Are We Failing In Iraq?
One of the many interesting threads on the Power Line Forum is Is the United States Failing In Iraq?. Most people seem to think so, but why? The thread has lots of interesting commentary, much of it by a liberal who thinks the answer is "Yes." But, if violence in Iraq is nowhere near as high as most people assume, as I noted earlier today, then by what standard are we failing? And if we aren't failing, then why the panic we seem to be seeing among not just our public officials, but many Americans?
Check it out, and, if you're so inclined, contribute your thoughts.
PAUL adds: This was my contribution to the thread (I was hoping John would name it post-of-the-day, but no such luck):
As one might expect, the question of whether we’re winning turns on how one defines winning. If it means stablilizing Baghdad, we’re not winning and probably cannot win at any sustainable cost. If winning means killing lots of bad guys and making sure that neither the Iranians nor al Qaeda has a proxy state on Iraqi soil, we’ve been doing ok and can do better. The problem is that the Dems and the MSM, by defining victory in the first (unattainable) way, dramatically increase the odds that we will give up on [seeking] victory in the second (attainable) sense.
