SouthernBelle,
I have to agree 100% with you on this point. When I was on active duty, I spent some time in northern Italy just before the Bosnian conflict, and it was the experience of a lifetime. I actually went hiking in the same hills that were used for the opening scenes in "Sound of Music". The same goes for our troops in England and Germany. Not only is it a very broadening experience for the troops that are lucky enough to be stationed there, but it helps maintain a positive relationship between our nations.

I realize Hobbs was speaking tongue-in-cheek, but there is a very good reason for our presence in Europe. The same is not true for Iraq.

I see the problem in Iraq as being very complex, and yet very simple.

The Islamists Fundamentalists want us out.
Why? Because they see Iraq as a shining example of their ability to change the world and of America's lack of resolve to do what is necessary to preserve our freedoms.

They see it as the benchmark, a major event of importance.
If we lose, we will lose so much more than the many lives that we have lost fighting there, we will have lost all of our credibility to ever challenge any rogue nation again.

If they want us out so bad, then why would we consider leaving as being an option? Are they smarter than us?

I will note, that the Islamist facists and our very own liberals in this country all share the same goals, at least as it involves Iraq.

Speaker Pelosi, Majority leader Reid, Clinton, Kerry et. al, all ought to wonder why they take the same position as the leaders of Iran, Syria, and the Muslim Terrorists.

Iraq is the key. We fight till we win, or we walk away, always looking over our shoulder to see when another attack might happen and wondering if the UN will be there to protect us.

My example was to explain the hypocricy of the left, nothing more. History has yet to vindicate a liberal, from Neville Chamberlain to Jimmah Carter, history shows that we have to stand up and fight or we will kneel down and beg.

Since when is it a mistake to admit we made a blunder in trying to "nation build" in Iraq with a handful of soldiers, and a zillion pounds of bombs? We did the same darn thing in Viet Nam (and agent orange), only there it was the "domino effect" that kept us there for eternity.
I say get the hell out now, or send in 500,000 troops (from Europe and Korea) and occupy the place and then "nation build if we want the oil that bad.
This latest 20,000 is just a cover to get out anyway, but will cost us several hundred more dead and several thousand more maimed.
Who cares what others think about whether we are weak or not, we aren't when we are smart.

"Iraq is the key. We fight till we win, or we walk away, always looking over our shoulder to see when another attack might happen and wondering if the UN will be there to protect us."

This is worse than Vietnam, we can't define what "winning" would be.

If you think winning is defeating "terrorism" than I can only conclude you don't know what the word means.

Please tell me what "winning" means; if you can define it in this context.

A win in Iraq is when Bush says we have won. I have already heard the speech: The evil tyrant Saddam and some of his cohorts are hanged; the Kurds haven't been gassed in five years; every conceivable infra-structure has been destroyed (utilities, oil wells, schools, professionals have left the coutry, roads destroyed, no manufacturing exists, no army, no police force, no government--local or central) worth a darn, Syrian, Iranian, and other Muslim countries have enough terrorists there to own the place soon. None the less, we have won, because we left didn't we, and because I said so.

DeGaulle threw out all US troops in France in 1967.

I thought about not responding to you, and then I thought, no I can't let anyone go away thinking that I would make or believe such a comment.

So please re-read the blog header. You may find it more interesting than your original post conveyed.

What possible outcome could you envision would ever come close to erasing the stain of the blood spilled by 3,000+ brave men and women and the grief of their families?

Being able to say the two words "we won" just doesn't seem to jut it.

Did you all fail reading? Read his last paragraph before you jump to conclusions - it was tongue in cheek.

Thanks Enigma, I fully read and understood Richards post.

That masked08 didn't bother to read it isn't my problem.

What I don't understand is what masked08 could perceive as a outcome that would convince me that 3,000+ American haven't died in vain regardless of the "we won" bragging rights.

Bad,

Maybe you have the specifics of Iraq in mind. But it isn't entirely clear that you do.

I believe there were some 300,000 Americans who were killed or missing in WWII. The loss to families is, of course, staggering.
Would your formula be applicable here as well so that we would have to conclude that they "died in vain"? It seems so, if you are throwing down a challenge that suggests that no matter what the outcome, the 3,000+ of this war were in vain. Suppose, as is strongly doubted by a majority, that our involvement in Iraq resulted in an end to terrorism. Are we still unable to move beyond saying that they died in vain?

Help me to understand your point.

----------

My grandson at 22 weeks, via live 3D ultrasound.

Hi muddle, I have no formula.

"Would your formula be applicable here as well so that we would have to conclude that they "died in vain"?

The difference between WWII and our current predicament is that WWII had a clear objective and deceive conclusion.

"Fighting the War Against Terror" will never have an end. It's like "Fighting the War on Drugs". What did that get us?

Please read the Wikipedas definition of Terrorism and then tell me what measure will be used to define an end.

The war on drugs was simply phased out after we spent tens of millions of dollars and had nothing to show for it. It wasn't won.

We're not fighting this war for oil, peace in Palestine or ending the rule of a tyrannical dictator. That's the point, we have no more of an idea of why we're fighting this war then we have an idea of when it will be "won".

The major difference here is we’ve lost the lives of thousands of Americans, we're spending close to 13 BILLION a month with this one and close to 70% of Americans don't know why.

In order to "win" don't we need a measurable objective that's obtainable?

Could someone please tell me what our obtainable objective is?

When I read, "If we bring our troops home now, all 3000+ soldiers that have made the ultimate sacrifice, have died in vane”. I'm simply left with the question, "what would have to happen to justify the deaths of 3,000+ Americans, and several hundreds of thousands non-Americans that we could ever say that they didn't die in vain?

You answered my question. Your answer is that the specifics of this particular war do not lend themselves to such conclusions about "victory."

It looked as though you were offering a generalization that would apply beyond the particular case.

You weren't.

----------

My grandson at 22 weeks, via live 3D ultrasound.

White House: We will send more troops in Iraq

"This is an existential conflict," Cheney said. "It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have to prevail and we have to have the stomach for the fight long term."

Full article

Even if the "War on Terror" is 'successful'(whatever that will be determined by), I don't think this type of conflict lends itself to a "we won" surrender signing or circumstance.

In fact, I have a sneaky suspicion that this ‘War on Terror’ will never end.

It's naive to think that somehow "Good" will conquer "Evil" given that one man's good is another man's evil.