'We're going to give you a timetable for withdrawal,' knowing that that strengthens the hands of the enemy?… If you frame it that way, I’d love to see the poll results. I think the poll results will be no different. By that, I mean, the American People will say, even when the question is framed in this way, that "It's time to get out. Set your schedule and find a way to do it that's least dangerous to our troops." I think the public's fatigue level with the Bush Administration's use of fear to get what they want reached its saturation point months ago. I can see why the Republican "inside the beltway" wonks would think these words in the hands of Tony Snow will be a winning argument. However, I don't see it playing out that way.

The iraq goverment is purging military and police officials along party lines much like bush does with prosicuting attorneys under gonzales. Maybe we need a better example for the iraqs.

"And I ain't no communist And I ain't no capitalist And I ain't no socialist And I ain'tno imperalist and I ain't no democrat and I ain't no republican I only know one party And it is freedom."-I Am a Patriot-Jackson Browne

The Bush Administration used lies and distortions of truth to get us into this war to begin with. These propaganda tactics by this group of thugs is nothing new. They are experts at distorting the truth in order to achieve their goals and Rove is amazingly efficient at coordinating distortions and mistruths among their political allies in order to attain maximum effect in their favor.

Also on ABC,Condi Rice answering Geo. S. said in answer to "the imminent problem" that continues to dog. '... The question is: are we in a stronger position today than we would be tomorrow... the President made the assessment to go ahead..?' The parallels between Sec. Rice's statement and one from some time ago, Mr. Rumsfelds's, '...Do we go in with the army we have or the one we wish we had..?' reflect an Administration on it's heels (strategically speaking) ever since the "Mission Accomplished" statement aboard the Abe Lincoln. To base a decision to go to war due in part to Saddam referring to Kuwait as "a province of Iraq" and considering the above; if Snow's comments on polling were indeed taken, I agree. I don't see it playing out that way.

yes we have candidates that are clean, spend $400 on haircuts, use fax machines when they are not supposed to and fly private jets at $10,000 a pop and talk about doing something about global warming. I guess that would be the better example.

The Repblicans have yet to give me their definition of 'Victory'. If it still means an American-Style Democracy in Iraq, the definition they began with, then they are truly out of touch and 'Lost'. On the other hand, any definition other than that, is inconcievable to me as well as most people who wonder what we are there for. Is a Corporate Payoff the answer?

Quoting here..."but Republican base voters continue to see a conflict that is going reasonably well, with a decent chance of military success." Could any of the republican voters that contribute to this blog help me understand this? I see the United States bogged down in an ill advised, ill executed text book example of military adventurism with no gain that is worth the cost. I know, as Bob Novak does, that there are many horrified "paleo-conservatives" that feel the same way about this war. Explain to me what we will gain from stretching our military to the breaking point. Explain to me what justifies 3rd and 4th tours that are then extended. Explain to me how this is worth turning the National Guard into a back door draft. You often call the Democratic Congress out for not having the courage of their convictions. Explain to me why the administration doesn't have the courage to reinstate the Draft for this "life or death" defense of America in Iraq. Do you have any answers?

You are right Jerry/corpus christi THOSE ARE THIS ISSUES THAT hover over this nation right now. The republicans have the market cornered on honesty, distinction, disgression and morality. Pick up a paper, even a conservative one if you must, and THOSE will NOT be the headlines. The mockery your party has made of this country WILL BE. OWN IT!!! One more time Jerry, what does "victory" in Iraq mean to you. I know you wont answer, it is only the 15th time I ask, but I am trying to make a point that your arguments lack substance.

I would like to see one good example of the bush plan.

***********END THE WAR TODAY*********

I watched Senator Biden on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday and I must say, I felt I was finally hearing the truth about where we stand with Iraq. Boy, you really sense the difference when someone in the know is straight with you about the war vs Rice, Cheney, Guiliani and Bush's spin, spin, spin.

Yeah, Jerry, what about WMD's, the famous "mushroom Cloud" statement, "Mission Accomplished", diagnosing Terry Schiavo from far away, humiliating a wife and children by carrying on with a girlfriend in public, getting drunk while hunting and shooting someone in the face, leaking a CIA agent's identity, et. etc. etc. etc. It is amazing how truly miopic supporters of this administration can be. Let's just blame everything on Bill Clinton and leave it at that.

I've heard numerous definitions of "Victory". We will avoid a mushroom cloud, getting hit with WMD, we would keep terroists from creating a base in Iraq, of course the purple-thumbed democracy, ad nauseum. The one thing I dislike perhaps most about this whole thing is likely due to Mr Cheney's remark about "the Iraqi's throwing flower petals in the path of the American liberators". I don't know how I'll afford a dozen roses for Mom, I mean the Iraqis are buying up all the flowers.

Yeah Tony, it's all about the phrasing. I might suggest that if you frame the poll question the way Tony suggests, by the time "the Base" figures out the question the war wil be over.

I believe that the U.S. Military has defined "victory in Iraq" this way: "Iraq at peace with its neighbors, with a representative government that respects the human rights of all Iraqis, and security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and to deny Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists". This is posted outside of an admirals office in Iraq. I consider this a rather good defintion and an achieveable one if the American people want it to be. As a weekend editorial in the Washington Post pointed out if the American people want us to lose in Iraq then we will lose, if they want us to win then we will win. I think that is a rather fair assesment, it,s up to us. Judging by recent poll numbers it seems as though a majority of Americans wouldn't mind if we lost.

Robert in Salem - Not to be picky, but it's "myopic".

Bob Novak is nothing but a BushCo shill - how he disgraces his profession. Hey Bob? Any Republicans "repelled" by Bush's "personal assault" on the Constitution? We all know you're OK with it. You media brown shirts are enough to make a maggot gag.

Spin it, ask it anyway you want Tony S., but the american people have had it with this adminstration, this war, the lies and "I don't recall's". You've all fouled out and no amount of wordsmithing is going to provide justification for the damage to democracy done by Bush and Co.

Today's Liberals would have supported Martin Luther King, but not his mission.

Ryan Michigan: I agree with that if we (the people) wanted to "win" Iraq we could. However, the problem is who is leading the forces. I certainly agree with the goal although I have some doubt about whether the Iraqi's agree with it. However, the point is: This military action ISN'T working!! The military approach is wrong. Conventional warfare techniques are not applicable to this situation. I want our troops home because this administration and the cherry-picked military leaders are failing. The military leaders who disagreed with this administration and proposed alternatives were replaced. That is the problem: The "who" that is making decisions about the "how". Not whether the effort "can" be won. I would have supported this with a full heart if I thought that this administration would listen to the people who knew how to deal with it. I have to admit, from the beginning I declared this an illegal act but I could have been convinced because I am naive enough to want to believe that our presidents really do want what's best for the country. This administration has all but destroyed my naivete in that regard. The other part is the contrast between the administration's passionate assertions that our efforts in Iraq are so important but the hypocritical way of conducting it. If it is so important then, dammit, formally declare war. Institute the draft. Put the country under the war acts. If this administration is not (and never has been) willing to go for that, then they don't truly believe what they are saying about its importance.

Ryan, is it really possible for the United States to constuct a completely new nation? I'm asking, I don't know. Can the US take complete control of the Iraqi government, separate the warring factions, disarm the populace, somehow prevent suicide bombers and the planting of IEDs? Seriously, is it possible for us to control another population in this way? Because it seems to me this is your definition of 'winning'. Is such a victory even possible and what would it take from the American people? I have heard it said that Reagan bankrupted the USSR by escalating the arms race. Considering the Iraw war has cost us one billion dollars so far are we perhaps going down that road?

"Some call you the elite, I call you my base"-President George Bush

ryan if anyone actually beleives your definition of victory is achivable they need to speak up loud and clear and give definite axamples of how to do just that(other than to play "whacko mole strategy"). However very few folks seem to accept your definition of win/lose.

"Wouldn't mind if we lost?" So what's the alternative plan? We keep doing what we're doing until every American between the ages of 18 and 35 has been killed or wounded? There is a way to "win" but it isn't solely militarily, and we won't get there until the administration drops its opposition to negotiating with the "bad guys."

Ryan, I'm glad the Admiral has the ability to state the war's objective. It's a shame our Political Leaders, who are responsible for selling this war to the public, can't seem to find the succint, eloquence that this Admiral possesses. Now the difficult part. The Admiral has defined it well. The next question, "Achieving it at what price?" Is it worth it? And, will the U.S. public sign on for the sacrifice of further lives and expending of additional resources given the way both have been squandered over the past three years? On these questions, I believe the U.S. citizenry will say, "Enough is enough. NO more."

Johnny: absolutely. end the fighting RIGHT NOW... and the Sunnis, and Shias, and Kurds, and Iranians and all those Iraqis who voted in their last elections...you remember... the ones with the ink-stained fingers who voted in larger percentages than WE did in our last "MANDATE" election, will all live happily ever after, respecting each others' political, religious, gender, civil, and personal rights. Oh, Lordy, peace at last, peace at last!!!

Ryan, it's not just as simple as "if Americans want us to win we will". This administration wasn't able to "win" when Congress gave the executive branch everything it asked for. As for the definition of "winning", if we can't prevent terrorists from entering or operating in our own country, how can we hope to make Iraq a terrorist-free country? I don't believe we should just give up on pursuing terrorists, I just believe we need more than a single-minded military-only approach we have been using in Iraq. I've heard both dems and reps voice ideas, but is anyone listening?

Thank you Ryan for being able to form an articulate argument and actually put into words what your, and it sounds like from your post an admiral's opinion of what "victory" means in this situation. So my question to you after reading your post is this; at what point and at what cost do any of the things you listed become our responsibility to foster? Yes Sadaam was a tyrant. There is no question about that. But now we have awakened a hornets nest and are all getting stung. So do we run for water or do we continue to stop on the nest? When do we pull the plug and stop trying to play a referee in a civil war that has been waged for YEARS before we got there and will be for YEARS after we leave. WE CAN'T MAKE THESE PEOPLE GET ALONG. Just like the palestinians and the israeli's. This goes back a long time. And why are we so arrogant to believe that we are the ones to step in and "fix" it. Shouldn't our efforts have been placed in places like Darfur where we would be fighting for those who aren't able to fight for themselves. I understand that we have a mess that we have to fix. I don't have the answers as to when it is safe for us to pull out. I don't think anyone does. BUT what I do know. Is that we shouldn't be there in the first place. We have completely shifted our focus from Afghanastan, and Al-Queda WHO HIT IS ON 9/11. So when is it enough. At what point do we FORCE the Iraqi people to stand on their own, to put their own troops on the front lines, to stand on their own two feet. We continue to be a crutch for the Iraqi's. And much like an infant child they are going to have to fall on their face to learn to walk on their own. BRING OUR TROOPS HOME SAFE!!! Thank for your post.

Ryan, that's the same argument the hawks used for the Viet Nam war. Iraq seems to me to present similar challenges: how many of the enemy do you have to eliminate in order to reach your stated victory goal? Does the enemy have the will to sacrifice many lives in order to reach their goal? What is the enemy's goal? Who are the enemy? and finally, what are we doing there if there is a low probability of achieving our stated goal? And beyond all this, why are we at war in a country that did not attack us?

Gen. Petraeus has essentially set a deadline....September 2007. He stated if the "surge" has not shown markedly signs of progress, than an alternate course of action is necessary. It would appear that all of the bluster over soft withdrawal dates, between the Congress and President Bush are moot. It goes without saying that if in September 2007, the troops would be withdrawn, absent a successful escalation by Bush. Bottom line, one way or the other, the troops will be coming home in the autumn, either due to a successful surge, or due to a lack of success with the surge. It remains extremely disconcerting to realize that according to George Tenet, there was no real thought and internal discussion at the highest levels of this government, before our men and women were dispatched to a nation that had absolutely no ties to events of 9/11/01.

War Czar - oh my gosh, you've got to be kidding. I thought Bush was a Republican, and thus was theoretically for small government. His answer to his administration's inability to make heads nor tails out of the situation in Iraq is to create a new bureaucratic position for someone to be surrogate commander in chief? That would be funny if it was happening to someone else's country. How much time do these sophomoric amateurs have left?

jtb, you described exactly how the admin thought this war in Iraq would go. And as it has unfolded, you probably see it exactly that way. Other people see it the exact opposite. After all, cheney said we would be greeted as liberators. The solution is not simple at this point; it will take political, economic and military phases to achieve the goal as described by Ryan in this blog.

Independents decide elections - the GOP ought to listen to Novak, or else they risk handing the Dems a situation in which their most vulnerable potential nominee probably still couldn't lose the '08 presidential race. And that most vulnerable clearly is Ms. Astoundingly High Negatives, aka Hillary. She'll energize the GOP base like no other, but if Hillary takes 70 percent or so of independents, it may not matter.

Toward Ryan, despite my acrimonious comments do not judge that I think a total withdrawal from Iraq is adviseable. I fall more in line with Gen. Zinni's thinking. I would like to "win". But for now, given the missteps, containment is likely the best option. Despite what the Demo contenders are saying now, the serious minded among them realize full well that what they are saying now is window dressing. They will need the "cover" if one of them takes the Presidency to say, "Well, you know I'm on the record as against the war, but." By then they will be able to say, "well the situation has changed." The way we got into this was like the old Supreme Soviet, one party in power, rubberstamping decisions made at the top. Any opposing views decreed treasonable. But, we find ourselves knee deep in dog poop nonetheless.Democracy is problematic given the partisanship, and the voting blocs of the recent past. We as a nation must, in my view, aim for a mean. The only way to retrieve the situation as it now stands is withdraw from the population centers. Interdict arms shipments at the borders. Allow the Iraqis their Lebanon until they bleed themselves out. Knowing full well we are the nation that put this civil war to them. I'm no strategic expert by a long shot. More in the ranks of GW and Dick. But I'm guessing there is no way for a quick, easy exit. Holloring and name-calling may be satisfying for some. But realities have a habit of being well, reality.

Ryan noted an editorial in the "Washington Post pointed out if the American people want us to lose in Iraq then we will lose, if they want us to win then we will win." Well, golly, we could turn that same simpleton logic around on Tony Snow and his Administration Big Wigs by saying, "If we want to begin withdrawel of troops with a minimum amount of U.S. casualties and with a minimum amount of telegraphing our course to the enemy, we could. We just simply have to want to." In other words, the U.S. people are saying to this Administration, "It's time to get out. End this thing. FIND A WAY and DO IT."

I think that the Admiral's sign is well put because it acknowledges that we can't achieve victory purly through our military. We need diplomacy, economic development and political pressure as well. I am not a military or political or economic expert by any stretch of the imagination. Obviously Iraq won't be "terrorist-free country", even the U.S. has terrorists in it. I'm not sure how we get to that point. I do however believe that this war has become the centeral front in the "war on terror" and not coming out of Iraq with some semblence of a "victory" would have devastating consequences to us, the Iraqi people and the world.

Bottom line is it is up to iraqs to find a solution not America.

jtb--There was no way for US to avoid our own Civil War. Irreconcilable differences eventually had to be settled in the messy way that humans settle things. There is no way for the Iraqis to avoid their own civil war. Certainly not with the help of a Foreign occupier whom they all want to leave. Our invasion and occupation hastened their decent into civil war. Our exit will hasten it's end. That end will be a crescendo of violence not unlike our own experience. When it is finished one side or the other will have won. Democracy is not likely to be the outcome but that is for them to decide not us. No more American blood. No more American treasure. Sadly, both will need to be spent elsewhere. In Pakistan we are one bullet away from a nuclear armed Islamic republic. How much better would it have been for us to remain in force in Afghanistan killing Taliban and Al Qaeda as the crossed back into Afghanistan? How much better would it have been to have seasoned acclimated troops massed on the Paki border waiting for the inevitable overthrow of Musharraf. How much intelligence would we have had on the location of Pakistani launch facilities? How many valuable human intelligence assets would we have been able to develop in Waziristan in the past 5 year? These are all opportunities that have been squandered because of bad policy and bad leadership. We have done nothing in Iraq but provide the mother of all Live Fire exercises for our enemies to train the glut of recruits that our actions have provided them. I'm sorry jtb, but where bush is concerned, stupid is as stupid does. I wish he wasn't stupid, I wish we were in a better spot than we are now.

Ryan - That's a nice defintiion. I just have one question - before we decided that this was what was best for Iraq, did anyone bother to ask the Iraqis what they wanted? I don't think whether the goal you stated is met has nearly as much to do with what we as Americans are want as it does with what the Iraqi people want. You cannot force democracy on people who do not want it. Period. Change of this sort must come from within if it is ever to come at all.

Susan, Victory in Iraq will come when we let the military take over from the politicians. We bomb bomb bomb. If the terroists hide out in mosques, blow up the mosques! If it takes slitting the throats of every terrorists, so be it! If we would stop being a nation of scared women and let the armed forces take out the ragheads of the world who want to take on us, we could have ended this years ago.

Ryan, I think that is one of the most clear definitions of what 'victory' would look like that I've seen. As others have already stated, I'm not sure that goal is achievable in the current situation. The only way I see that happening is if we move in with overwhelming force to quell the sectarian violence. Then we become the oppressors, in my opinion. And it would come at too high of a price, in both troops and treasure, for the gain. I'm not sure how an outside force 'wins' a civil war. We can't do that with the troop levels as they are, nor with the 'surge' levels, nor do we have the military resources at this point to go in with the 500,000 or so troops that would be needed to 'win'. Without any changes in the situation, it's going to be ugly when we leave whether we leave in 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years. I do want to say 'thanks' to you, Ryan, for the way you thoughtfully and respectfully contribute to the conversation. I'm sure it's not easy being a conservative in this environment, but you stand out from the Kool-aid drinkers with the manner in which you conduct yourself.

It seems after reading many of these posts that some of you are still thinking putting our troops in Iraq will stop the killing. The simple answer is it will not. The only way we can stop this war is if the country totally mobilizes and puts all efforts toward the war. The question remains how many of you die hard war supporters are willing to pay $10.00 a gallon for gas, no more espressos from Starbucks, no more shopping for your Levis Jeans, ration all rubber products, pay higher taxes, buy war bonds, ration food, and last but not least serve your county through a draft. Don’t tell me you support a war you have not scarified ANYTHING for!!!!!!!!!

So now the truth is out that Al-Maliki is purging his forces for political gains and supporting rebels in his sectarian war? Wasn't that evident when Maliki warned his buddy Sadr to get out of Dodge until the American shake-up settled down. What is really disgusting is that this bone-head president is still spilling our American blood for this. It is criminal and murderous that he continues to do so knowing these facts. Impeach Bush and Cheney NOW!!!

I beleive hitler tried those tactics jerry, didnt work then wont work now.

Jerry/corpus christi: Very immature and unrealistic way to solve this problem the U.S. finds itself in in Iraq. Your "kill 'em all" attitude would not work any better than the current failed Bush policy. Your policy would create worldwide condemnation of the U.S. Military and likely cause other nations (not just fringe terrorist groups) to declare war on the United States. Congratulations, Jerry. You've just taken the typical "hawk" argument to the point of ridiculousness.

Ryran, Michigan & Jerry of Corpus Christi, TX. Do any of you realize that this is a no win situation in Iraq, as we have handed power to the Shi'ite controlled government. Lt Gen Petreaus was the only smart one as he arrived in Mosul. While flying over the route Kuwati to Mosul, That Tommy Franks rushed to get to Baghdad in Apr.'03 he told his crew to look below the helicopter at the "unguarded ammo dumps" and said that "ammo would be used to kill our troops." While in Mosul he established a repore with the Iraqis and had a peaceful occupation with 101st Airborne, when they pulled the 101st out of Mosul and sent in the 82nd Striker Batallion with their Bradley Fighting Vehicles, all "HELL" broke lose as they smached and crashed and ruined the goodwill that Petreaus had established. It took a long time to calm down the irate feelings of the Iraqis and there was a suicide bomber that blew up a mess tent with many military in it and many died in that attack. Had the field Generals, Rumfield, Casey, Abizzi etc: realized then, that they now admit that Petreaus had the winning policy in '04 this nation would not have 3,351 dead military and 24,500+ wounded. It has been 1,465 + days since "Mission Accomplished." And these brilliant General are finding out what "Cinco de Mayo" really means. A now after all this carnage, this administration wants Petreaus to throw the "HAIL MARY PASS" to save the rear end of these "Neocon War HAWKS". Better known as "Chicken Hawks" as one Paul Hadley of Ohio, a military person called them by the right name. Iraq was lost when this country tried to gain a permanent presence in the Middle East after being asked to remove our military boots from the Saudi Arabian "Holy Land" outpost we shared for years since before '91. The only reason for this iillegal invasion was for "O'= for oil field protection of the Reserves, "I"= Israel, to defend and protect Israel from a attack by Islamic forces, "L"= Location of permanent military and the position of the largest "Colossal Embassy" in the Middle East (Iraq) This spells "OIL". This administration cooked the books on Intel and what was said in the closed doors security briefing did not even come close to Judy Miller NY Times story of WMD stockpiles. Should anyone be curious about George Tenant and Colin Powell going along with this wreckless plan, all they had to do is, look what Saxby Chambliss did to Max Cleland of Georgia, calling him not very Patriotic and not being Loyal to the Prez. as Cheney and the neocons called the anti-war crowd UN-AMERICAN and UNPATRIOTIC for not supporting this illegal invasion. Remember Cheney telling Pakistanian Prez that "he is with us or not with us and he is not with us that the USA would bomb him and his country back to the stone ages." Face it this administration just gave Iran a closer position by 1,000 miles to the Arab Sunni Nations and Israel. Some thing called "Unintended Consequences" I only hope that the Democratic majority press for the truth about the pre Sept. 11, 2001 Intel and how it was ignored by this administration as they did not know when or where the attack would be. Something called "Potective Measures" by the National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice and Prez. to alert the FAA, NORAD, and Airline Industry for tighter security measures were called for on Jul. 10 and Aug.6, 2001 "Prez. Daily Briefing." The more that gets out, about the mistakes that were made or lies, is the more the "conspiracy theory" sounds more believable. Nothing like being prepared for the worst. And we are still not prepared for the worst, our whole interstucture is not in place for security.

"The President looks in the mirror and speaks His shirts are clean but his country reeks Unpaid bills,in Afhganistan hills"-Bombs Away-Sting/Police

This is by know means an easy issue. On one hand, I, like most of you am upset at the mishandling of the war and the cost that it has taken on American lives and pocketbooks. I would love for the soldiers to come home. However, on the other hand, I believe that it would be truly devestating to us, the Iraqi's and the rest of the world if we left Iraq in the condition that it's in today. Gen. Petraeus seems to me to have a military/political plan that could work and he has a timeframe in mind as to when we would need to see results to tell if its working (see Coy's post), and the Iraqi's seem to have worked out a revenue sharing plan for the oil revenues which they will vote on at the end of May. Petraeus told us that there would be high casulties, and it makes sense, if you start to fight the enemy harder it only makes sense that they are initially going to fight back harder. By the end of May 9 of Iraq's 18 provinces will be turned over to the Iraqi's. Hopefully we can reallocate our troops to the more troubled areas and continue to pressure the insurgents. To me, I believe that we have no choice but to hope that the Petraeus plan works. If not, to be honest, I'm not sure where we would go next. It's days and times like these where I'm glad I'm not the President. I don't envy him in these difficult times.

VFW magazines question for March was "will sending additional U.S. troops to iraq improve prospects for achieving vitory there?" response was 85% NO 15% yes

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):