The Bottom Line on Winning and Losing

Malott has a great take on Harry "Shadow Boxer" Reids's claim that we have lost in Iraq: the equivalent of "Mission Accomplished" for radical Islam. Neal Boortz like others calls Reid a "traitor" and lays out his case very well. I don't think Tokyo Rose could be doing a better job than Reid and his fellow lefties. Michelle Malkin has posts with letters from our valiant servicemen responding to Reid here and here.

The bottom line on this winning and losing business is how would the status of the war be considered if there was no disagreement on whether we should be there in the first place? Without rehashing the justification for the war, IF all still felt it was justified would anybody be claiming that we are losing or that we lost in Iraq? Without the stigma, would Harry Reid be saying or even thinking we have lost? Absolutely not. And that is the point, the bottom line. Reid is not giving a genuine, realistic assessment of our prospects of victory in Iraq. He is playing politics of the worst kind. In fact, it was shameless how he appears to have been waiting in the wings and rubbing his hands waiting for a day to come that enough Iraqis would be killed by bombs. The bombs killing over 180 people happened and Reid jumps out like a Jack in the Box to undercut our troops.

While things have not and are not rosey in Iraq, if all were behind the cause nearly all would view the situation winnable instead of through a defeatist prism. The concept of "lost" is only based on the lack of will (personally and politically) to continue.