http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2796220&page=1
i gather from these comments, that the general feels if we pack up and leave- the war in iraq was, for the dead and wounded, a sacrifice not worth making. the only reason he can really see for being there is "success" and that the mission "is accomplished."
but the general also fails to note beyond killing insurgents- what success means, not to make this war one fought in vain.
and if, as all indications point, we do eventually pull out. then what does our general have left to say?
i'm troubled by this common comment among military leaders that without success in iraq-- that our soldiers were simply allowed to be killed or wounded for no reason.
if our attempt to rid afghanistan of its terrorist bases failed-- that the taliban and osama forced our presence out of afghanistan and maintained a grip on that nation-- i doubt that men/women lost in that war would have been considered a loss in vain. it was necessary to take out these bases as they were osama's training grounds for his own declared war on the USA. failure would have led to other measures but no one would have consider the attempt as anything less than noble and for a reason. a damn good reason.
that failure in iraq equals a loss in vain or without reason to our military commanders there indicates to me that it was an unnecessary action to start with.
