So apparently we're losing the war in Iraq

Apparently we're losing the war in Iraq. Because we're still there after what...3 years now. And because we've lost over 2300 soldiers during that time.

We're still in Bosnia. We're still in Germany, Afghanistan... why are we only allowed a couple years for Iraq? It can't be because of casualties - from a military perspective that'd be a ridiculous notion. We've only lost 2300 soldiers. And considering the accomplishments - even despite the many hardships involved there - that's a very small price to liberate a nation and eliminate a very real threat to the American people in what was the Hussein administration. 2300 is far less than single battles from WWII. Far less than deaths in Vietnam. We lost 2317 soldiers in May 1968 in Vietnam. That's just for one month. 2300 deaths is a *supremely* small number in military terms. And probably less or roughly equal to a single additional terrorist attack. Who's to say that taking the fight to Saddam didn't stave off another terrorist attack here in America? Or at least another war in the gulf as the result of some stupidity Saddam pulled while in power?

So what were our other options instead of going into Iraq. Pretty much all the other proposals for Iraq besides military invasion include leaving Saddam in power. And I'll never subscribe to a point-of-view that THAT would have been better for this country or for the world at large. Especially considering the ties to terrorists and Iraq, the games he played with the UN weapons inspectors, and the very real potential for Saddam to have had or at least had rapid access to - weapons of mass destruction. Then there's the trillions of dollars in illegal funds from Oil-For-Food from the UN that would have continued to propagate. And it cannot truthfully be said that Saddam did not have access to weapons of mass destruction with any kind of certainty.

The idea that we're "losing" this war is 100 percent political in nature. I do not see a reason to believe that we're just getting our asses kicked and are buried in some kind of quagmire over there. The American deaths would be in the many tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands if that were true. Not a single one of the probably 30-some odd personal friends I've spoken with who have been stationed over there carry a negative point-of-view about the situation over there. They tell me a very VERY different story about Iraq than the press paints over here. They are very proud of their involvement and are very aware of the daily changes in that country and in the people of Iraq they are directly helping to facilitate. So instead of getting out when their military obligation is up a great many of them are re-upping and even volunteering for additional tours in Iraq. If things were so bad over there - I doubt you'd see any of them doing that - who would want to? If things were so bad over there, the elections would have been a failure and the country would be solidly embroiled in a civil war. Neither of which is the case. The Iraqis have resisted efforts by terrorist groups and insurgents to try and incite hatred between the different groups in Iraq and create a civil war. I think it says a lot about the general populous in Iraq that they aren't in a civil war even with all the efforts from insurgents to create one. And it says a lot about the truth of the situation there despite how the American press tries to portray it. How long were we in Germany after the end of WWII? Or hell, we were supposed to be out of Bosnia while Clinton was still in office. Remember when Clinton promised the troops would be "home by Christmas?" We're still there Mr. Clinton.

I'm sure that we'll have far smaller numbers of US troops in Iraq a year from now. And probably even less by the end of Bush's term as President. But I have no reason to believe that like Bosnia and Germany and Japan - that 20 years from now we won't still have troops stationed in Iraq. Hopefully by then though - as an ally.

http://www.completethemission.org

It is convenient for the Anti-Bush press to use any kind of negativity possible from the war in Iraq as a weapon to beat Bush over the head with. It's a war. There will always be plenty of negative. But I hardly doubt there is no positive at all as they would have us believe. Downplay the positive - or ignore it completely - and highlight the negative. Any ex-general or any person that has even the most remote connection to the military that comes out against the war is praised and thrust into the evening news. But the great vast majority of those ex-military or current military that support the war are left in silence. The Anti-Bush folks out there eat this stuff up. Iraq is their mantra to prove that Bush is a worshipper of Satan and will go down in history as the worst leader this country has ever seen. "Down with Bush!" "Impeach Bush!' "He's an idiot!" "He's just like Hitler!" That one's my favorite - the Hitler thing. Saddam was a student of Hitler - not George W. Bush. That's a prime example of ignorance in action. Truthfully - Saddam's mentor, Michel Aflaq, the man who started the Ba'ath party - was a student of Hitler and Nazism and he used the Nazi party and Hitler's leadership of it as a template for the Ba'ath party. There are no such ties to Bush.

As far as Bush's remembrance, I happen to believe history will prove the contrary to these extraordinarily negative beliefs. Not that he is to be glorified - but that he handled probably the most turbulent set of years any American President has seen (save Lincoln of course) the best way he could and that he was, in the end, the best man for the job. I have met the man prior to his entry into politics. He's a kind man and a genuine man and quite intelligent. I firmly believe that. And I will not stand and let others demonize and vilify our President without just cause. So far I have seen no facts that justify any of the vilification of him - Iraq or otherwise. All I see is hatred. Hatred that is unfounded in fact. The anti-Bush people grasp at literally anything that might portray him in a negative light and discount anything that might be portrayed as a positive or go through great lengths to turn the positive into some kind of negative. Facts really don't mean anything to them because in the end, he's still George W. Bush and therefore a liar and a scoundrel even though they really can't produce anything to justify such claims. As long as that is all the mentality the people of this country can muster - it can be certain that our days as a superpower are numbered. It's fine to be critical of our leaders - something that has been the rich heritage of politics in this country. But there is a difference in people being critical vs the utter disdain that is seen today regarding President Bush. Mark my words, it is a trend that will continue from here - if the Democrats win the Presidency in 08 you can expect significant backlash from conservatives due to the way Bush was treated. If the Republicans win - it will simply be a continuation of what you see today except people will have a new target. And so it will continue to spiral down and escalate and ultimately will wind up in the utter destruction of this country as we know it. We can't even muster any respect for the office of our President anymore - how can we expect to fix any of our problems? We will bog our leadership down in politics and negativity to the point where they are completely ineffective. And I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see this growing divide between the right and left lead to yet another civil war in this country at some point in the future - perhaps even by the end of this century.

Do you think George S. Patton, one of our greatest military generals, would think it was inadvisable to eliminate an evil regime over an entire country with only 2300 American deaths? He would no doubt have handled the situation differently - but I find it VERY hard to believe he would advise against going in there at all. Just something to think about.