strenuous rehearsed anesthetize …

Ain’t no “surge” gonna make a legit, functioning government there.

The TRUE defeatists aka. the people ACTUALLY responsible for any defeat we may suffer – are those, like yourself and the President, who said they supported this war but never really took it seriously and – who said they wanted to win but objected to doing the things we needed to do to achieve victory and supported a a halfass approach that tried to fight this war on the cheap.

“In seriousness… You see, I’m more than just a little suspicious of the right wing pundits who disregard and assail everything that is “liberal” in their view, and then, all of a sudden with “one voice” seems to have found some “liberal” views (ones that seem an awful lot like conservative views!) that they like from that liberal bastion of the media, the NYTimes.”

What is it that irks the left so badly when someone who they thought was ‘on their side’ begins to admit that perhaps it is actually logically possible for Patraeus and the US Army to be able to do good in Iraq, and that success is possibly viable in the future? The leftists view such behaviour as betrayal of their cause, which by now should be familiar to most of us: the utter defeat and humiliation of the Bush administration and the defanging of the military.

That they accord more importance in establishing ideological rigidity and uniformity of views on the left than admitting that perhaps for once, they should actually be looking out for the best interests of the nation instead of haranguing any ‘defector’ as a traitor of their cause - that is alone proof of their ignorance and demagoguery.

Another defeatist wrote: “The Surge was supposed to enable the Iraqi government to function better. It hasn’t. Thus, it is an utter failure.”

The surge had less than wildly ambitious objectives, one of which has been to provide Gen. Patraeus with the manpower necessary to facilitate cooperation with the Sunni tribes, training with the Iraqi Army side-by-side, equipping their commanders with skills to lead their men, live with the Iraqi people and cultivate rapport , relations and contacts - all of which contribute to providing the right conditions for the Iraqi Army to function properly and establish security, which will in turn guarantee the right political climate for the government to work in.

It is typical of defeatists to simply assume what those objectives were, point out one or two little inconsistences (in this case, political gridlock and intransigence of Iraqi politicians) and then deem the strategy an utter failure. The war in Iraq has been complex and arduous - that we do not deny, and we can only expect the same from the years to come. If there’s anything the campaign has taught us, it is patience.

But of course, defeatists can’t wait to write any chance of success off.

Can it be won? Sure, and the path to accomplish it is pretty clear. WILL it be won? The only way to pull anything close to a successful outcome requires the Iraqi Goverment to play their part on this dance, and they just aren’t.

Should they? Obviously. Are they? Sadly, no. Will they? They haven’t yet, and its been years. I’d love for them to get their collective head out of their backside and get focused, but I can’t see any facts to suggest that’s going to happen. We will keep shooting at insurgents, terrorists, innocents, extremists, call them whatever you want — this won’t end by us fighting, but by them stopping the fight with us. The military can’t make Iraq a country, or make the government there care.

I sincerely hope you are right.

Are you saying that my position has changed? Or that new information doesn’t alter my perceptions?