We were winning six months ago and a year ago despite the complaints over the past year.
And we were winning two years ago, when we smashed Saddam's regime.
The alternative is to think that we were losing up to two months ago and then all of a sudden our enemies have faltered. So is the enemy weaker than believed the last two years or have we waged war more effectively than our military has been given credit for?
VDH addresses a pet peeve of mine. While I have tried to be careful to balance confidence against blind cheerleading, I've been annoyed at the shallow supporters of the war who went wobbly at the first--or perhaps 100th--car bomb. Said VDH:
One of the most disheartening things about this war is the realization that on any given day, a number of once-stalwart supporters will suddenly hedge, demand someone’s resignation, or bail, citing all sorts of legitimate grievances without explaining that none of their complaints compares to past disappointments in prior successful wars — and without worry that the only war in which America was defeated was lost more at home than abroad.
Yet if we get through all this with the extinction of Islamic-fascist terrorism and an end to the Middle East autocracy that spawned and nurtured it — and I think we are making very good progress in doing just that and in less than four years — it will only be because of the superb quality of the American military and the skilful diplomacy of those who have so temperately unleashed it.
War is not and never has been a static contest. Both sides adapt and both sides attempt to win. We are adapting better than our enemies and we are better trained and better equipped.
And we have a far better cause. When victory comes, even the sunshine patriots will admit this truth.
We have much to do before we can rest. Both in Iraq and in the wider war.