Isn't it nice that we are winning in Iraq despite the losers, defeatists and...

[SnakePlissken]

...cowards ranting against it? The “Anbar Awakening” is a perfect example. It was an organic Sunni uprising against al Qaeda which received decisive assistance from the United States. And if we had followed the counsel of most people in opposing the “surge” and prematurely withdrawing from Iraq, it would have led to the most important victory for jihadists in their history. Its consequences would have been catastrophic.

The way to win the “war of ideas” against al Qaeda and global jihadists has always been to win the actual war itself, to defeat them on the battlefield of their own choosing. For a movement which felt it had God’s mandate, which depended on the appearance of strength, and which fed off the appearance of American weakness, the Iraq war was pivotal. And there is now no question that al Qaeda has been decimated in Iraq, and that defeat has had radiating consequences throughout the world.

[typre50]

Please define what you mean by "winning". If you mean a democratic Iraq at peace and prosperous then you have quite a ways to go before you can declare victory. Also, while I'm at it, a "battlefield of their own choosing" means it could be North America. Perhaps you didn't think of that.

[JuliusC]

Are you perhaps angry about something?

[MalcolmEquis]

You do realize that the Anbar Awakening started BEFORE we did the Surge, right?

And how do you know we are winning? We have yet to have victory defined.

We fought for their right to democracy, and the second they got it they voted to continue Sharia Law. Sharia Law is actually still in place. The law that was in place when Saddam Hussein was in power? Yeah, its still in place.

Bullets continue to fly from every corner in many areas. Shiites and Sunnis continue to fight it out amongst each other and amongst themselves. You do know that Moqtada al Sadr (enemy) and Nouri al Maliki (ally) were also allies and are both Shiites, right?

Nouri al Maliki is also allied with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (Shiite), while Saddam Hussein was Iran's blood enemy. You think we hate Iran? We didn't have anything on what Saddam Hussein felt for Iran.

Water and Electricity continue to be kept on rolling blackouts, no one gets either for more than an hour and some get it for as little as 20 minutes. Some places don't even get that much.

Violence is down, but according to you guys if we left that would go away, so that isn't really a victory either now is it?



And how is it a win when al Qaeda, which was never in Iraq before we got there, is now stronger than it ever has been outside of Iraq?

They are winning in Afghanistan, and its because we don't have the necessary troops in Afghanistan. Why don't we? Because we are fighting a war that had nothing to do with terrorism in Iraq. So if you want to believe Iraq is a victory, I'm sure you can delude yourself into that belief. But in the overall War on Terror, we are failing pretty badly.

And its because Bush lost sight of the main goal.

[Heathen]

You must own stock in Haliburton & Blackwater

[jc]

Interesting. Wouldn't it have been better to not have invaded Iraq in the first place? Then there would have been no need to finally be winning in Iraq as you put it. Shouldn't we have kept our eyes on the target and the lives of our service men would not have been lost there?
I guess it's all in the way you want to look at it.
Have a nice day.

[scramble4202]

It's good we went with the surge. If you start something you'd better finish it or lose face and
strength. I agree we couldn't let al Qaeda make America look weak.
Terrorism itself will just move around seeking fertile grounds. The terrorists want to make the world bend to their religion and their rules. I have no idea what it will take to make them give up. They are busy spreading terror in India right now. Let's hope it backfires on them and anyone who viewed them sympathetically
sees them for what they really are.