[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What the hell is wrong with you? No personal attacks?

Again TheMercenary posts mockery to avoid reality. No strategic objective means no victory. Deja vue Nam. The US won most every battle - tactical victories. But lost the war. Why? As the Pentagon Papers and a long list of other sources make so obvious - no strategic victory means an unwinnable war. "A Bright and Shining Lie" should one choose to learn from history.

Military operation must move the conflict to a negotiating table. When the US went to that Paris negotiating table, Le Duc Tho even provided Kissinger with N Vietnam's secret assessments of the future. US had no strategic objective. The Vietnamese objective was clear, obvious, and (we now know) took less time than even the North estimated. Vietnamese objective was reunification of their nation. America's were body counts, 'search and destroy', etc - nothing that creates a strategic victory.

Too complex for TheMercenary is Petraeus's statements. He can achieve tactical victory. America cannot achieve a strategic victory. Worse, Iraq's government wants to reassess their entire American agreement. Not negotiations with various insurgents - the many parties in that civil war. Instead, Maliki's government wants to limit the Americans. America's objectives are not consistent with an Iraqi solution. No viable strategic objective? So where is this light at the end of a tunnel? From the NY Times of 13 Jun 2008:

... talks with the United States on a new long-term security pact were deadlocked because of U.S. demands that infringed Iraq's sovereignty.

"... we found that the U.S. demands hugely infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq, and this we can never accept," Maliki said ...

The United States and Iraq are negotiating a new agreement to provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq after Dec. 31, when their United Nations mandate expires, as well as a separate long-term agreement on political, economic and security ties between the two countries.

Not discussed is a fundamental definition of victory in "Mission Accomplished". Not discussed in those negotiations and completely ignored by TheMercenary. Well published facts that TheMercenary has difficulty grasping. TheMercenary confuses tactical victory with military victory. That difference why armies have officers who better understand the difference.

As one Captain said (quoted in network news broadcasts), "I can win every battle but cannot win this war". He is officer material; understands why an army can win every battle and still lose the war. No strategic objectives, means no strategic victory, means "no light at the end of the tunnel". Deja vue Nam - or why TheMercenary cannot challenge let alone understand the concept. But then TheMercenary always attacks the messenger when reality contradicts his political agenda. No wonder he loves the mental midget president. Birds of a feather ...