A comment from Instapundit, with regard to Max Boot's WSJ column (following up on his previous article):

The commanders' timetables are driven by a desire to win. The Washington politicians' timetables are driven by a cowardly desire to have the war off the table before the 2008 elections.

Yes.

The key message from the Boot column:

It's still possible to stave off catastrophic defeat in Iraq. But the only way to do it is to give Gen. Petraeus and his troops more time--at least another year--to try to change the dynamics on the ground. The surge strategy may be a long shot but every alternative is even worse.

Kind of like democracy.

The only thing worse then a catastrophic defeat in
Iraq would appear to be a catastrophic victory.
It is easy to posit a scenario where the Insurgency gives
up, but our army collapses under the strain.

Thank you for yet another moronic comment, Anonymous Moron.

Why did you come back? Did you think I wouldn't delete your posts? Well, I haven't for now, but I can at any time.

Posted by anonymous at May 15, 2007 05:27 PM

that is probably the LEAST likely scenario of what could happen. The armed forces of The Republic are no where near "collapse"..they were problems in the last few years of Vietnam, but it held quite firm.

What is collapsing faster is the political will of The Republic's political leaders. That is coming unhinged pretty quickly.

It never was the Dems' war, they voted for it out of political cowardness (ie go along with the crowd) and now that the crowd is turning against it so are they. It was the GOP's war as long as they thought Bush knew what he was doing.

Not a day goes by when one of them isnt looking for the exits, particularly if they are up in 08.

The military arguement that the new theory needs about a year to stabilize is sound.

It is almost impossible to make that argument politically. McNasty is trying to do it, but more and more the GOP are thinking that (to them anyway) the real casualties of this war, might be them.

they carried water for this administration urging "stay the course" right up until Bush changed it. they are seeing the bodies of those defeated breathern more then they are seeing the sacrifice "in country".

Had Bush listened to a lot of people a year or 18 months ago things might be different today. But deadender Cheney probably couldnt bring himself to face facts.

The BEST output possible in Iraq is going to be that by September the new strategery has worked well enough to stop the GOP folks from jumping ship. If the KIA rate is still around 100 a month in IRAQ?

Have you seen the last few minutes of Titanic as the ship went down? That made scramble by the "elite" for the lifeboats...that will be what the GOP folks look like.

Robert

I'm going to try a few definitions

Catatrophic Defeat in Iraq: 2 Divisions cut off and torn to
pieces by the insurgents. Horrendous video, heads on pikes,
equipment abandoned and burning. Remaining forces pull
out on foot to kuwait, losing equipment and morale.

The Chosin evacuation came close to this, the dunkirk evacuation
was close, Bataan was definitely this kind of defeat.

Catastrophic victory : Insurgents bury their weapons,
minimal government functions stealing everything in place,
The army falls apart from lack of readiness equipment,
morale, battle fatigue, racial issues, crime plague army bases.

The US Army between 1971-1975 was this way,
the german Luftwaffe was this way in the 50's and 60's.
The russian army was in this condition in the 1920's - 30's.
The US Army was in this condition also in 1947.

I'm not sure what Max Boot defines Catastrphic defeat to be,
but staying in Iraq for a year sure makes either of my definitions
likely.

By the way Catastrophic Victory can be listed as Pyrrhic Victory
for those with an education in classics.

"By the way Catastrophic Victory can be listed as Pyrrhic Victory
for those with an education in classics.

Posted by anonymous at May 15, 2007 08:12 PM"

Like Clinton's victory in 92 for example.

The .mil is nowhere near the hollow military of the 70's. Light years from it. To think otherwise is to ignore reality and engage in leftist newspeak wishful thought dogma. The funding authorizations such as the ones the dems recently played games with include funding for repair and replacement of equipemnt.

Posted by anonymous at May 15, 2007 08:08 PM

Neither Bataan nor the Chosin were catastrophic defeats.

CD's are where the armed forces simply implode and do not resist until all means of resistance are exhausted.

At Bataan and Corrigidor the US Army and Marines (and some sailors thrown in) remained an effective and resisting fighting force until they were just flat out of the means to resist.

Wainwright (on the advise of George Moore) gave up on Corrigidor because there was nothing left to fight with.

At Chosin the Marines "advanced in the opposite direction" intact in the face of superior enemy forces.

CD is when the will to resist is broken before the means to resist are exhausted.

I can give you some examples, but Bataan/Corrigidor and Chosin were not ones of them.

Robert

"the dunkirk evacuation was close"

You need a history lesson. The successful evacuation of nearly 350,000 allied troops at Dunkirk was such an uplifting experience to the Moral of the British people that Churchill had to make a public address to remind everyone that "Wars are not won by evacuations."

So

What's more likely in Baghdad in 2008.

Catastrophic Defeat,

Pyyrhic Victory

Status Quo Ante,

Smiles, candies and cookies?

There appear only to be 4 outcomes,
So what's it going to be?

Posted by Josh Reiter at May 15, 2007 10:41 PM

I agree that how Dunkirk worked out it was a symbolic victory.

But, however, it was close.

Had the BEF not gotten off the beaches, had they been wiped out or more likely force to surrender aka Singaapoer...it might have been the "game ender" for the UK. That makes the former corporals actions all the more puzzling.

Robert

Hitler was trying to avoid the humiliating defeat for the british.

he didn't want to really fight them, he didn't want to invade,
he wanted europe and he wanted the brits to keep the seas,
so he could go crush Stalin.

He figured if he humiliated the brits they would have to fight on
to regain lost honor, if they were beat up, but, pulled back, they
would cut their losses and abandon europe.

it's kind of what's going on now, the sunni were humiliated and fought on.