If this is “winning,” then what is “losing”?

The Bush Administration reported this week that despite six years of waging war against al-Qaeda, losing more than 3,600 American lives, spending nearly half a trillion dollars, and decimating the nation of Iraq (the so-called “front line in the war on terrorism”), it has neverless failed to seriously cripple the terrorist network.  In the face of this damning report, President Bush inexplicably refuses to make any changes in strategy, refuses to reconsider his foreign policy and refuses to acknowledge that his claim of “winning the war on terrorism” conspicuously lacks supporting proof.  All of this makes me to wonder:  if this is “winning,” then what is “losing”?

Before anyone answers that “losing” would be a biological weapon exploding in Times Square or a nuclear blast on the Washington Mall, please provide evidence that Bush’s “war on terrorism” has actually reduced al-Qaeda’s access to such weapons in any significant way.  Where is the evidence that Bush’s decision to keep American troops bogged down in Iraq is having any significant impact against al-Qaeda’s nerve center in Pakistan, or its terrorist “cells” allegedly scattered throughout the world?

Share

grumpypilgrim

Grumpypilgrim is a writer and management consultant living in Madison, WI. He has several scientific degrees, including a recent master’s degree from MIT. He has also held several professional career positions, none of which has been in a field in which he ever took a university course. Grumps is an avid cyclist and, for many years now, has traveled more annual miles by bicycle than by car…and he wishes more people (for the health of both themselves and our planet) would do the same. Grumps is an enthusiastic advocate of life-long learning, healthy living and political awareness. He is single, and provides a loving home for abused and abandoned bicycles. Grumpy’s email: grumpypilgrim(AT)@gmail(DOT).com [Erich’s note: Grumpy asked that his email be encrypted this way to deter spam. If you want to write to him, drop out the parentheticals in the above address].

This Post Has 4 Comments

  2. Avatar of grumpypilgrim
    grumpypilgrim July 14, 2007 Reply

    Further to Erich's comment, what we might be seeing is the Republican right finally realizing a fact that should have been obvious to them from the start, because it has been known to military strategists for centuries: an indigenous people will *always* outlast and outdie an occupying army. The tragic irony is that America won its freedom from Britain with this strategy, but Bush — poor student that he is — apparently didn't study his American history.

  3. Avatar of Erich Vieth
    Erich Vieth July 14, 2007 Reply

    Bush is clearly losing the support of members of the military and their families.

    “I voted for Bush twice,” said Ms. Pyritz, seated with her five children in their home at Fort Eustis near Virginia Beach. “I backed this war from the beginning, but I don’t think I can look my kids in the eyes anymore, if my husband comes home in a wooden box, and tell them he died for a good reason.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/us/15protest.ht…

Leave a Reply