k wrote:
Address the way in which a short term tactics change can be considered successful without a solidified political situation in Baghdad. Tell me how *anything* that we do -- assume a blue sky, best case scenario -- can be maintained without a stable government in Iraq. I don't see how it can, therefore I don't see how arguments about short term gains is relevant.

Obviously, the security situation controls the political situation. You get people to conceed politically by limiting their options militarily. If we have a way to make substantial progress in regard to the security situation, and its demonstrated to be effective, it inevitably will change the political situation. It seems spectacularly insane to me to say that our effectiveness at actually fighting the war has no impact on the outcome of the war. If we have demonstrated substantial security progress but we bail because we haven't reach certain political milestones by a particular time, it means that we do have the ability to succeed but we do not have the patience.

Bush lied, then fucked up, then lied some more, then fucked up some more, then the public DIDN'T replace him, then more lying and fucking up. So now, after 7 years of lying and fucking up, you expect me not only to have a little faith in this change, but furthermore allow myself to support whatever additional shit I'm told is necessary when the government says everything is going swimmingly for the n'th time despite the fact that the prior n-1 times can be now shown to be outright falsehoods.

No, I'm not asking for faith or support. Only objectivity. While its difficult to avoid assuming that they are lying the seriousness of the consiquences demand that their claims fall on facts rather than assumptions.

RE: Obsidian Wings: Bush's Speech