We won!

It seems Sullivan agrees;

Wars are not just about guns and military action. They are also about ideas and ideology. Long wars, especially, are won by those who gain control of the narrative. The West won the cold war when it became understood globally as a battle between totalitarianism and freedom. Defining the conflict that way helped a great deal towards winning it, and in retrospect the Helsinki accords which publicly endorsed that narrative were the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union.

Similarly, redefining the war on terror as essentially the product of ancient feuds within Islam immediately shifts the argument onto terrain favorable to the West. For the first time in five years, it takes the narrative out of Bin Laden's hands.

Sullivan is advocating declaring victory and getting the hell out of the way. He's right in that the narrative is what drives the consequences. The problem with Sullivan, of course, is that he comes to this conclusion only after seeing the consequences of a World War II style of thinking in the modern age.

In the winger world, the narrative is much simpler. Leaving is "losing" and staying is "winning". That, despite their not even defining "winning" or explaining how it can be achieved. They simply argue that the military has to have it's "hands untied" as if the military can identify more people that need to be killed, and by killing said people, there will be less violence in Iraq.

It's a very simple equation. The right wants their holy war, and nothing short of indiscriminate killing of Muslims will satiate the blood lust. How else to explain it? Hell, over on RightWingNutZoid's blog, he argues;

It was also the politicians that caused our retreat from Vietnam and therefore they are responsible for the thousands of death that was caused by our retreat from an enemy that’s only hope was for us to lose the war in the political battlefield because they were soundly defeated in the field.

That's classic, if for only the horrendous grammar. But, beyond that, the argument is simple. If you kill more people, dump in more resources, and "stay the course", the war could be "won". Somehow Vietnam would have become a peace loving democracy, grateful to the U.S. for saving them from themselves, if only we had sacrificed more American soldiers.

I hate "sacrificed". They are dead human beings.

So, now the "principled" Joe Lieberman, and the "serious" John McCain are supporting the President's escalation plan. By definition, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is? That's right... crrazzzzeeeey!

Meanwhile;

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An explosion outside a Baghdad university as students were heading home for the day killed at least 65 people on Tuesday, in the deadliest of several attacks on predominantly Shiite areas. The attack came on a day the United Nations said more than 34,000 Iraqi civilians died last year in sectarian violence.

So.. lets pull our heads out and get over this "terraists" terminology. This is an Iraqi civil war - Shiite against Sunni. Let them have at it, because only when they can no longer blame the American military as an occupation force will there be any real pressure from within Islam itself to sort out the violence it cultivates.

The time for a military solution is long since over - and not a god damn thing will alter that.

And by far the most absurd rationalization you will find.. on the right as usual.. is the blaming of the Democratic party "cut and run" strategy for "losing" the war. Never mind that it's been nearly 6 years, and the abject failure of the civilian leadership (which until recently was totally the Republican party) is solely responsible for this debacle, and subsequent overwhelming desire of the American public to "cut and run" the fuck out of there.

The time is quickly coming to the "blame" portion of the activities. The wingers are already blaming the left despite this entire show being run by "The Decider". That's how they function.

John McCain, 1990:

We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood.

Fucking asshole..

NEW YORK A new Gallup poll taken this past weekend shows that support for President Bush's troop escalation did not gain any ground, despite an all-out White House publicity push (it remains stuck at 38% approval). The survey also revealed majority support for a congressonal resolution opposing the "surge" -- and a U.S. pullout within a year.

Support for such a resolution is strong, with 61% backing that. Asked if congress should try to block the deployments, such as by denying funding, a still significant 47% back that action, with 50% opposing it.

A total of 56% want a quick pullout -- with 19% advocating "immediately" and another 37% in a year's time. Only 13% say "send more troops."

"Americans remain unconvinced that it is necessary to send new troops to Iraq to gain victory, as Bush argued, and a majority favors withdrawal of troops within one year," Gallup reports. "Most Americans continue to say the costs of the war outweigh the benefits of succeeding in Iraq, and a majority of Americans also continue to say it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq initially."

The poll was taken Jan. 12-14.

As in recent polls, almost 6 in 10 say it was a "mistake" to invade Iraq in the first place.

And.. the dirty fucking hippies were right all along..