Posted by
C.A. De Las Casas on Monday, October 01, 2007 3:44:47 PM
One must ask how many more resounding victories need to come out this year before the Left begins acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, America isn't getting its collective rear handed to it by an organization of fighters who haven't won a single engagement with American troops since the insurgency began. That's an important thing one needs to consider - that America has not lost any ground to the insurgency, they have not been forced to yield or surrender in any way, they have not lost a single engagement, and somehow we are to believe that the conflict is a "quagmire", that, as Harry Reid would say, we have "lost". We continue to be forcefed this nonsensical rhetoric when a cursory glance at any information on the ground spits so utterly in the face of this brazen claim that it would be akin to declaring that Anaheim lost the Stanley Cup last year.
Well, at least Anaheim lost a game against Ottawa, such cannot be said about American forces against the Insurgency.
You have Senators who do not even know the fundamental differences between a Sunni and a Shi'ite - not something I'd expect from an elected official before 2003, but something I consider imperative after 2004 - or what the word Anbar is declaring with satisfaction that the war is unwinnable. It causes me great distress to watch any video posted on the net by these insurgent groups where they fumble with the most archaic of military technology before being forced to withdraw from a superior trained superior armed American force and this translates to America's loss.
It seems the standard of victory is one that is impossible to attain and what's more for reasons I still can't quite understand. Even in the most American liberal style days of Roman history, even as Cato Reid stood on his pedestal and hissed and screamed against Caesar's legions in Gaul, no one would have imagined someone uttering the absurd words "Rome has lost" unless Rome has actually lost. And losing was not something done frequently, just like with the United States.
We want to continue to heap onto ourselves the belief that defeating guerrillas is so impossible - as though assymetrical warfare is some kind of "master" tactic without actually understanding anything about these two strategic terms (which aren't as closely linked as some people seem to think).
Which of course simply reveals the already thiny-veiled side that the anti-war crowd stand on. It's not so much a factor of "America is losing the war" (if there is one to be had, which one are they referring to, the War on Iraq that ended in 2003, or the War on Terror, which they so badly want to hog tie America's feet over?) but rather that because Congress did not listen to them in the opening stages of the conflict they need to be "punished". The punishment comes in the shape of a humiliating American defeat - that should teach the big bad warhawks a thing or two about not listening to them, they reckon.
Of course, this goes terribley in the face of reality - which brings us full circle to the fact that, in the words of John Edwards, we have two Americas. We have an America who will be pleased by hearing of constant American victories (which I hope is the majortiy of citizens) and then you have those who are so petty over their "loss" in 2003 by being unable to manipulate the government that a small, concellation prize would be for America to be "proven wrong" and "get whipped by petty insurgents".