uh, hate to tell this guy, but he has no idea what is going on in iraq. we are trying to train the iraqis to do their job and fight for their own freedom.
sure, we could very easily go into fallujah and whip/finish the terrorist off (i wish we could in a way). Instead, since iraq controls its own destiny and is soverign, we are left to being the "enforcers" until the iraqi national gaurd is ready to go.
i swear, these guys do not understand a) what is really at stake and b) how real wars happen.
in terms of causualties, we were losing what, a thousand men a day on iwo jima.. and it was nothing more than a smoldering volcanic rock. How would you like to see the press report that one?
Then you would have engagments like the battle of the buldge. If the media then, is like it is now, eisenhower would have been fired on the spot. (can you read the headlines of the FAILURE of the allies to spot the on coming advance)
One last thing, the guy doesnt understand that while confidence is one thing, the core issue is that people understand that bush will stand toe to toe with the enemy and meet them there - NOT HERE. Kerry in his acceptance speech said that he would respond when attacked. guess what, we were already attacked.
perhaps the most interesting thing is what mc cain said (and is what tommy franks has said as well). You cannot allow your enemy to have a safe haven. Guess what iraq was? a safe haven for al qeadia.
It might not be perfect now, but it is a lot better than what it was.
All great points.