There is a NEED for change in strategy and definitive action. In war the more timid the approach the more casualties. Our strategy from the beginning was to let the Iraqis handle their own security....with our help. It is based on a strategy recommended and implemented by the Englishman and soldier Lt.Col. T.E. Lawrence. He convinced the British to adopt his strategy (circa 1916) and which was brought to the big screen in the epic movie "Lawrence of Arabia".
As Rumsfeld said about two years ago..."it's going to be a long hard slog".
..watching the war in Iraq thru the lens of the MSM
They cannot defeat us militarily....but they can play with the psyche of our weak sisters and brothers safely ensconced in their Lazy Boys back home.
Our own casualties are, by historical standards, extremely low. But I do seem to sense a modification to our original strategy. Albeit unspoken. It's to let the Shia and Sunnis slaughter each other until exhaustion sets in. That may be the best approach.
As Margaret Thatcher once said..."this is no time to go wobbly".
This is especially true when we see all those fine young men and women voluntarily serving their country with great courage and distinction.
The least we can do is support them in their heroic effort from the safe confines of our Lazy Boys.
" The least we can do is support them in their heroic effort from the safe confines of our Lazy Boys." Precisely what I see in this thread. several egotistical blow hards who do not deal in reality. More casualties is TWO is more than ONE etc. Add to the US deaths (and over 20000 wounded)the Muslim deaths fostered by our temerity (as in timid) in dealing with IRAN and the numbers are substantially larger than the 3000+ deaths of US Soldiers seen as a paltry few by the Lazy Boy Patriots in this thread... just judging by the intro and the yeah throw them into the meat grinder crowd.
Win or get out. The Iraqis have NOT stepped up to the plate. The IRAQI Police and Military are now part of the problem because they are not part of the solution. Yes, we have some doing well and others who are treacherous. Wonder why there are so many Generals (other than the Democrat Clarke) who disagree with the "stay the course". Heck, even the President no longer say "Stay the Course".
Time to realize that the Conservatives are PO'd at the War as are others, no not the Liberals but the new so called Blue Dog Democrats (I know they are still DIM in many ways). But I think some of you need to wake up, it ain't Normandy 2006. We were fighting a country then, not an ideology; understand what we are fighting and deal with it. For a few references, consider http://www.conservativeusa.org/ which states Bush has demoralized Conservatives - maybe some of the posters in this thread are out of step with REAL conservatism. I know some of the articles do not mention pulling out which is not what I said.
Pat Buchanan cites RUMSFELD at http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=6812 as "...Is President Bush willing to settle for less than we all thought? So it would seem. For it is difficult to draw any other conclusion from the just-completed Rumsfeld mission." Sounds contrary to the Long Hard Slog bravado.
I was going to post more, but the few contras I encountered are only interested in their opinion as opposed to reality and not in touch with what other Conservatives believe. Then again, we are with the thread or a traitor.
BTW, RANGEL's idea of a draft may come to fruition for no other reason than that the MSM is diminishing enlistments, ref: http://www.therant.us/ a CONSERVATIVE RANT!
As far as having draftees guarding your back in IRAQ, remember the D-Day you guys cited, well those were draftees. If the undisciplined draftees in Viet Nam were dealt with properly, there would be no need for worry or a need for an all volunteer Army. Draft them and ask for volunteers to go to IRAQ, send the rest to watch posts in Alaska, Afghanistan, the Borders etc .