Well nice you have feelings, too bad for you you are all ready prove wrong. Iraq has all ready been effected a Democracy so give your primary assumption is false, the rest of your proposition is prove equally false.
I guess I am a lot more concerned with wining the real war then the PR war. If you are hoping that some how the Leftist Junk Media will suddenly come to love the Conservatives make peace right NOW with being unhappy the rest of your life. Iraq has neither been a military nor a PR disaster. It is time the Neo isolationists get a grip on reality. This hide out in Fortress Amerkia and wish the baddies away died on 09-11-01 as a viable policy. History has passed you by. As 09-11-01 showed us, try to hide from evil and it merely follows you home. Iraq is about killing the Jihadies THERE so we do not have to kill them here. Your name sake would of understood the military logic of it. Such a pity his descendent's refuse to learn from his example.
Never stand and take a charge...charge them too."
--- General Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA
I quite agree with you, Iraq has not been a "military" disaster-unless you define a pyricch victory to be a military disaster because it does not effectively wage war. In many ways in Iraq has been a military triumph: the whole country overrun and subdued with a few hundred casualties. But it does not matter whether this is an objective victory in it matters only whether it is a "public-relations" victory-and it has clearly not been.
Iraq is about killing the Jihadies THERE so we do not have to kill them here.
This can only be described as the strategy of shoveling flies. With less than 3000 dead, after a miraculous military campaign, we have lost half the country. How how many more flies can you shovel and still hope to hold even a quarter of the country? These flies are spawned by a population of 1.2 billion Muslims and hundreds of millions of the Arabs, there are simply too many flies for us to shovel without breaking utterly our Western democracy.
Do not draw the wrong conclusions, I do not advocate withdrawal, surrender or isolationism. Such a course would be disastrous. But equally, I cannot countenance a policy of shoveling flies because a continuation of that policy would bring an even worse calamity. It grieves me terribly that the Bush doctrine of preemption is moribund and cannot be revived absent a new strike on the homeland-God grant that it be without weapons of mass destruction. What we are doing is not working. We are about to lose the oncoming by-election and we are about to lose whole chunks of public support. We must change what we are doing.
You're quite right, Nathan Bedford Forrest certainly knew how to wage asymmetrical warfare. He certainly would not play the enemy's game. In the event, he managed to help undo the entire "occupation"-as he would've called it-and which we would today call "Reconstruction" by 1876. This is certainly not the proudest chapter in his history, but it does demonstrate the fecklessness of an occupation force, even in a noble and good cause, upon a recalcitrant population. The clan was clearly a terrorist organization, which achieved its goal, the withdrawal of Yankee forces of occupation and the restoration to the south of home rule.
Forrest always let the Yankees draw the wrong conclusions about him.