Success in Iraq:
Defeat at Home, again. And again
Well, if that is so, then the Washington Post has just become President Bush's most ardent supporter.
In a December 6 "Op-Ed", Let Rumsfeld Go, Richard Cohen scares up some tired old accusations of incompetence against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Before boring you with the charges, and my point for point rebuttals, let me quote Cohen on the "tragedy" of the Iraq War:
... any victory that comes three years and more than 2,000 U.S. military deaths later than promised cannot be considered a triumph. Call it what you will, but at the very least it's a tragedy.
Like, say, the American Revolution? 8 years, 25,000 soon-to-be American dead.
Or the Civil War? 5 years and 860,000 (combined) American casualties.
How about World War I? 4 years and 110,000 doughboy casualties.
Or World War II? 4 years and 400,000 GI Joe deaths.
The Forgotten War? 3 years and 54,000 American deaths.
Of course, there is always the Vietnam War. A military victory, but a political disaster. 13 years and 56,000 deaths.
Think about it.
So, here are the charges. Well, the charge:
Under Rumsfeld's plan, the United States never had enough troops on the ground -- still doesn't, actually.
And where are these phantom troops supposed to come from, Mr. Cohen? Is Iraq our ONLY strategic interest? Are the Guards and the Reserves not stretched incredibly thin? Is there not significant progress on the ground (you need to stop watching the 6 o'clock news if you want to get a full picture)? Are not the objectives being met?
When will you acknowledge that, far from the "quagmire", the only thing making the job difficult is the enemy's belief that we don't have the political will to sustain the fight?
And where are they getting that idea from?