AMosely

Disclaimer: I am not promoting 60 Minutes or CBS - 60 minutes has done some good pieces over the years (see 'the Insider'), but it is still just another wholly owned subsidiary broadcast that promotes the left-leaning interests of the greater corporation.

Did anyone see the 60 minutes piece on Murtha last night? I am undecided about some of the things he asserts about the troops (yes, some are calling for withdrawal, but others feel hopeful in their mission - which is the truth?), but I do keep thinking of several of the clips of Bush that they showed, where he is essentially responding to calls for troop withdrawal by saying essentially "there are two choices in Iraq, victory or defeat - we will choose victory"

Bush himself said this is not a 'traditional' war. I know that the defense department is not looking at it in those terms - they might have in the beginning, when they thought they were only fighting the Iraqi army, but now they are fighting Al Qaeda, a Sunni loyalist insurgency, and any number of other groups (Al-faruq, Ansar al-Islam). With the exception of Al-Qaeda, I don't support having our troops fight these groups into submission and claim victory - and if the majority of our troops are not behind the fight, we should give them a way out.

The longer this administration keeps feeding garbage like this 'victory' talk to the public, treating them like fools, the less the public will want to support it. Be honest - admit what we are up against over there - it's OK to admit things have changed in Iraq - we're fighting multiple terrorist groups and trying to install a goverment and police force. 'Victory' won't come to us (America) in Iraq - it will only come to the people there, when they finally have a representative goverment many, many years down the road. We will have only (hopefully) played a positive role in that change.

Interestingly (or not), immediately following the Murtha piece was Dan Rather's trip to North Korea for it's 60th anniversary celebration. Not a great piece ( for a good one, see Frontline's documentary on North Korea: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ows/kim/view/). None the less, by contrast, it makes Iraq look harmless.

What a world we live in, though - fueled mostly by fear. Fear of attack, fear of cultural, political and religious change. It makes you wonder if humans can ever learn to live in peace.

section-8

There are some great N. Korean documentaries...nothing REALLY exposing about them...but good none-the-less...I wouldn't call north korea harmless...but, unless something crazy happens, i really don't think they will attack....they know that the world would turn on them in half a second...Kim may be an oddball...but he is smart enough to know better...just my personal opinion with a bit of professional thrown in....


about the iraq thing: The fact that bush has been as "stubborn"(if you will) about the whole Victory in Iraq thing (despite as much criticism as one could take) as he has been...I dont know...Its kind of impressive...he knows what he wants to do and he does it...maybe he sees the larger picture...maybe im being delusionally optimistic....maybe not

__________________

leejo

I don't think you ask 150,000 people to camp out in a foreign country in harm's way for anything less than victory.

Yes there may be a more nuanced reality at the end of the tunnel, but CINCs don't tend to ask the troops for nuanced performance.

Beatnik

Nuance aside, I'll be happier once we have a definition of what "victory" will be. Short of the entire country of Iraq holding hands and singing "I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke", that is.

I saw the piece, and the N. Korea one after it. I was actually pretty stunned by the N. Korea piece, and watched it 3 times. The craziest part was the thousands of kids doing the flash cards at the huge demonstration in the stadium. It seriously looked like a giant PC monitor with animated graphics and milisecond timing routines. Unbelievable. I thought I saw the Frontline on N. Korea, but I'll have to go watch it again. They always seem to hit the nail right on the head, and let the viewer decide given the context and totality of facts.

EDIT: btw, to get AMosley's Frontline link to work, click on it and then delete the Close Parenthesis in your address bar.

__________________

leejo

Fair enough. I think it's up to the President to make his case for the victory conditions. I also think that no matter what those conditions might be, a significant number of his political opponents and enemies in Iraq would use those conditions as additional information to use against him and our troops.

I don't believe that many of the war's opponents would suddenly change their positions if he were to lay out a 10-point plan with ghant charts and progress reports. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the situation on the ground in Iraq - not anything that can be quantified but rather the *vibe*. Either things go well there and the President "wins" or things go poorly and the President "loses". The left made their minds up a long time ago, as did the right. The middle will swing one way or the other in its opinions based on that one fact alone, not on whether or not the President has sufficiently briefed them on what the victory conditions might be.

One TRUTH that has come out of this conflict is that the military still sucks at playing the PR game and it must improve. This new age of media and warfare requires a much better performance.

RandomGuy

Sure there can be a definition "victory" in Iraq, at least to some degree. I agree that such a victory can't or shouldn't necessarily be totally quantified for the reasons you have given.

...but what about the "war on terror"? What is the scope of that project? Where does Iraq fit in to that "war"? Can there be a definition for "victory"? Can it ever end?