Patraeus snubbed?Follow

No, the General is just speaking as a field commander. Until he sees the enemy capitulate, his job isn't finished-- and since we are engaged in a guerilla war there is no specific person or entity to take a formal surrender from. This goes directly to his assertion that a political solution backed by military and civil strength is the only viable end result.

His assumption of the Central Command is all the evidence he isn't being promoted up and out of the loop to a deadend job in the Pentagon, which is a common graveyard for incompetant or out-of-favor commanders who can't be publically seen as being relieved.

And anybody with an ounce of sense would instinctively understand that any gains are not reversible. On the contrary, like Afganistan, unconventional/asymetric warfare is constantly ebbing and flowing. It's the primary reason to put an Iraqi political solution to this war.

Totem

It's a matter of perspective. Also, it depends on your definition of the word "Victory".

Remember: Semantics!

Victory is in sight-- we just need to keep the pressure on the insurgents, the Iraqi government, and our military to finish what we started. Any number of things can/could derail this progress, but that's the whole point. The job isn't completed until it's done and we shouldn't let up until it is.

That's the crux of the whole "Get out of Iraq" discussion.

Totem

Well no.

You just said victory is in sight. Patraeus says it's not. I want to trust you Totem, really I do, but Patraeus is SO dreamy.

That's a gross simplification:

Patreaus said: "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."

He's clearly speaking of military victory. Totem did a good job explaining exactly why he holds that view. Military action in that sort of conflict serves only to stabilize things sufficiently for a political solution to work. He doesn't define that as a military victory though.


When Palin and McCain are talking about victory being in sight, they're talking about the political victory that has been the objective all along. Again, as Totem stated, the goals have been outlined since day one: A stable peaceful Iraq that can stand on its own. And that's definitely within sight. We're closer to that objective than we've been since the war started, by a long shot.


Unless you've been under a rock for the last 5 years, it's always been clear that victory in Iraq would not be a military victory. We "won" that when we defeated Saddam's forces. The military has been engaged in operations to bring out a political solution ever since. That's a lot trickier obviously, and "victory" is never going to be defined by military objectives alone.