Far be it from me to sidetrack this rehash of the ongoing MC political thrash, but I have a couple of comments on the original post, which was, in fact, lifted from a blog--Dickey, you should have included the poster's name--it is the least you can do when cut-and-pasting--

At any rate, the piece starts out with the idea that Democracy is headed down the tubes because, for some reason, politicians are putting political interests over national interest, and the major media are not giving a true picture of the realities of whatever--Since when is this new? This is the way things have always been--that's why they call it business as usual--the miracle of democracy is that it seems to carry on, nonetheless--

Then there is this: "For example, who openly acknowledges that a military strategy takes months or even years to unfold and to bear fruit or failure. Once a strategy is launched, it must run its course for some time before it can be evaluated"

Anyone who has studied military strategy (or fought) knows that good military strategy pays off pretty quicky--it's the bad strategy that drags on for months and years--


And then there's this football analogy--"Imagine if you will a football coach who enters a game with a "game plan". For the first quarter his team holds the edge, but then in the second he discovers that the opponent is besting his plan by changing tactics. The coach then adapts his strategy to counter punch, and to regain the momentum. Now imagine that the crowd and journalists begin to crow and condemn the coach for "changing course" or for offering a "failed strategy" in the first place. Worse yet, some call him a fake for being optimistic about his original plan. Consider the ridiculousness of this situation; yet, that is precisely the reality we face in the West where the Iraq and Afghan conflicts have become politicized."

That's pretty much happens--they even have a name for it, "Monday Morning Quarterbacking"--

Then there's this: "Who would've thought several years ago that the main function of USA troops in Iraq would've been to protect civilians?" The answer being, nearly everyone--The key criticism of the "Topple Saddam" push was that it would destroyed the government, and we, by default, would be forced to stay there til there was a stable, new government--which will happen, as the Arabs say, "InshAllah", when God wills it--

Finally there's this:

"Yet, judging by the vapidity within the Western media and the shortsightedness of our adversarial political climate, I'd put high odds on the Islamic Fascists. They've got the will, they play by no rules while we must play by often ridiculous ones, and their religion gives them unity of purpose, something completely lacking in the Post-modern West."

No one who knows anything about the Islamic world has ever accused the Muslims of having unity of purpose--a cursory study of their history will show that, even after the Sword of Islam conquered, it invariably failed to maintain it's dominions. Don't believe me? Consider this--the largest, and strongest institution in the Ottoman Empire was the Byzantine Church--