From: "Mark" 


"John Cuccia"  wrote: 1) What, in
particular, do you and your ruthless cohorts mean when you
> say "win in Iraq".

Actually that's already been accomplished, Saddam is out and the people
have created a constitution and voted a couple times. Abandoning them now,
during this transition period is just wrong.

> 2) What ruthless tactics should have been used to achieve your
> definition of winning?

I'm no military tactician, but off the top of my head they never should
have let Sadr get away. Some say we didn't have enough troops from the
outset, perhaps that's true, but one can't predict the conditions on the
ground in advance in any war. Perhaps having a very heavy footprint would
have resulted in other detrimental actions.

Many claim we're losing the war, so Bush fires Rumsfeld, switches out
generals and plans to add more troops to stabilize Baghdad and this is
considered bad, so he's a no win position from the point of view of the
left. Whether the new initiative works or not is not something I can say,
but it is a different tactic and I have no problem supporting it.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5