No, I don’t think it’s merely rhetoric. One of the many layers of the arguments for invading Iraq focused on the difficulties of waging a serious war on terror from a distant remove. Being based in Iraq helpsus notonly because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere. By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs’. Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn’t always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open.
THE BBC AND IRAQ: A new and comprehensive summary of fantastic media bias.
CONCEDING DEFEAT: “You’re absolutely right; many in the press have all but conceded defeat. Having spent a year (1967-68) in the Mekong Delta, and having made three other deployments to the Tonkin Gulf in the 1960’s, I am appalled by suggestions that there are parallels between the two conflicts. Just for perspective: We were in Vietnam for over a decade; we have been in Iraq for less than four months. There was no clear national interest at stake in Vietnam; in Iraq we either make this thing work — and create a chance for a peaceful and stable Middle East — or we will have failed catastrophically. It seems that few remember that at the peak of the fighting in Vietnam, and for a sustained period of time, we were losing about 500 killed — not killed and wounded, 500 killed — per week. In Iraq we have lost 22 dead to hostile fire in the two months since “major combat” was declared over. And yet the hand-wringing has bedome quite frantic.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.
The Dish 