How can you pretend to be a serious analyst when you throw around terms like 'sin'?

Oh, wait, I forgot, you're not supposed to be an analyst, you're supposed to be a journalist...

Without challenging Gen. Odom's 2003 thesis, that we can't win a war of choice that was not in our interest, the drop in civilian casualties in 2008 demonstrated tactical success: it addressed our obligation to protect subjugated populations in an occupied country. That's not just the law of war, but it was purchased with a thousand new American KIA's, and all the collateral implicit.

We also hauled ourselves back from the brink of responsibility for a broadening regional conflict, door # 3 in the 2003 NIE. Defeat in detail of Sunni militia in W. Baghdad/Belt would almost certainly trigger increased Arabian (and proxy) support for the insurgency, including the takfiri bombers, and unhinge Barzani's Kurdistan toward a collision course with Turkey. To those who are returning this year, this month, from fleet or 15 month deployments, well done.

The small 'v's don't negate the strategic blunder, or erase hundreds of thousands of families broken by 'conflict mortality.' So to Cheney & other cheerful architects of progress by quick wars I offer:

And tell the pleasant prince this mock of his
Hath turn'd his balls to gun-stones; and his soul
Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly with them: for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands;
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
And some are yet ungotten and unborn
That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn.
(Henry V, act 1 sc. 2)

too bad people actually have to rebut Dick Cheney's arguments out loud. I think an abridgment of the first amendment is in order. Since we've got all these cool "anti-terror" rules, we should set up a military commission for Cheney in Bagram air base, force him to repeat all of his baseless assertions about the threats from terrorism, and have a panel of judges rule that Dick Cheney can't repeat the claims again. If he persists, let him jog a few miles on a treadmill until he agrees to shut the hell up. Hopefully for the people over there Amnesty International gets him out before his heart explodes, his earthly form disintegrates, he reveals himself as the antichrist and destroys Asia just for the hell of it.

is too much of an attack-apologia to be worth rebutting. But I will offer one example of scorched logic.

Hannah gives grudging credit to Team Obama for holding to W's 'redeployment schedule', the 'SoFA' negotiated and signed under pressure in late 2008. That is Hannah's prep for reaming Obama as defeatist, for being focussed on withdrawal, wasting the 'surge victory'.

Never mind that Obama/Odierno's policy won't pull the 'in country' troops below pre-surge levels until after Iraq's national elections, which will probably be delayed well into 2010. What galls me is that the SoFA instrument that W signed off on has WITHDRAWAL in the lead of its title. That's fact of great importance to Maliki, who must be seen as making progress towards ending the occupation, or face revolt within his own minority party.

According to Reuters, on Saturday
[Prime Minister Nuri al-]Maliki, a Shi’ite, said the start of the U.S. withdrawal was a “great victory” for Iraq over foreign occupation.

Can anyone comment on the status of the referendum requirement that was appended to get the Withdrawal/SoFA thru their parliament?

Seems to me the outcome of your (good) analysis of the situation in Iraq in the post below contradicts with this post, which seems to be heavy on the knee jerk partisanship and completely lacking in analysis.

Perhaps, but from my perspective, the two posts are two sides of the same coin. That is, if Iraq is unraveling, the reasons why point to why it is foolish to talk of victory.

Cheney, I believe was among the cabal around Ford that tried, successfully, to peg blame upon the Democrats as the ARVN collapsed after its decent interval time ran out. Of course, who lost China tricks was a ponzi of blood by those in the then 1950's GOP Senate who could have only dreamed of being honored by the present day Fox endorsements.

Believe the past portfolio of on scene strategies could have only bought an interval of sickened peace as chemo therapy does for many with cancer.

War blame is still a game among those who believe that the last to touch the victim of crime or disease or fiasco is the one to hold accountable. It relies upon the deficiencies of its audience.

Dear Don;

Was referring to the collapse that occurred in the weeks before the fall of Saigon. ARVN showed itself to be only a US created ward of our state and not a defender of its own.

Societies form antibodies to outside intrusions even those that are beneficial. One never quite gets to the DNA to create a change in that instinctual reaction other than by planting a ideological virus that changes the cell and does not provoke the immune system. U.S. Army did not come with an ideology just a lot of equipment that eventually leaves "coral reef" material upon which the virus will grow.

There's a phrasing I first heard from an old shipmate many years ago that pretty well summarizes our options and outlook in Iraq: you can't shine shit. Perhaps we should quit trying.