We Can Win. Or We Can Destroy

The alternative to winning in Iraq for America isn't surrendering, it is destroying our enemies and all those around them.

Despite the gnashing of teeth over the fear that we might skedaddle from Iraq after fewer than 3,000 casualties, in the bigger picture, I don't worry that we will ultimately lose even if we retreat from Iraq. Our enemies won't stop at Iraq even if the Shias fail to exterminate the Sunnis from Iraq after we leave and the jihadis win in Iraq.

No, we can't lose because even if one of the more excitable Baldwin brothers hands them our sword, the jihadis won't take our surrender. They want us dead or properly Wahabbi Moslem.

Really, we will either defeat our enemies by helping moderate Moslems strangle the radical jihadis; or--after we take a particularly hard hit at home--we will destroy the jihadi enemies embedded within the Moslem world, and the collateral damage will destroy the Islamic world in the process.

I remain convinced that we aren't discouraged by 3,000 dead Americans, but by the failure to destroy our enemies or advance toward a win in an obvious manner. We don't like stalemate. And if we are denied victory in Iraq, we will in the end kill as many as we have to in order to destroy our enemies.

For the record, I still think we have the advantage and should win in Iraq. As long as our troops don't lose faith in our government's commitment to winning, I think we will prevail.