It has been said that armchair generals discuss strategy while professionals discuss logistics. People in the military, have a working understanding of the military or who come from military backgrounds understand this. The clueless argue tactics as strategy. For example, one can point to the latest article from the Associated Press. The headline: "Bush admin. won't shift Iraq strategy".
Well, that's a surprise. The strategy is to turn Iraq into a stable democracy. Should that ideal be abandoned? Should we deny the Iraqis a future that is not dominated by thuggish dictatorships? Should we consign them to life under a "theocracy" that only hides behind the trappings of religion while seeking temporal power?
Is that what war critics want? Do they want the attendant bloodbaths that a precipitous withdrawal will assuredly bring about? Do they want the blood of the victims on their hands? Those who would force a withdrawal will be complicit in the deaths of thousands upon thousands. Is that what they want?
The administration says it will stick with the strategy but is saying it will adjust tactics. Is that hard to understand? I have a LOT of problems with the tactical decisions made up until this point. But I do not have a problem with the strategy.
Setting people free from a monstrous dictatorship is never, never, ever a bad thing. Walking away and leaving them to die is consummate evil.