Stoopid Stuff

We're not winning, but we're not losing - 'Splain that to me?

Well, we seem to have consensus. Bush says it, Gates says it, generals say it. "We're not winning, but we're not losing". Of all the mealy - mouthed, wishy - washy, fence straddling expressions, this one is a winner. What exactly does it mean? That things are in perfect stasis, poised delicately between winning an losing, but not moving in either direction? How can we be there, and how can we be there for more than a nanosecond?

More likely, I think they have finally been driven to having to admit what everybody in the world knows, that we are not winning. But, somehow, they have to put a positive spin on that. Huh? Make "Not Winning" positive? Sure. Just add, "...and we're not losing" and you've got positive spin. Not logical, not reasonable, nothing that would pass the smell test, but this administration has been so successful in handing blatent falsehoods off to the populace and having them swallow and ask for more, they can't help themselves. And sure enough, nobody questions these meaningless pronouncements.

Look, this is armed conflict, not dodge ball. If you're not winning, you're losing. What's worse, we are trying to occupy a sovereign nation by force of arms. And the lesson has been learned, over and over, from Dien Bien Phu to Saigon to Somalia, from Algeria to Grozny to Kabul, no traditional army, no matter how powerful and well equipped, can defeat a guerrilla or insurgent force with popular support. So I guess we should say, "We're not winning - Because winning isn't possible under these circumstances". The only real question left is how bad the defeat will be...

posted by mikey @ 9:15 AM