[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
Murtha's reversal on the war is an indication that senior members of the military establishment believe success in Iraq is impossible. In short, Murtha's statements imply that Bush has lost support from high-level military officials and therefore has no alternative but to admit defeat.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sucess? Defeat? What the Hell? If sucess is kill every insurgent and terrorist before the US can leave, then I agree that sucess is impossible and therefore we lose and should admit defeat.

If sucess is a stable democratic regime (not a liberal democracy) in place of Saddam, then if we withdraw over six months and Iraq remains fairly stable then we will have essentially won. Therefore we would not be defeated, we will actually have completed our mission of regime change sucessfully.

Mertha points out that the presense of foreign troops is much of the reason for the insurgency, and our troops are not helping the state of Iraq by remaining. An unholy alliance between Shiites, Sunnis, and Foreign terrorists could never be maintained without a US presence; they all hate each other and would have completely diferent goals after the repulsion of the US. Many Sunnis and Shitites especially would be able to negotiate with the formal government, when mush of the collaborationist label is removed as US troops go. And seriously, if the government has hundreds of thousands of trained security forces, how the hell will fragments of the insurgency be able to take control of the country if we leave? What about foreign intervention? Well that can be deterred under Mertha'a plan by a base in Kuwait, with thousands of marines ready to intervene on Iraq's behalf, acting as a deterrent.

Sounds like a plan to suceed in Iraq, where the hell do people get "admitting defeat", "cut and run", or "sucess is impossible". What the hell.