No, it isn't. Simply pulling out, immediately, would be a disaster. So would staying for the next twenty years. The policy had to be balanced and based on goals (some of which might have been met is Basra and Mosul).
I am amazed at how childish so many are about the situation in Iraq.
We are currently involved in a low intensity/protracted conflict.
The terrorists realize they cannot achieve a military victory but hope with the help of their allies in the media (like Michael Ware of CNN) to persuade the American public to cut and run.
Has no one bothered to read How We Won the War, by General Vo Nguyen Giap?
In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.
By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.
At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.
According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.
Poll
