Quote:
Originally Posted by yesman065
My reasoning is working just fine, thanks.
|
I don't know. You are making claims from an article that does not say what you claim. First O’Hanlon and Pollack, as I recall, were two of the best Iraqi analysts who were attacked for removal by Rumsfeld because they were not saying the political agenda. They advocated nation building. They came to the Pentagon via Sec of State Powell because they were some of the best experts on Iraq. They were driven out by an administration of wacko extrmists who somehow knew "America does not do nation building".
And what do they write. Details that fit in exactly with what I posted.
A War We Just Might Win
We are finally accomplishing something in Iraq, at least in military terms. We have been losing massively at every level for four years. Those who replaced knowledge with a poltical agenda are easily identified. They said we were accomplishing something where even simplest minds knew that was not true.
IOW with generals who were not selected and constrained by wacko political agendas, then we are winning tactically. Petraeus repeatedly said he can win tactically.
Did Yesman065 hear what massive numbers of analysts are also saying in response to this commentary and in agreement with Petraeus? "Mission Accomplished" cannot be won militarily. These temporary victories provide Maliki time to create a political solution - the strategic objective. So what is Maliki doing? Nothing. Not even basic legislation is being passed. Lawmakers all went home. Iraqis appear to be fortifying positions for a wider civil war.
Why does this commentary get big play? The wacko extremist propaganda machine is pushing this one commentary massively because they finally have an accomplishment that is not a lie. Why do wackos forget to mention the rest of what Petraeus says? Why does Yesman065 also forget same; confuse tactical victories with strategic success?
Again, Yesman065 - either you never read or did not grasp what was posted repeatedly even to you. How many times must this be repeated to put O’Hanlon and Pollack into proper perspective? Somehow you are assuming that victory in battle means victory in war. Only fools and those with a 'big dic' perspective believe that. "Our bombs are bigger. Therefore we will win?"
We won most every battle in Nam - and lost. That war could not be won for reasons even cited in 1960s by Halberstam and Sheehan's books. For reasons also cited by the 'wise men' in 1968. Same exists in Iraq.
Yesman065 - they are repeatedly talking in the news about tactical verses stratgeic objectives. Do you not yet get it? You are making claims from an article that does not say what you claim. By not learning the bigger picture, you fail to comprehend the point in that commentary.