Originally Posted by Botnst

I believe it is still too soon to call the Iraq adventure a failure. That would be like calling WWII before the Battle of Midway incompetently run. Wars do not follow a predictable path and the outcome is never certain. There is one thing that is certain. Abandoning the field will lead to defeat.

One thing that bothers me is the disparity between what mid-level bureaucrats and soldiers say upon return from Iraq as compared to the hallucinatory assessments from the White House on one extreme and the defeatist attitude of of the press and Democrats.

The mid-level people that I know and talk to say that things are mostly going pretty well in most of Baghdad and most of the provinces. There are some bloody-awful areas in Baghdad and in some provinces. What I get from them is that they don't think it is possible for the coalition forces to subdue the insurgents.

But they do believe that the Iraqi Army is improving dramatically. When the Iraqi gov controls its own army and we step aside, then it will be the Iraqi Army bearing the brunt of the battle and they have a FAR different attitude than we have.

Most Iraqi Shiites DO NOT want to be ruled by Tehran. None of the Kurds nor Sunnis will accept Iranian rule. As the Iraqi Army gains strength and confidence they will be able to meet Iran as equals and gain respect taht they currently do not have.

I'm not saying that the strategy we are following right now is the only one or the best one. I don't know. The proof will come as more an more of the country is controlled by the Iraqi Army. If their army is capable of defeating the insurgency then we will know the current strategy is correct. If their army remains incompetent then we will know it is the wrong strategy.

B