I did not say we were presently in a stalemate, but that General Petraeus and the 2007 surge turned the corner for the U.S., a fact even many liberals acknowledge, if reluctantly. The analogy I was making was with the Civil War, not World War II, and this thread was about the former conflict. There are electoral and strategic elements that are in parallel. This thread discussed Southern dissatisfaction with the Confederate leadership and secession in general, especially in the Upper South, and it was pointed out by others that there was a strong movement against the war in the North, called the Copperheads. The first two years of the Civil War were indecisive, as were the first three years of the Iraq War. The Republicans lost many seats in 1862 due to public dissatisfaction with the Civil War and again in 2006 due to public dissatisfaction with the Iraqi War. American voters punished the party in power not only in those cases, but in 1942, 1952, 1966, and 1970, all over what were at the time of the elections indecisive wars. Like it or not, Americans do not support no-win wars. Generals Grant and Sherman turned the tide in 1863 and 1864, and General Petreaus turned the tide in 2007 and 2008. Republican political fortunes turned in 1864 and will hopefully do so this year.
The most successful wartime Presidents have been those who, like Lincoln and Roosevelt, were willing to fire unsuccessful generals.
Ok, I agree to a point. But for two years I’ve argued that the effectiveness of the surge was 50% change in tactics, and 50% pre-surge activity where we killed so many of the jihadists BEFORE the surge that those who were left were third-teamers.