War may take decades? Oh, my!

The newspapers all seem shocked this morning that General Patreus told Chris Wallace on Fox news Sunday yesterday that the war against the insurgency in Iraq may take years to end. The good general was quoted in the Washington Examiner;

“In fact, typically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or 10 years,” Gen. David Petraeus said Sunday. “The question is, of course, at what level.”

Who thought otherwise? The President told us in the very beginning of this global war against terror it would be a hard, long slog. The biggest reason it’s a long, hard slog is because we – the United States – always seem on the precipice of surrendering. It’s happened before – we let the Chinese and North Koreans keep half of that peninsula, we let the Soviets have half of Europe, we abandoned all of Southeast Asia to the communists, we surrendered Somalia to the muslims, we stopped outside of Baghdad after we annihilated the 4th largest Army in the world. 

And now, we have the world-famous surrendering Democrats throwing in the towel everytime there’s a corner turned. Insurgencies aren’t military campaigns in the traditional sense – the insurgents never win on the battlefield. Insurgents win in the newspapers and TV news programs of their enemies – thousands of tiny victories against the homefront.

That’s not new, is it? I’m not the first to write those words, am I? Yet everyday, the US media grants another tiny victory to the enemy. At least once every week, the Democrats give the enemy more ammunition to fight the war – Harry Reid tells us the war is lost and that our generals are incompetent, John Murtha calls our troops murderers, Dick Durbin calls the troops at Guantanamo SS concentration camp guards.

This war has dragged on for four years – the enemy has no hope of winning militarily. But the enemy still has hope of winning the war – why is that? Because they’ve pinned their victory on the fact that Democrats hate the Republicans, and by extension, our troops, more than they hate child-murdering terrorists.

Kagan and Kristol have more on the slow collapse of support for al Qaeda in Iraq in the Weekly Standard article “Slow Motion Tet“;

Last week, a group of tribal leaders in Salah-ad-Din, the mostly Sunni province due north of Baghdad, agreed to work with the Iraqi government and U.S. forces against al Qaeda. Then al Qaeda destroyed the two remaining minarets of the al-Askariya mosque in Samarra, a city in the province. Coincidence? Perhaps. But al Qaeda is clearly taking a page from the Viet Cong’s book. The terrorists have been mounting a slow-motion Tet offensive of spectacular attacks on markets, bridges, and mosques, knowing that the media report each such attack as an American defeat. The fact is that al Qaeda is steadily losing its grip in Iraq, and these attacks are alienating its erstwhile Iraqi supporters. But the terrorists are counting on sapping our will as the VC did, and persuading America to choose to lose a war it could win.

The difference between Tet and Samarra? We have a commander-in-chief who doesn’t stick his finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing today to formulate his strategy like Johnson did and the two Democrat presidents who followed. And there’s an alternative to the “Surrender now!” media.

Gateway Pundit documents the first known mass outbreak of SRDS (Salman Rushdie Derangement Syndrome). I’m coming to the conclusion that these folks of the “religion of peace” aren’t as peaceful as they let on.

Category: Media, Politics, Terror War