So how does that play into the discussion we’re having on whether it is “undermining” Petraeus to doubt how much we should trust what he says?

You brought the post up. Not me.

Anyway, if you want to be skeptical that is fine. However, on the ground reports and the Jones commission show significant improvement, and frankly if the GAO report had been tasked with that job they would have as well. Even if the one area you keep harping on, declines in sectarian violence, turns out to be well founded, it still wouldn’t change that. All the data doesn’t show what you have been claiming. Nor is data of that type the most useful way to judge effectiveness. Anyway, the commissions and individuals who have actually met and investigated what is going on not only have found progress but praise his forthright discussions with them. While they may differ in small ways with his assessment, all of that is within the margin of error, and none of them, no mater how critical of the war or the administration, has felt he was being misleading. The attacks on him have been disgraceful and many down right dishonest. He is not perfect, no man is, but he has been as straight about what is going on and the difficulties we face as any military leader of which I am acquainted. I cannot ask for more than that

So how does that play into the discussion we’re having on whether it is “undermining” Petraeus to doubt how much we should trust what he says?

Because there is no reason to distrust what he says other than that you expect he will say there is substantial improvement. He will say many other things, but you cannot accept the reality that America is winning this war and the Democrats are losing it–and the Democrats as a party and the Left quite naturally have put themselves in a position of hoping, even needing, America to lose this war.

Anyone who has ever known me would laugh at the accusation that I somehow don’t wish the best for this country, or that I don’t love the military that has played such a huge role in my family and my life; that, however, doesn’t make such accusations any less frustrating or annoying.

I don’t doubt that Joshua, but I think you are seeing what you are looking for. I am too, I admit that. But I openly acknowledge the data and the risks. As for you seeing gray, your take and willingness to swallow the Posts characterization of the Jones report makes me question that. It sees gray.

I have read the report and as much of the testimony as I can, and I promise you, the Tribune and NYT do it far more justice. The Post’s report is downright disgraceful. I’ll put it plainly, the report sees things as I do and the Times and Tribune demonstrate that. The Post report is so loaded with out of context and misleading inferences that reading the report and their coverage makes my blood boil. It crosses the line from highlighting what they find important to out and out falsehood. It is fine to say that the report doesn’t understand what is most important, or weighs the risks improperly, and we can debate that. it is another for the Post to plainly give people the wrong impression about what the Jones Commission testified to or said in its report.

However, just a few posts ago, you were blaming the Left for wasting billions to undermine the war effort, rather than looking at the very real ways the men in charge have blown it so badly.

I have never decried scrutiny, bit I was blaming them for not doing anything positive, and they have done precious little. During the cold war there was a segment of the left that both decried the right but understood that it also was important to challenge the Soviet Union. They did heroic work with dissidents, funding anti-totalitarian groups in the eastern bloc, funneling money and expertise to unions such as Solidarity, and much much more. They still worked against Ronald Reagan, Nixon, etc. Where are they now in Iraq or for the people of Iran, Syria and the rest of the Middle East? There is some, but it takes a microscope to locate it.

Nor am I going to accept your characterization of most of that scrutiny, which has been to a large degree despicable. Many critics certainly deserve some praise, Fred Kaplan, Phil Carter, Cordesman and I could go on. However, do not act as if that is what most of the criticism has been based upon. It isn’t true. The vilest fantasies and moral equivalence has received play even amongst main stream democratic activists. On the actual socialist end of the spectrum it has been full fevered madness and the brave socialists such as Geras, Cohen, Kamm and others who have tried to enter the fray have received its full throated lunacy at even the idea that we should prefer flawed democracies such as ourselves to the totalitarian foes we face.

Lance, I think you’re confused why I’m so angry and distrustful of the men leading the war. The simple answer is I have ample reason to be — as you just said, there have been so many mistakes, and a decided unwillingness to examine why they were mistakes, that I just don’t trust the assertions on hand, and when they don’t match up with the data I see (call it whatever you want, if you feel you must write it off as interpretation and meta-narrative), I crouch up and think I’m being played. Call it bitter experience with these people (something I have never fleshed out online, and probably never will).

When it comes to metrics, I’m not sure how else we can gauge success. In WWII, we could detail it by the concrete numbers of Germany and Japan’s industrial capacity, and by the territory we’ve captured. How do we measure success or failure in Iraq? Levels of violence? The immediate followup is which kind — certain kinds of violence are down, to be sure, but others have increased. What does that mean? Can we measure it by the territories we control? That’s iffy at best with this kind of insurgency. The numbers of Sunni tribes we win over? Perhaps, but what of the Shi’a?

And so on. Getting back to one of my earlier questions about what victory looks like: I don’t know. I cannot define the end state, which is why I get so frustrated at these endless talks of progress. We were making progress in some areas for some things in 2004; that didn’t mean the overall war was going well, or was worth continuing. What are we working toward? It used to be, way back in February, toward giving the central government the chance to govern. That’s out the window so we’re trying to undermine the central government with a patchwork of local rulers. Fine. What is that working toward? What does this progress measure against? Progress doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and I am completely unwilling to support a war with no goal.

You’re right that I don’t recognize things have changed. They haven’t, not really. The same groups continue jockeying for position, only now they’re using us instead of AQM to buy weapons. I honestly believe if we think there will be anything other than a bloodbath the moment we leave, then we are foolishly kidding ourselves. People continue to flee their homes, only to have the door out slammed shut in their faces — by us. The endless string of bombings and shootings hasn’t ended, just the side of the end on which people get shot. While it is good to see a small area around Baghdad improving, the south near Basra falls into panic and chaos.

So yes, I haven’t explicitly acknowledged the progress that’s been made so far because I don’t see it mattering. I don’t know what we’re progressing toward, because that seems to change by the month.

And the talk of defeatism aren’t directed at you. Much of my beef with the pro-war crowd isn’t directed at you – you’ve remaind honorable and reasonable throughout, even when I have let my frustration get the better of me. And you know probably even better than I do how often reasonable doubts about the war and its conduct, and even its leadership, are written off as defeatism, “undermining the war,” or being outright anti-military. As someone who has expressed these doubts and found myself on the receiving end of these sobriquets (again, not from you, but others on your side), I’m appalled at its usage, hence my sarcasm when mentioning bad news. Anyone who has ever known me would laugh at the accusation that I somehow don’t wish the best for this country, or that I don’t love the military that has played such a huge role in my family and my life; that, however, doesn’t make such accusations any less frustrating or annoying.

However, just a few posts ago, you were blaming the Left for wasting billions to undermine the war effort, rather than looking at the very real ways the men in charge have blown it so badly. Much as you perhaps rightly accuse me of cherry-picking the news I post to support only bad stuff about the war, so do you (plural) pick only news that is positive, with a few requisite mentions of “mixed” progress and a few caveats here and there. I am of the opinion that a reader of ASHC gets a relatively balanced view of optimism and pessimism between me and all the other authors here, but I suppose you can interpret that as you want.

Saying I see no gray is a bit off, though. I see tons of gray. I just don’t see any white.

I’ve not accused him of lying. I have, however, wondered at the discrepancy I see between his qualified optimism (mostly stemming from what I see as a really slippery interpretation of metrics) and the qualified pessimism of everyone else. I’m trying to resolve it, not sweep it under the rug.

Sorry, you have claimed people are lying about the progress. If he is just more optimistic than say Cordesmann (though I do not think he is) then fine. Say you think that is misplaced. Your discussion of the GAO report is an example of calling people liars where no such justification exists.

As for the metrics, what metrics? The ones Congress set up in January? I don’t think those are his nor make much sense. Where his program has been put in place it has been pretty darn successful. That other areas have not improved (though that is not as true as you think it is) does not discount that progress. Fighting in France was much worse in 1944 than 1943, but progress was made. Violence will shift. Hopefully they will eventually run out of places to shift to, but I certainly am not claiming it is a certainty, nor is Petraeus.

Secondly, I can’t believe you’re as sanguine about the prospect of disbanding the police.

I didn’t say I was sanguine. I said it doesn’t mean we have failed. Nor does disband mean what this implies:

Remember the last time we disbanded the security infrastructure of the country?

But I think you know that.

Again, at what point do we lower our heads and admit we simply have no idea how to solve Iraq, we don’t know how to make the factions stop fighting, and we cannot solve it through our own stubborn insistence? Is that point ever reached in your mind?

I don’t know. When I think that point has been reached. It hasn’t. I was close last summer and fall. Things have changed, you don’t recognize that.

I would say you don’t feel it is enough, but essentially you don’t recognize that, so I scratch my head. Weirdly you think your view is closer to the reports we are hearing. Yet the tide of opinion amongst political leaders, reporters, embeds, other nations and the public seems to be agreeing that there is significant progress. Obviously most people read the reports as I do. Discouraging in some respects, encouraging in others, but definitely some real measurable progress. The debate is on whether that progress matters, not whether it is significant. Cordesmann, Pollack, O’hanlon, the Jones Commission, numerous politicians, believe it is and seem to be more optimistic than they were. I know of no one who has moved the other way (despite the play given to Warner who hasn’t changed at all.) So, you can act as if I am way out on a limb, but I am not. Things have changed. I have gone from ready to pull the plug if I didn’t see some progress to seeing progress.

Or is it all just feckless defeatism, rather than humility?

Straw man. Never said it was “all” feckless defeatism, though with some people it fits, and with some my assessment is worse. I would like to think it is humility in you, but lately you have shown little evidence of humility. Lots of talking smack, accusations, and conclusions based on news reports that on my further investigation are misleading or overblown. A firm inability to recognize or report anything but what will fit your conclusion. I always talk about the downsides of what I see, the uncertainties in my views. That shows at least a little humility. I see none of that lately in what you are writing, at least on the war. I see it especially clearly when you characterize my views, such as above. When Cordesmann was calling for leaving I never accused him of feckless defeatism. If his last report had said exactly the same things, but concluded at the end that the case just wasn’t strong enough for him, then I would have disagreed, but I wouldn’t have disregarded his many points of concern, fears or considered him feckless. His report (which is already somewhat dated) summed the situation pretty clearly to me, and it was hardly a bunch of happy talk. It did jibe with what I was reading and hearing elsewhere.

In fact, when you first decided it was time I didn’t accuse you of anything. In fact, I thought you made many good points about the mistakes we had, and were continuing to make. Now however, you see no gray. Everything is negative and you are ready to pounce with snarky teeth bared and ready to accuse me of accusing people of things I have never claimed.

Now how is it unreasonable to very seriously wonder if he’s going to be honest or if he’s going to advocate keeping his job? That is what I’m challenging YOU on.

You can maintain skepticism all you want, that is different than complaining he has been dishonest or is a hack. You have claimed he has claimed things which are not true or do not square with the data. I am calling you on that. I have answered your challenge. Skepticism or wondering is fine. Hurling baseless accusations are not. Prejudging the report or setting things up in such a way that whatever he says can be dismissed as spin is not only unfair, but makes bad policy.

Secondly, I can’t believe you’re as sanguine about the prospect of disbanding the police. Remember the last time we disbanded the security infrastructure of the country?

Again, at what point do we lower our heads and admit we simply have no idea how to solve Iraq, we don’t know how to make the factions stop fighting, and we cannot solve it through our own stubborn insistence? Is that point ever reached in your mind? Or is it all just feckless defeatism, rather than humility?

Lance if all you’re after is Progress, no matter its form, then I’m not sure we can have a meaningful discussion — especially when minor or halting (or deeply qualified) progress is evidence we must stay, while enormous, encouraging progress is still evidence we must stay. Going from 1 to 2 on a 100 point scale is progress — big progress, 100% progress! —

Now those are nice points, but the progress has been much more significant than that. The point is the claim that Petraeus is a hack, or misleading, as opposed to how we view the significance (interpretation) of that progress. I think it has been significant, if in no way close to the end of the line. He has not crowed, he has been forthright about problems and difficulties, he has even allowed himself to be questioned by liberals. That is the discussion.

Now how is it unreasonable to very seriously wonder if he’s going to be honest or if he’s going to advocate keeping his job? That is what I’m challenging YOU on.

That is not at all how Instapundit was spinning it,

First of all, it says exactly what the Int. Herald Tribune says it does. Not Instapundit, he was quoting them. The military has improved:

“The progress of the Iraqi Army is certainly real,” said the report by a panel of retired senior military and police officers. “The strategic implications of such continuing successes are encouraging. Coalition forces could begin to be adjusted, realigned and re-tasked as the Iraqi Army is able to take on more responsibility for daily combat operations,” possibly starting “in early 2008.” It called this a “possible and prudent” course.

General James Jones, the retired commandant of the Marine Corps and former NATO commander who headed the commission, described “impressive” but “uneven progress” by Iraqi forces, and “dramatic results” for coalition forces in Anbar Province. There, he said, the changing loyalties of tribal leaders effectively meant that 35,000 to 40,000 fighters once supporting Al Qaeda were now backing the coalition.

I would say those quotes show the Post is spinning a bit, but even their quote admits to the improvement. As I said, the Jones Report seems pretty balanced, it admits the problems and points out the progress. You, like a squirrel hunting for acorns, looks only for one thing, failure.

and if we need to disband the police force and interior ministry at this point, we have failed.

That is silly. First of all we may not. If we do it is a problem long acknowledged. If finally dealing with a problem means failure then once again, we have and will fail because we’ll always have things which go wrong and need to be fixed ion any endeavor.

As for Kaplan, he may be right, as possibly Biddle may be. However, that is interpretation. Where are the lies? You can put up reasonable objections all you want such as KIaplan’s, and I am glad to discuss them, but you are avoiding the thrust of todays discussion, where are the lies you speak of from Petraeus?

And I still have yet to see this written out — what is victory? What does victory in Iraq look like? And how can we achieve it when our own goals change by the month?

The question was if Petraeus has denied things. Show me the assessment you have read of his, and where reports disagree. And yes, the GAO report is up or down. If Petraeus was to report based on whether the benchmarks were met he wouldn’t disagree, which is far different than saying no progress. The administration doesn’t meaningfully disagree with those conclusions. If you asked me if I had reached Shreveport yet and I say no, but I am at Alexandria, you don’t get to claim I haven’t made progress.

As for insults, you have thrown quite a few recently, so I think it is pretty gentle to just say you are wrong. For example, the military progress. The GAO says they haven’t met the benchmarks, which is true. However, there has been large progress which they do not even attempt to evaluate. See, that is interpretation.

As for his crowing, I haven’t heard him crow once. He has always stated his opinions with a large dose of qualifications, cautionary statements about possible drawbacks, and frankness about work still to be done.

As for the Jones commission, I think it is pretty good report. Seems balanced and well thought out. You act as if acknowledging the problems, just like Petraeus, undercuts what anybody is saying. It doesn’t. We have a tough row to hoe, but progress has been made, and your denial of that is flabbergasting. The carpet bagger calls it discouraging, which it may be to him. That doesn’t change the fact that the commission acknowledges progress and feels they will be able to take over their security in 12-18 months. The problems with the police certainly haven’t been denied by Petraeus. So where is the deception?

The reports you link to do not alter anything. They say the same difficulties which we all can see exist, do in fact exist. That is different from saying that progress hasn’t been made or Petraeus is lying or likely to lie. That is what I am challenging you on.

Finally as for Sectarian violence, that is a more complex question, but what Petraeus is talking about has occurred. They have made progress over the last few months, That is not to say the level is lower than the summer of 2005. The surge and campaign really began only 2 1/2 months ago. There has been progress, but some of the violence has moved, has concentrated and the decline has not been stark in the nation as a whole, though startling in a number of areas. None of that contradicts what Petraeus has said. The seasonal variation part is poppycock by the way. Still violence remains at a very high level. Our casualties have gone down though, which has surprised the military.

Iraq’s army, despite measurable progress, will be unable to take over internal security from U.S. forces in the next 12 to 18 months and “cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven,” according to a report on the Iraqi security forces published today.

The report, prepared by a commission of retired senior U.S. military officers, describes the 25,000-member Iraqi national police force and the Interior Ministry, which controls it, as riddled with sectarianism and corruption. The ministry, it says, is “dysfunctional” and is “a ministry in name only.” The commission recommended that the national police force be disbanded…

The assessment by the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq is one of several independent progress reports ordered by Congress for delivery before the administration presents its own scorecard next week. Members of the 20-member group, headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones, traveled throughout Iraq over the summer and met with hundreds of U.S. and Iraqi officials as well as leading nongovernmental experts on the Iraqi forces. Jones will present the 152-page document, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, in testimony today before the Senate and House Armed Services committees.

That is not at all how Instapundit was spinning it, and if we need to disband the police force and interior ministry at this point, we have failed.

May I quote Fred Kaplan as well?

Gen. Petraeus has noted (as would any good officer who’s read Clausewitz) that military victory is hollow without the accomplishment of the war’s political objectives. He has also said that some political objectives are a subset of others—that, for instance, the main reason for protecting the people of Baghdad is to create a secure environment, some “breathing space” that might allow Iraq’s political factions to reconcile and form a unified government.

If there is little chance that these factions can reconcile, then the military operations are futile. And, in the scheme of the fissures now racking Iraq, the defeat of AQM—while worthwhile in its own right—amounts to a bit of a sideshow…

The hope (and at least some of its advocates acknowledge that’s what it is: a hope) is that this “patchwork quilt” of alliances and cease-fires will form the basis of a “bottom up” approach to nation-building. The notion is that one local area after another will become secure enough to allow for the delivery of essential services, economic development, and finally political compromise—until, gradually, the zones of “sustainable stability” coalesce into a national entity or perhaps a loosely knit, but not wildly violent, confederation…

Stephen Biddle, a military analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, is a key proponent of the patchwork-quilt strategy. But even he emphasizes that the idea would be a political nonstarter if it resulted in a lot more American deaths. The American public, he said in a phone interview, will support overseas deployments of troops—even for many years—as long as not many get killed. For instance, 64,000 U.S. troops are still in Germany, 60 years after the end of World War II and 16 years after the end of the Cold War. American soldiers have been keeping the peace in Bosnia now for more than a decade since the defeat of Slobodan Milosevic. In both operations, virtually no American soldiers have died as a result of hostile fire. (Biddle is a member of Petraeus’ advisory panel, but he emphasized that his views here are entirely his own.)

Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years—and that, even so, it would be a “long-shot gamble.”

I don’t see how it is unreasonable to see this, to see how the best laid plans continue to fall to pieces, and not think we have it fundamentally wrong and cannot fix Iraq through sheer force of will. Again, I am clearly missing something, and none of you has yet shown me how any of these concerns can be or are being addressed.

So, we have yet another report which jibes with what Petraeus has been saying.

Look, whether this means we will be successful or not is debatable, and your point about arming former insurgents is a legitimate one, but it is a goal we have sought, and should have. It is counterinsurgency 101 to turn the enemy and make it buy in. That the strategy has risks doesn’t mean it can be avoided. Like in all types of conflicts every strategy has its downside, they can fail. Sometimes attempting to take a hill can be disastrous, but absolutely necessary to succeed. Counterinsurgencies cannot succeed without turning the populace, including former insurgents and their sympathizers, into allies. They don’t have to like us (though many do) but they do have to be turned.

The original thought was that without the government turning around that was unlikely, hence the original focus on that. Once that was achieved then it would be easier to accomplish the turning. That isn’t how it has turned out. The populace has started to turn first. This is exactly the kind of stuff Petraeus write about in his manual on COIN, and to set up a metric which denies him that opportunity is to set him up for failure. If being successful at what he is trying to do is called failure than yeah, let’s head home, because we can’t win. It is as if you told a tank commander that he was unsuccessful because by destroying enemy tanks he might clog up the roads with burning hulks. He might as well just pack his bags because whatever he does he’ll be called a failure.

Lance, that paragraph you quoted doesn’t have much interpretation. Overall violence levels have not changed, and when mapped against seasonal variations there is actually more violence now. The Maliki government have been on the verge of collapse for months, and we very much are arming the very insurgents we were fighting in 2005. Where is the interpretation, or from the other side, what’s the positive side to that that I’m missing? When Petraeus crows about how there is so much less sectarian violence, but they’re only counting that by listing the number of people shot in the back of the head rather than the front, I fail to see how that isn’t deliberately trying to spin reality.

I don’t feel like copying the whole thing, Tom, but four independent reports (including one that totally goes against that Instapundit link) all have shown either no change or change for the worse over the last six months… the GAO report, Lance, is the one showing no real change, but it does express pessimism, which you seem curiously unwilling to acknowledge. The government 3 of 18 benchmarks and shows little promise for fulfilling any of the rest.

Where’s the question? And where is the positive spin on this, aside from insulting my reading skills?

From a Congressional Research Service report on Iraq:

“My assessment is that because of the number and breadth of parties boycotting the cabinet, the Iraqi government is in essential collapse,” Kenneth Katzman, the author of the report, said. “That argues against any real prospects for political reconciliation.”

Without a political infrastructure in Iraq, any military progress would be short-lived, he added.

Katzman, who grew up in Long Island, also challenged the success of the Baghdad Security Plan, known as the troop “surge,” which President Bush claims is working.

“I would even question the military progress,” he said.

Many senior State Department officials in Iraq believe a political solution to the war is now “hopeless,” according to a top diplomat.

“I would agree with that,” Katzman said.

The CRS analysis said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is trying to save a “collapsing government” while fending off rivals who wish to topple him.

While U.S. troops have succeeded in temporarily pacifying Anbar Province west of Baghdad, violence has spiked north of the city in provinces such as Diyala, where Al Qaeda in Iraq relocated, he said.

The influential CRS report obtained by The News was completed before another pessimistic congressional report released yesterday. Both were waiting for lawmakers returning from their summer recess.

The GAO sees Iraq only completing 3 of the 18 benchmarks it was to have completed, with few prospects for the future.

A report compiled by retired senior officers described the Iraqi security forces as “riddled with sectarianism and corruption. The ministry, it says, is “dysfunctional” and is “a ministry in name only.” The commission recommended that the national police force be disbanded.”

The U.S. embassy in Baghdad itself even believes “Maliki’s government is “not capable of even rudimentary enforcement of anticorruption laws,” the report says, and, perhaps worse, the report notes that Maliki’s office has impeded investigations of fraud and crime within the government.”

Four independent reports, four more pieces of evidence that the status quo isn’t working.

And everyone comes back from the Petraeus tour smiles and optimism. Something does not add up, and I’d like to know why.

MORE ON THE SURGE: “An independent commission created by Congress said Thursday that U.S. forces in Iraq could give a larger role to the Iraqi Army by early next year, if the Iraqi forces continued to improve. . . . Congressional Democrats expressed immediate skepticism, saying in a hearing that they feared the Bush administration would selectively use this, parts of other recent reports and much-awaited assessments due from senior U.S. officials in Baghdad next week – including a major congressional briefing Sept. 11 – as part of a campaign to press for still more patience.”

So they set up an independent panel to dilute the impact of the Petraeus Report. Then when it reports something that doesn’t fit the talking points, they express “immediate skepticism.”

More will follow.

Meanwhile, violence in Iraq remains the same or higher, the Iraqi government is worse off than ever, and now we’re arming the very insurgents who once punched holes in our humvees as a “balancing strategy.” You tell me how that’s victory. And how do you hold land when you don’t have enough troops to get beyond the capital, assuming the capital even matters any more?

Those are examples of interpretation by the way Joshua, Petraeus doesn’t deny any of that. So when you answer me those kind of things wouldn’t count, at least not in such raw form.

Please specifically point out the discrepancies between what Petraeus has said and non DoD sources. I read pretty widely, and they don’t disagree on the facts in any meaningful way, The implications of those facts are in dispute, the interpretation is in dispute, but not the core data and observations.

That goes for the GAO report, which for reasons of lack of knowledge, lack of inquiry, or whatever, you are misrepresenting. The GAO report does not deny for the most part what Petraeus or the administration has been saying. Let me be clear since you jump to this conclusion on occasion, I am not saying you are purposely doing so. I am saying you are wrong, and demonstrably so, about the GAO report. It tracks very closely with the administrations own report on the benchmarks, Petraeus’ claims and the reports of Cordesman, Pollack and O’Hanlon, other reporters embedded with the military, the recent NIE and the major papers such as the NYT coverage, and even the politicians who have gone to Iraq.

So please, what claim has Petraeus made that does not jibe with these reports in a way that can in any way be used to question their veracity. Start with just one meaningful discrepancy to make it easy.

Meanwhile, violence in Iraq remains the same or higher, the Iraqi government is worse off than ever, and now we’re arming the very insurgents who once punched holes in our humvees as a “balancing strategy.” You tell me how that’s victory. And how do you hold land when you don’t have enough troops to get beyond the capital, assuming the capital even matters any more?

If Petraeus can explain the discrepancy between the hard numbers coming out of Iraq – which are either muddled or bad – and the rosy descriptions from the PR tours he throws visiting Congressmen, I think that would be being honest.

There is no discrepancy. When your losses are increasing but you are killing much more of the enemy in proportion to those losses, when you are taking and retaining the territory on which your enemy once depended, then you are winning.

From the noises you have made here, although I am not sure of it yet, I believe you in another era would have had Grant surrender to Lee just outside Richmond.

I still haven’t yet heard any reasons to think every other statistic and measurement is wrong, only that Democrats hate Bush… which isn’t at all relevant to whether or not they’re right to doubt what will be said.

Seems like the only action remaining is to pick up some guns and force a “revolution.” But they’re all anti-gun.

Interesting how they are trying to preemptively discredit a report they haven’t seen yet. It’s like they are announcing to us that they have no intention of accepting reality, even if reality proves the anti-war meme right (I’m sure it won’t though). What if the report includes unflattering critical points against Bush? That’s probably just another Rovian scheme to trick the peace creeps into complacency… even though Rove is supposed to be gone. That’s just what they want us to think amirite?

Mike: I’m of the opinion the Democrats are spineless principle-free ninnies, with the political acumen of a pack of trained squirrels. I’m also unaware of how “the statistics do not match the rosy interviews you’re giving” is the same as “undercut[ing] Petraeus instead of arguing the merits of the issues.” Enlighten me?

Reliapundit: please let me know what victory in Iraq looks like, and I’ll happily cheer for it. For months I’ve been wondering what that is, and all anyone ever says, even the principled people I respect like Lance, are “freedom, stability.” How do we know when said victory is achieved? What level of violence, political stability, development? I have yet to hear this. Who must we defeat? Without answers to those questions, I see no reason to continue fighting a war we cannot define.

Peter: I think “power-mad sociopaths” applies to everyone in federal elected office at the moment… with very few exceptions. Unless only Democrats are election-mad plutocrats, and only Republicans are principled moral warriors battling evil? Gross characterizations are easy, but rarely accurate.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of power-mad sociopaths.

yours/
peter.