Why is it that many war critics seem to believe the U.S. is capable of addressing the conflict and genocide in Darfur, but that they are not capable of achieving victory in Iraq?” Why is it that when generals, or more frequently former generals, express a lack of confidence in the President, the Secretary of Defense, or our policy and mission in Iraq, their word is not only accepted without question, but their opinions are treated as absolute fact, but when other generals say that it is still possible to win in Iraq, and that condemnations of the President and his policies encourage the enemy, they are ignored? Why, when given a choice between defeat through surrender or the possibility to pursue victory, there are so many so eager to choose the former? It is difficult to answer those questions without considering what victory in Iraq would mean. Victory in Iraq would not only be a positive development for those in the Middle East with effects being felt around the world, and a huge success for those in the U.S. military, but success in Iraq would be seen as the ultimate success for the Bush presidency. For too many politicians considering the options in Iraq, and the choice between defeat through surrender or pursuit of victory, that is a huge problem. |