The opening fronts in this war were New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. If the WOT isn’t fought in Iraq and Afghanistan then that’s where it’ll return to.

aengus on November 5, 2006 at 9:40 AM

WOT as Lassie. WTF?

I hope the 4 “military” papers lose tons of subscribers and advertisers over their Rumsfeld editorial.

eucher on November 4, 2006 at 5:29 PM

No need – they are already in the position of not representing the troops fully anyway. If they weren’t owned by Gannett (of USA Today fame), quite possibly they wouldn’t be running at all.

Besides, this sums it up rather well, I think:

The opening fronts in this war were New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. If the WOT isn’t fought in Iraq and Afghanistan then that’s where it’ll return to.

aengus on November 5, 2006 at 9:40 AM

This is the real issue. There can be all the screw-ups in the world, but there is no one “magic” answer to make this all go away.

As usual, it is left up to we, the people, to get all the actual information that we can, read between the lines, and make informed choices as to who best represents us.

And while politicians argue and magazines “expose” this or that, it is the American Soldier who is doing the fighting – and dying – for they, and we, to have the freedoms to do just that.

That is a disservice to them – they deserve better – they need leaders who will allow them to do the warfighting that they need to do to win, then leave the place better than they entered it. What the Iraqi people do with what we leave them is on them, but we will know that we did more than our part to give them freedom.

Just as our ancestors did, they will have to decide if freedom is worth fighting – and dying – for enough to keep it.

And we will have to decide if we want to win the GWOT or whether we would be content to host round two at home for the “grudge match”.

In the meantime, may God continue to Bless and watch over all of our men and women in the Armed Forces who keep us free – He’ll have to, because politicians aren’t going to!

Has anyone interviewed for the article not yet spoken up about how the article has somehow misrepresented, lied, taken out of context, or otherwise skewed their opinions, remarks, outlook or thinking, including at least one who said Vanity Fair had reneged on their commitment to withhold publication until after the election?

It surprises me that this seems to have surprised them — it’s Vanity Fair, silly. Maybe the mag could do them the favor of publishing as Naivety Fair just this once.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-frum/vanity-fairs-inve_b_33251.html

They don’t want to face the enemy on the enemy’s territory, and they refuse to allow anyone face them on our territory. The enemy and the American left both use the American beneficence against us. I’m sorry but I am starting to adopt a defatist attitude–not toward the terrorists. I can still pull out my concealed handgun and blow their brains all over the sidewalk once the invastion begins. But we have no real solution to the political/moral/legal left in this country. If I were to defend my nation against all enemies, foreign or domestic (as my military oath asserted), I would be sent to prison or put to death for “murder.” It’s a sad day when the most powerful nation by orders of magnitude above any other nation that has ever existed–past or present–won’t (not can’t) defend itself.

Assuming that we should have done something, then don’t liberals also appeal to “morality” in their foreign policy decisions? Wasn’t that the reason for involvement in Somalia and Bosnia, two areas that were not tied to American interets? Would the left be satisfied if we adopted a purley realist foreign policy?

Sorry Coyote D, your analysis is too realistic. Liberals would only support it if a Democratic president were in the White House. They would have roundly condemned our action in Bosnia if a Republican President had ordered our military forces there. It’s a very hypocritical and one-sided debate where the Dems are concerned.

Fearing that worse is still to come, Adelman believes that neoconservatism itself—what he defines as “the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world”—is dead, at least for a generation.

A few comments on this and related topics:

No doubt, there were things that could have been done better. But what about the big picture? Should Saddam have been able to continue to fire on allied planes, turn away weapons inspectors, subsidize suicide bombers, and harbor terrorists? If not, then what should we have done? (Sanctions don’t count, only real answers.)

Assuming that we should have done something, then don’t liberals also appeal to “morality” in their foreign policy decisions? Wasn’t that the reason for involvement in Somalia and Bosnia, two areas that were not tied to American interets? Would the left be satisfied if we adopted a purley realist foreign policy?

Would the left have supported this war if the US installed a new dictator as opposed to “imposing democracy?” It’s a catch 22 – we either thwart the will of the people by supporting a dictator or force a Western belief system on them. It’s the perfect rationale for opposing ever attempting to overturn a hostile regime in the third world.

This “war” has little to do with “Iraq“. It is about containing and ultimately defeating resurgent Islamic Imperialism, wherever it rears its tyrannical, retrograde, absolutely-intolerant, homicidal head.

Let them stop pontificating and start Koran reading.

(But that wouldn’t influence elections, now would it?)

Transparent, vain, predictable defeatist drivel.

As Patton said: “God have mercy on them, because I sure as hell won’t.”

Iraq is good positional warfare. With our prescence there the jihadists cannot establish a new caliphate where they have to. Pull out and they can. Might be a Persian caliphate instead of an Arab one but no need to deny or confirm that.

You are absolutely correct. This is an uphill battle. I do not see it has forcing “democracy” on Iraqis. If it weren’t for the mullahs telling the people that democracy was bad, the majority of the people of Iraq would be for democracy. Just look at the last election. Overcoming 7th century thinking with 21st century thinking will be difficult.

This Week: Cheney will be on and then Howie Dean to respond. Allah’s got a short preview of Cheney’s comments here. Face the Nation: Again, I have no idea who’s on Face the Nation because every time I visit a……

The real question for neoconservatism is, do most people who have been raised in Islamic cultures want to be free? Some clearly do; a quick tour of Iraqi blogs proves that well enough.

Yes, people want to be free, but freedom is as much a mindset as a reality. Free people hold certain ideals on what freedom is. Freedom to speak openly; freedom to express one’s self, and freedom to self-govern – to name a few. Middle eastern society is so oppressive, that, just like spouses who are victims of domestic violence, they can actually beleive they aren’t worthy of freedom. Even the best, most well-planned strategy for winning against insurgents in Iraq could not change the outcome there. I’m not ready to declare it a “lost cause”, but certainly, it’s more than a battle of winning hearts and minds. Freedom, and the will to self-govern, are ideals that will take time to root.

Republicans do war better than Democrats (draftocrats)and this war against these people of peace is all for the Veep to get money from his stocks…(insert finger and yak chum).

Any more photos of Cindy Sheehan laying on her son’s grave coming up in VF? Classy publication.

“Throwing party loyalty out the window, Adelman said that the Bush administration “turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era.”

“Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional,” he continued.”

“Ralph Peters: Iraq’s last gasp”

Trust not…Fail not
Absolutely we can change the course of nations, if we’re strong enough.

The politicos that are bailing, fall leaves in the wind.
This war needs new direction without a doubt. Forward, not sideways, not backwards, forward.

Can we please stop killing our troops now just because we can’t admit that we believed in something we should never have believed in?

Enrique, what do you think is going to happen once we just pull out the troops? Do you think that all will be fine and everybody is going to love us (again)? Do you think Al-Qaeda and other terrorrist organizations are going to back off and not attack us at home? What do you think is going to happen in Iraq once we do pull out? Do you even care? Have you even thought about what is going to happen, or are you just tired of watching the “Iraq War” on the news, internet, etc.?

Yes there are mistakes in implementation….but lost? Hell this war has just started.