| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Pace Defines Winning |
| 2006-10-25 |
| WASHINGTON, Oct. 24, 2006 – Defining “winning” is important to the war on terror, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said at a news conference today. The war on terror is not going to end as World War II did -- with an instrument of surrender signed on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. Marine Gen. Peter Pace said winning in this war on terrorism will be determined by conditions, not a signature on a piece of paper. “Winning is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function,” he said. He used Washington, D.C., as an example. “Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function,” he said. “That's what you're looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or anyplace else.” There is going to be terrorism for the foreseeable future, Pace said. But the United States and its allies must band together “to provide enough security, enough good governance, and enough economy to allow the citizens and the governments to function and not have terrorism interrupt that.” Pace said military leaders constantly review the status of U.S. and Iraqi forces. He said that Multinational Force Iraq Commander Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr.’s assessment that the coalition will turn over most of the security burden in Iraq to Iraqi security forces in 12 to 18 months is about right. The Iraqi move to embrace benchmarks in the way forward in the country will be helpful also, Pace said and added that good discussions are taking place about what benchmarks are needed for progress in security, governance and the economy. Pace does not want the Iraqi government to set a particular date for these benchmarks. “If you say the 13th of a particular month is a date certain, that puts you into a very, very tight window, and it actually gives your enemies the opportunity to focus all their energies on making it so it's not the 13th, it's the 14th or the 17th or whatever it is,” he said. “So having a very precise date, I think, is not useful, either from the standpoint of forcing yourself to do something too soon or from giving your enemies too much information.” Pace favors a window for an accomplishment. A window “where you commit to your citizens that you will either have attained these goals or you'll explain why you haven't attained them, I think is a very good thing to do,” he said. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #3 I wouldn't. But the right must have its own voice, even at the expense of breaking up the media oligopoly. Control of broad sections of the public discourse by a cabal dedicated to anti-American distortion is a clear and present danger to our country. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-10-25 14:20 |
| #2 Moose, "they will deny it to their graves, because it is a reality repugnant to them." Any different from throwing out the words American Civil War and slavery and states rights? Over a hundred years, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution and people will still argue the 'nobility' of the cause. The participants are dead. Have been dead for generations, but just watch the posts that will now follow. Why would you expect the contemporary left to act any different? |
| Posted by: Procopius2K 2006-10-25 11:09 |
| #1 I disagree. "Security" cannot be won, because it is an emotional state that varies between people. Unfortunately, it is a term also used by the unscrupulous to get what they want, like its nebulous twin, "Safety". So the real definition of winning is different. Ironically, half of winning is forcing through the view that you *have* won on a MSM that refuses to acknowledge that reality. If they can band together and refuse to admit something, for many people, it will not be a fact. And they will keep at it, years after the fact, to rewrite history so that only their version of events is known. And today, not only is the MSM convinced that the war in Iraq is a failure and a loss for the US, they are emotionally invested in proving those lies to itself and others. That Iraq is a failure and a loss because it *must* be a failure and a loss. How many in the MSM were utterly crushed when the Iraqis voted, and proudly showed their blue fingers? Many of them felt pain that such a truth had penetrated their armor of lies. It was *wrong* that the Iraqis were free, because the US is evil, and evil will never free people. So it doesn't matter that the Iraqi people are free of the monster Saddam, or that they live in a constitutional democracy, or that they are now a friend of the US and troublesome to dictatorships throughout the ME. Unless the MSM is bitch-slapped and forced to accept the US victory, they will deny it to their graves, because it is a reality repugnant to them. They embrace it like all the other lies they embrace, and are bitter and despairing. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-10-25 09:26 |