RE: Failure is not an option...

I honestly don't believe it's lost in Iraq...

Considering that the new commander Bush just appointed thinks it can't be won and testified to that effect before Congress, I have to say your belief is based on wishful thinking and little else. We could "win" in Iraq, whatever that means, but we don't have the stomach for it. We never did.

We just have to give this new plan a chance because these new rules of engagement is what the soldiers out in the field have wanted from the very beginning.

I remember hearing exactly the same words from other True Believers right before we bailed out of Saigon. The new plan is nothing but the old plan with a coat of polish. 20,000 troops won't make a bit of difference, it will be like spitting into a volcano. The changes in the rules of engagement simply mean no one is going to face a court martial for what they are already doing. Bush is doing nothing but reinforcing failure.

As in Vietnam, we are winning every battle on the battlefield; the problem is I don't think that will be reported as such.

You can win every battle and still lose the war, Andy, and blaming the media for that is silly. Wars aren't won on the well wishes of the folks back home. The neocons' incessant whining about how American morale at home is hurting the war effort is manure. Wars are won on superior strategies and superior logistics, neither of which we possess, nor does Bush even comprehend.

I consider this a threat just like I considered the Soviet Union a threat.

Then you're thinking with your party hat, Andy. Think rationally. I'll grant you that some stupid mistakes allowed a few people to take advantage of our open society, but you can't seriously believe that anyone fighting against us on the ground in Iraq is any kind of plausible threat to us. The Soviet Union had ballistic missiles aimed at us 24/7 and they had a demonstrated will to use them. Even at that, we didn't go invade the Balkans. This is a bunch of third-rate guerilla fighters who have us pinned down on their home turf. You've been listening to too many neocon fairy tales. Besides, in some very real sense, we have already lost the "war on terror." We are no longer as open a society as we once were. Security Moms think that's a good thing, but no one with a functioning cerebral cortex or an IQ greater than double digits agrees.

...this threat from Islamic Extremists is just as dangerous as from the Soviets. Let's not take this lightly...

You need to start digging your bomb shelter, Andy. That kind of paranoia is exactly what the powers that be use to keep their thumb on you. The only threat from Muslims is the same one that is overtaking Europe, and how is that happening? Migration, my boy, and your President isn't lifting a finger to do anything about that. In fact, he is aiding and abetting it. He is pushing policies that will welcome the "Islamic Extremists" among us with open arms. So while our kids are bleeding and dying in the sand to keep the Saudi Royal Family safe, the Dimwit from Crawford is setting us up for the next World Trade Center. Nice.

In any case, you missed my point. Of course the war on terror is silly, just like any other war on a noun is silly. It makes no more sense than the war on poverty or the war on drugs, and it isn't any more winnable. It is jingoistic showboating. It is simple-minded sloganeering for the purpose of obtaining power.