A Friend Writes....

NY Times today: Bush said that pulling out of Iraq would not happen on his watch. "Against such an enemy there is only one effective response," he said. "We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory."

Complete victory? He doesn't define what that might look like... zero incidents anywhere against the US or its interests? Peace and friendliness toward US troops by everyone in Iraq? Shit, that doesn't exist even -among- troops.

Of course for "complete victory" one has to identify a specific enemy, and here's Bush's clear description of the enemy (and this is a classic):

"A centralized operation directed by Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, a confederation of distinct organizations, paramilitary groups, separatist movements and local cells."

Well, is it "a centralized operation" or is it distinct organizations, groups, movements and cells - because it can't be both!?

Then he goes on: "...more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world."

So you want "complete victory" over a centralized operation made up of distinct organizations, groups, movements and cells that is a loose network with many branches, and not an army under a single command, but rather people who share "similar" ideology and are fighting on scattered battlefields?

Shit, complete victory seems assured when you look at it like that.

Gavin deBecker