Rusted Sky

Power Line: Preemptive rhetoric, preemptive surrender

John wasn't the only one to discuss Harry Reid's declaration of defeat in Iraq on the AOL blog today. In this post, I argued that (1) losing Iraq means having our enemies accomplish their major objectives in that country, (2) so far our enemies haven't achieved them, (3) the only way they likely will achieve them is if we withdraw, (4) therefore, only Democrats like Harry Reid can inflict defeat on us, and (5) Reid's statement (which he is now trying to walk away from) was probably an attempt to preempt critcism of Democrats if they force a withdrawal and defeat follows (if the war was already lost, then the Dems didn't inflict the defeat).

Reid's comment, which (all nuance aside) was an admission of defeat, doesn't sit well with me.

Perhaps I'm too aware of our past history. Aware of the sacrifices endured to bring down Nazi Germany (hey, we didn't have a dog in that fight, why should we have bothered with France and helped England?) and Imperial Japan (if we'd just let them have oil as they wanted, we wouldn't have had to go to war!) I'm looking at what we've lost in Iraq and wondering how such an incredibly LOW cost (and indeed it is, by any historical war standard) with such an incredibly high return, providing a foothold in the ME and working towards stabilizing a region that's been splintered for years... can be seen as a DEFEAT.

Reid's trying to explain away his statement. But it really doesn't matter now - the damage has been done. Seriously, do you think that the German government wouldn't have LOVED to hear that in '43? Or maybe shortly after D-Day, when we were pressing them back so hard that it was simnply a matter of time before they were defeated?

I know it's all grandstanding politics. Hell, after what we did in Viet Nam I should have figured that the Dems would have found the first opportunity to bail especially if they could hamstring Republican efforts - but I don't see how what Reid's saying (and you can pretty well bet that any 'nuanced explanation' is going to be ignored - "We've lost the war" is pretty straightforward, and quite likely to be believed in certain parts of the world...) is NOT going to have a very negative effect on the WoT in general, and our operations in Iraq in specific. Has he really played the game so long that nothing else matters but 'advancing' the Democratic party? The country, the world be damned, as long as they get control?

And what's this about Dems refusing to be briefed by General Patraeus?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Funding the Troops

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.

Tell me again how the Dems have a better idea on fighting the war than Bush, when they won't even listen to the generals fighting the war? I'm sorry, but the whole "We've lost the war" meme simply doesn't wash.

J.