Because people like Rodney keep getting in the way of unbridled American power. So if you can get rid of them, things would be different. But since you can’t, things stay as the status quo. America’s been a divided nation since the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. But not WWII because Lincoln and his Republicans wasn’t in power then. Whenever there is a Republican leading a war for the nation, the Democrats are always sympathetic to the enemy. That is almost like a universal constant there.

is there any argument about who the principal leaders are these days? are they not the leaders of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, al sadr brigades and saudi arabia to name a few? are they not the monsters that spew genocide at their podiums and sanction it at their mosques there and throughout europe and the US?

my question to all these esteemed writers, pundits, politicians and thinkers is: if radical islam is such a threat why are its political/spiritual leaders allowed to live? we know where they are. why do we have to contemplate bombing entire countries when we could start with the leaders first? would we not have attempted to kill hitler and his generals if we knew where they were?”

again, bush spoke about the devastation that syria and iran are bringing to bear on iraq. for every jihadi we kill or capture they send two while armchair pundits here discuss tactics about troop levels. it’s so pathetic. my question remains, Why do we let them kill us on a daily basis while we fete these leaders at the UN, our politicians kneel at their feet for TV primetime and these genocidal monsters jet about spewing their murderous ideaology? on a positive note more and more pundits are at least now admitting that we should have shot al sadr on site several years ago. how long will it take to come to the same conclusion about the sudanese, iranian, syrian, hamas and hezzbollah leadership? they should be executed on the same night without warning. we can deal with the UN and world opinion afterwards–not beforehand as we do now.

Good question. First, there is some evidence that parts of the new strategy were going into effect even before the President gave his speech. See, e.g., here:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2007/01/did-operation-actually-begin.html

Second, one of the big benefits of the new strategy is (hopefully) to reassure Iraqis that we aren’t about to abandon our allies in the country. So long as Iraqis doubt our commitment, they will be hesitant to do anything to anger the anti-U.S. forces, for fear that they will pay for it after we leave. By announcing the plan publicly, we reaffirm our commitment to success in Iraq, which is a big deal just in itself.

In cryptography there is a saying “security through obscurity is not security”. While the type of security in that statement is different from what is referenced here, I think the saying holds.

Lets face it – saying we were going to invade Europe through France with a large amphibian force sometime in the summer of 1944 wouldn’t change much. Everyone knew it anyway, there was no way to hide it – in fact if done well allowing them to know the strategy can allow you tactics that you wouldn’t have otherwise (such as the deception in the d-day invasion).

I would rather suspect that this has been in the plans for a while and troops have been shifted around already. If not, then the leaders *really* need fired. I would rather suspect that if people like Sadr’s militia tried to flee it would be for a fairly short run followed by death.

It is based on a mail survey of the paper’s active-duty military subscribers, two thirds of whom have deployed to Iraq
or Afghanistan at least once.

Here are the most relevant findings on active duty military opinion:

* Percentage who feel that “success in Iraq is likely”: 50% (down from an
“optimistic” peak of 83% in 2004)

* Percent who approve of the way President Bush is handling the war: 35%
(down from 63% in 2004)

* Percent who disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war: 42%

* Percent who think the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first
place: 41% (down from 65% in 2003) – four points lower than the general
U.S. population (45%) in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll

* Percent who think U.S. should have NO TROOPS in Iraq: 13%

full story: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=11826

—

Second, force matters. Force of will and brute force. They may know, again, in broad stokes, what we intend to do but, they can’t deter us and once we start, they don’t have a chance in hell of winning.

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: January 12, 2007
The New York Times

FORT BENNING, Ga., Jan. 11 —

President Bush came to this Georgia military base looking for a friendly audience to sell his new Iraq strategy. But his lunchtime talk received a restrained response from soldiers who clapped politely but showed little of the wild enthusiasm that they ordinarily shower on the commander in chief […]

Full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/us/12prexy.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

If the Democrats really love their power, if they really knew what was in their own enlightened self-interest, they and their allies on the Left would be doing everything in their power to help Bush win the war.