Rumsfeld: U.S. able to take new fight despite Iraq
GENERAL: Well, of course, warfare isn't all fun. Right. Stop that! It's all very well to laugh at the Military, but, when one considers the meaning of life, it is a struggle between alternative viewpoints of life itself, and without the ability to defend one's own viewpoint against other perhaps more aggressive ideologies, then reasonableness and moderation could, quite simply, disappear. That is why we'll always need an army, and may God strike me down were it to be otherwise.
[zifff boom] - From Monty Python's, 'Meaning of Life'.
And this makes as much sense as Rumsfield.
Skipping to the end...
Rumsfeld said there was no doubt the United States could win militarily in Iraq if it stayed the course.
"The important question is not whether we can win. Of course we can win. We won't lose a single battle," he said. "But do we have the will?"
This raises some questions for me. Didn't Vietnam prove you can win every battle and still lose the war?
And what are we winning, if we win Iraq Militarily? We were once trying to win 'Hearts and Minds', then we were trying to win in a political process and help the Iraqis govern themselves. Now we're trying to gain military control over Iraq.
When did we go from trying to create a free and democratic Iraq, to engaging in a War of Conquest? And isn't this back where we were in March 2003 when we put up banners proclaiming 'Mission Accomplished' while George Bush played dress up on the deck of an aircraft carrier?
"We are capable of dealing with other problems were they to occur," he told troops at an airfield in the Nevada desert.
"It would be unfortunate if other countries thought that because we have 136,000 troops in Iraq today, that we're not capable of defending our country or doing anything that we might need to do," he said in response to a question about military options for dealing with Iran.
Yes it would be unfortunate. I think that's an understatement.
According to Rumsfiend and Cheney, we'll be fighting in Iraq for decades. Bush has gone public with his plan to keep Iraq as is, until the next administration.
Staying the course means, changing nothing and keeping the war in Iraq going, neither winning or losing until the oil runs out.
Rumsfield appears to welcome another conflict and we know our adminsitration wants to turn Iran into another Iraq. Do we need another 20 year war in another country? Do we need to be bled dry in multiple wars?
Donald Rumsfield says we can win if we had the will to do so. And he says we don't intend to win for decades. Cheney says we don't intend to win. Bush says we don't intend to win.
So who actually lack the will to win? It seems to be the administration. And isn't this classic Karl Rove? Turn your Achilles Heel on your opponents and accuse them of your own faults?
It's our administration that has no will to win, as their graft will dry up. So they are likely being truthfull in saying that we can win if we have the will. Until Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield decide to win, we won't.