What was Iraq under Saddam? What are Iran and Syria today? They are nation states that use terrorism to pursue their foreign policy goals.
Terrorists are not some ethereal movement whipped up by a few scattered fanatics here and there. They are armed, funded, trained, and recruited by nation states. States that know they cannot beat us in a conventional or nuclear show down. States that will resort to the killing of civilians, combined with a propaganda campaign enacted through our complicit media, to wage war against us via different means.
Terrosism is, in essence, a shadowy extension of the foreign policy goals of numerous key players in the Middle East.
But feel free to keep your head in the sand.
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
The Al Quaeda and Hezbollah terrorists are not just numerous key players in the Middle East. They are fighting all across the globe. They are not fighting for the monarch of any kingdom in the Middle East. They want the whole world. Dismiss them as a few scattered fanatics if you feel like keeping your head in the sand.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Look, I agree with you that there is a global problem called terrorism. I also agree that there are many terrorists that believe, or at least state, that they want to spread Islamic law across the world. I will even go so far as to say that islam itself holds that as its goal, by any plain reading of the koran. We are at war with islam, even if we don't as a nation care to admit to it or recognize the fact. Islam is certainly at war with us (and indeed everyone who will not submit to it).
That being said, every single islamic terrorist organization that is operating against the US and her allies is sponsored by a nation state in some way or another. Al quaeda was and still is sponsored by the Taliban and other nations that hate the US. It is well known that hezbollah is an arm of Syrian and Iranian military and intelligence influence. The ties to the key players in the Middle East have been demonstrated time and again.
The point is that there ARE nation states that we could go after that would help solve, or at least greatly curtail, the spread of islamic terrorism.
When we talk simply of going after a "stateless enemy," we are doing nothing more than going after the symptom, rather than the root cause of terrorism, namely those nation states that arm and train the terrorists for their own purposes (i.e., their own foreign policy goals).
I don't think, AT ALL, that we are dealing with a few scattered fanatics. Indeed, that is precisely the opposite of what I think.
We are dealing with an effort being made by several nation states (particularly states in the Middle East, but elsewhere as well), sometimes in tandem and other times not, to make war against us by means that are neither conventional nor nuclear.
I agree with you that terrorism is tied to the overall goals/beliefs of islam in general. But I don't agree with you that this means we are fighting a "stateless" enemy. Various states are using the goals/beliefs of islam to further their own political and foreign policy aims. Some of the leaders of these states (e.g. Iran) may actually believe in "spreading the caliphate." Others mouth these platitudes to advance their own purposes and to whip up support amongst their own populations.
Ultimately, I think we're alot closer on the issue than may have been apparent at first. I think we both agree that islam seeks to dominate the world. What we don't agree about is whether this is through some "stateless movement," or whether its something that is being orchestrated by various nation states.
Frankly, the whole "stateless enemy" meme smacks of the Clinton-era approach to terrorism. It wants to deal with the terrorists (when forced to), but not with those states that promote terrorism. It creates a false dichotomy that does not exist.
Until we wake up to the fact that islamic terrorism is part and parcel of a war that is being waged against us by certain key players in the Middle East (and indeed elsewhere, Russia comes to mind as a tangential player), we will do nothing but deal with the symptoms, leaving the disease itself alive to rear its ugly head generation after generation.
Terrorism has not grown in a vacuum. It has sprung up amongst the islamic nations, with the support and succor of those nations. We can chop off the arms and legs of terrorism, only to have them regenerate once again unless we deal a fatal blow to the body of it. You cannot kill an octopus by cutting off its tentacles.
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
IMHO the very major difference between Clinton and President Bush is use of military force. When anything happened under Clinton's watch he wanted to minimize the event and look at it entirely from a point of view of law enforcement going after criminals. Clinton also wanted to reach a mutual coexistence with terrorists like Arafat much like Carter and detente with the Soviet Union. Reagan changed the US foreign policy wrt the Soviets from Carters, and I think Bush has changed US foreign policy wrt terrorists from Clinton. The only thing we differ on is who is working for whom. I don't think Al Quaeda planned the 9-11-01 terrorist all for the glory of an Afghan empire. Sudan had already kicked Osama out, and he simply made Afghanistan his new operational base. Afghanistan meant nothing more to him than that. Iran is most definitely part and parcel with the terrorists. Places like Saudit Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are just paying terrorists off to spread propaganda blame on the JOOOOOS and US so their populace will not want to overthrow them.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The only thing we differ on is who is working for whom.
I don't think that is really the pertinent issue though, for one very good reason; namely, it doesn't matter who is working for whom in terms of the GWOT. All that matters is that terrorists and nations states are working togeter.
The President pledged to go after terrorists and those nations that harbor or support them. That means we were, supposedly, willing to go after a state even if we hadn't actually come up against any of their "regular," uniformed soldiers, even if they hadn't "really" attacked us in a conventional manner. At the time, the President rightly identified the problem; namely that states that sponsor terrorists, whether they directly control them or not, are ipso facto declaring a state of war, of armed conflict, with the US and her citizens.
This is why I contested the original poster's assertion that "there is not even a country involved." Nation states that fight little proxy wars against the US through terrorist organizations are, indeed, fighting a war against us, regardless of whether or not their conventional forces have ever attacked us.
It doesn't matter to me whether the terrorists are working for the nation state, or vice versa. What matters to me is recognizing that our problem is not simply a bunch of "islamic radicals," but rather that those radicals are backed by particular nation states and what we do about it, and what we are going to do about them.
If Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and so on, are simply playing a political game by "paying off" various terrorist groups, then they are, by definition supporting terror. If those terrorist groups have attacked US assets, or the homeland, then those nation states that back them are just as responsible for those attacks.
Its one thing for a nation state to have a terrorist organization operating in it, but that does not fund it, support it, train it, arm it, encourage it, etc. Its another thing altogether when a nation state not only knows there are terrorists in their midst, does nothing to stop them, and in fact supports them.
So, its NOT just a matter of who is wagging the tail. Its a matter of who, exactly, has killed out citizens. Any state that has been involved in the purposeful killing of our people through a terrorist organization is our enemy. Killing citizens is an act of war, and as far as I'm concerned is a cassus beli of the highest order.
And that is why I say that it is ridiculous for anyone to say that "there is not even a country involved" in the GWOT. There are many of them, they are our enemies, and we could strike them (and thereby effect a tremendous blow against terrorists) with full justification if we had the spine to do so.
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
the solution does not always require a US invasion. Example:
Libya.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Notice please that I did not say we need to invade every enemy. There are certainly ways to deal with enemies other than a full-scale military invasion. Air strikes, naval blockades, black ops, espionage, regime change from within, polical/diplomatic pressure, economic pressure (we give tons of money to Middle Eastern countries, and that's not even counting our trade with those nations), and so on.
That being said, we have to effectively identify who our enemies are before we can take any of the available options (military, political, economic, etc.). We have to be honest about who our enemies are. Those who kill our citizens, whether by force of arms or through the shadowy world of terrorism, are our enemies, and should be brought to heal one way or another.
And that is my problem when someone makes the statement that, "there are no countries" involvled with the GWOT. Its patently not true, and we are hamstringing ourselves and limitiing our options by not recognizing who is really against us.
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
...let me just add one more thing.
There is talk of "home grown" terrorism going on, especially in Britain nowadays after the 7/7 bombings.
Certainly, there are those who take up the koran and go out and attack civilians based upon the tenants of that book, without the promptings of any particular nation state. So, I understand where you are coming from in terms of the "stateless enemy." Islam tends to promote violence amongst its adherents precisely because the religion itself IS violent and seeks the domination of the world. Thus, a nation state doesn't always have to be a key player in the use of terrrorism.
That being said, these examples of "home grown" terrorism are, to date, the exception rather than the rule.
Large terrorist organizations that plan and execute terrorism the world over are able to do so because they are being helped by certain nation states. Vast sums of money, weapons, supplies, logistics, intelligence, and man power are funnelled from certain nation states into the various terrorist organizations, and without this support, the large scale and concerted terrorist activities we have seen over the past several decades would not be possible.
Even home grown jihadists often turn, at some point, to these nation states for support and funding. Even when we have home grown jihadists who have no connection whatsoever to these nation states, they are often influenced in their actions by the propaganda that these nation states pump through our complicit media.
The guy who drove his jeep through the college campus in an attempt to run down students had no known terrorist ties. He was a "home grown" terrorist, someone who picked up the koran and decided to act on its tenants. And yet, when arrested, he stated that his actions were done, in part, because of the aggression of the US against his "brothers" over seas. That type of propaganda spews out of the Middle Eastern nation all the time, and was an obvious influence upon that man.
The guy who attacked the Jewish center out west (was it San Francisco?) did so because of what was happening to "his people" in the Middle East (i.e., the US taking up arms against certain countries, as well as Israel against Lebanon and Gaza). The media, serving as proxies for certain key players in the Middle East (who love seeing these willing accomplices spread thier proganda), are responsible in part for the rise of these "home grown" terrorists, because they mindlessly spew news stories that are nothing more than propagana pieces contrived and spread by those key players.
Thus, even "home grown" islamic terrorists, more often than not, are influence in some way by the actions and rhetoric of these key nation states.
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
I could care less what Bush looks like or says in a speech. He had plenty of glourious well worded speeches a few years ago and they didn't help him one bit in Iraq. Bush could wear a dress and stutter for half an hour for all I care. Changing public opinion won't happen with one speech, it will change when we start seeing success in Iraq. And the Islamo-fascism rhetoric was dropped because it's a loser. The world is way too sensitive for it, so why waste your time? Why talk the talk when you can walk the talk without talking and getting all the flack that comes with it? lol Everyone knows Bush is a horrible speaker in these addresses to the nation anyways, so I don't really care. I just hope Bush is serious about Maliki finally giving us the green light to kick As* in Iraq. Lets face it, Rumsfeld and his generals didn't get the job done. They had a nice plan in theory but it was worthless because terrorists were flooding Baghdad and ruining any progress. Bush may seem like he is giving in to the other side in public, but I think he just realized in today's media it does no good to make strong statements. If you don't know Bush by now, you never will. He's not going to give in to flaky democrats because he knows the true stakes. He's not the problem, the problem is the Republicans who are jumping ship for politial reasons.
dave.
You actually believe this, or is this just cover for Administration failures to put some fire in the Iraqi government's belly?
"Lets face it, Rumsfeld and his generals didn't get the job done."
How about the military, the generals and the troops on the ground were ready to kick *ss and take names in Iraq including taking out Saddar; but NO must not offend the Iraqis, must not look like a conquering army, must play nice, according to the President and the politicians running the show from Washington.
It's not a new story is it? Politicians worried about political matters, soldiers worrying about not getting killed and carrying out their mission. The two objectives collide, there is a failure to achieve the mission and the politicians blame the military. This rush to blame military leadership for failures in Iraq is disgusting, the failure is political and in the form of backing of the current Iraqi political leadership.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
this infantilizing of the military leadership is just disgusting and belies a total unfamiliarity with how command is executed at that level.
If you think military policy is not set by military leaders with an eye on the Congress, the SecDef, the President, and opinion polls you probably should be posting your insights over at thesuperficial.com instead of here.
Military leaders do make tragic political mistakes, MacArthur in Korea comes to mind. Political leaders to place tragic political constraints on the use of military force, Vietnam, for instance.
There have been military mistakes in Iraq, not all ours and not all made out of bad faith. I think the single biggest blunder in the theater has been the failure of the Brits to establish control over their area of operations. Closely following this was our being hoodwinked into not pursuing Sadr until he was dead or in exile back in 2004. Another blunder was the Marines assuming they could pacify Fallujah by being low profile, this before the Markos "screw them" incident, and supporting the creation of the "Fallujah brigade" to keep order in the city.
So to insinuate that all the mistakes have been political and the military leadership mere pawns is just hogwash.
streif
I have no major problem with your assertion, however the mime that keeps appearing is that it's all Rummies and the Generals fault, the "Known Fact" of those who back the President at all times and without question.
I agree with you that the military has made mistakes, but I find the political leadership has made many more and mistakes which are much greater in magnitude in my view.
It was a political decision, not a military one to turn over Saddam to the Iraqis for his well deserved by poorly executed execution. A decision that the President himself made, and appears now to regret. The list is long of political missteps, from H. Paul Brenner and his firing of all the Iraqi civil servants to the complete gutting of the Iraqi Army.
President Bush according to reports just surfacing on Drudge is saying as much.
I'd also note that if more people who agreed in principle with the President, but had questions about the strategy being pursued had asked some hard but respectful questions about the strategy in Iraq we might not have been in the mess we are today. Of course we would have had to as you point out post them at thesuperficial.com or perhaps, drinktheflavoraid.com. The only voices of question unfortunately are coming from the loons of the left and are far from respectful.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
And the Islamo-fascism rhetoric was dropped because it's a loser. The world is way too sensitive for it, so why waste your time?
Know thy enemy.
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
What was the name of the battleship on whose deck we signed the treaty that ended the Cold War?
I agree with a lot of your stylistic and rhetorical criticism here, Haystack, so I'll just go with the flow --
It's even worse watching the video from the White House's server. It is dark, underexposed and shows the President at an angle -- the message is decidedly NOT one of this President confronting the problem "head on." Through the deflected, off-center and murky camera angle chosen by the White House for the video, it almost screams: "I'm not talking directly to you, the American people. I am speaking from the bottom of a dimly-lit tunnel. I am looking for a way sideways, not forward."
C-Span, on the other hand, is talking about George McGovern at the National Press Club this way, as though he is the President:
George McGovern at the National Press Club
George McGovern, former Senator and 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, talked about his plans for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq at a National Press Club luncheon.
And there you have it.
I think it's a little bit of both. There's no question Maliki got some sort of "Get serious or we're out of here and you're screwed" message by the Bush adminstration. On the other hand you have Rumsfeld. It's kind of funny as soon as he resigned Bush pretty much allowed anyone to come to the White House to pitch him ideas. Why wasn't this happening when Rumsfeld was there? As far as the generals go, I'm not sure to think. If they were too chicken to stand up to Rumsfeld I don't want them running things in Iraq. This General Petraeus guy seems like the right guy for Iraq since he wrote the counter-insurgency manual. But you are right. Something changed in the Iraqi government. They sure did a quick 180 on letting forces go after everyone. Something had to be said behind closed doors.
I thought the President's tenor for this speech was about right. This was not meant to be, or should have been, a political speech. The general population has few illusions about the situation and the tough job ahead. He needed to explain the change in plans in a clear and straight forward way which I believe he did.
He's right, this is not like any other war we have been involved in; there is no standing army to defeat. There is not even a country involved.
When you look at history, WWII for example, look to see the number of enemy we had to kill, plus civilians, in order to break their will to fight. We lost somewhere around 400,000 from our population of 132 million. The UK lost nearly the same from a population of 48 million. Germany lost over 7 million people; nearly 11% of its population and Japan lost well over 2 million which was pushing 4% of its population.
This effort will be very long and very arduous and Lord knows what the total sacrifice will be. Heaven help us when so many claim to be 'war weary' at this point. We've hardly begun, I'm afraid. Much less the fact that some want to POLITICIZE this country's war in an attempt to seek a political advantage.
Something has to change.
"Damnant quod non intellegunt."