[FreeReign]

We still have not learned that when politicians run wars based on political priorities we lose our men and then the nation. Now it’s another Vietnam.

IMO, the presidents decision on this is tactical. The purpose of the tactics is to win the war.

[Kay Soze]

Like Vietnam we are doomed to failure in Iraq.

In Vietnam we took great care to avoid a larger war with the Chinese and the Russians and here we are reluctant to engage Islam.

We had and still have the military capabilities just not the political capabilities.

Read: In Retrospect by Robert McNamara

[GOPyouth]

I agree that this is tactical. A lot of variables are factored into this, and many many more than myself and others on here are privy to. This is where the trust factor comes into play. I trust the generals right now and the President of the United States to make the correct decisions, and their track record so far allows me to trust them.

Over a full year after this war started, only a very few soldiers have had to make that ultimate sacrifice. That's a result of leadership and outstanding soldiers. Nobody likes to lose a soldier, but the numbers are extremely low, and we should be very proud of that.

A few months before the turn-over are left. Do we try every last chance to use diplomacy, or do we say "screw it" and smoke the place? We may end up doing the latter, but as long as any kind of progress can be made, I'm all for it.

For those on here who are calling the president gutless and saying the United States and her coalition have now been defeated, I ask you to examine who exactly it is who is gutless. A decision has been made for one part of a city, and some people on here have already tucked tail and run, conceding defeat from the comforts of a keyboard.

I have full faith our boys will adapt to any circumstance and bring calm and stability to this city.