Harry Reid "I believe ... that this war is lost"

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
I think we first need to establish what it means for us to "win", in this situation. Below, is the best I could come up with.

Victory in Iraq as defined by the Bush White House

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

* In the short term:
- An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
* In the medium term:
- An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* In the longer term:
- An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
- An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
- An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

Here's a breakdown of those goals....

An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency - Not much luck with this one.

Meeting political milestones - I think we've met a few of those. Not sure if they accomplished much, though.

Building democratic institutions - What does this mean?

Standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security - Not much accomplished here, either.

Tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy - What does this mean?

In all fairness (God forbid that we get into that), Reid went on say, and apparently tell the President, that there had to be substantive changes in military, diplomatic and economic policy in order to pull this thing out and that the policies the President seems determined to pursue aren?t working.

Won or lost, it seems to me, are simplistic measures better suited to John Wayne movies and comic book analysis that to the real world.

The real question is whether after all this time, all this money, all these lives there is any significant movement toward a stable and US friendly government in Iraq that actually has control of the territory and population?or any reasonable prospect of it. Manifestly that isn?t happening. Worse than that the nation?s ability to pursue the President?s policies is now compromised ? just look at the Regular, National Guard and Reserve formations that are rotating back to Iraq and Afghanistan without the necessary training, personnel and equipment.

Another measure of how things are going is to look at the publicly stated objectives and reasons for the invasion in the first place. Iraq certainly doesn?t have and nuclear weapons now, Saddam is certainly out of power. Maybe we should do just what some suggested that we do in Vietnam: declare victory and get the hell out.

This Administration is so heavily invested in the John Wayne approach to Iraq that it cannot even consider any other approach without suffering what it sees as a devastating loss of face.

All it can do now is posture, spend more time, more lives, more money and more national credibility to desperately hold on in the expectation that some new Administration will have to clean up the debris and then can be accused of losing the Middle East because of a lack of will. In my childhood ?Who lost China? was a widespread political rallying cry. I fear that ?Who lost Iraq? will be the same thing.

The most annoying part of this debate is that people think the people who want to pull out are simply being defeatist or against our whole plan there.

The problem is the aimless nature of the whole operation from beginning to end. Basically it was, "Go in and hope that it goes our way" Well it didn't and we've been screwing up ever since.

The most annoying part of the won/lost debate is that those who prefer to keep trying can't even imagine how things could get better. It's not, "Well let's just try this, we think it will work, because X, Y, and Z reasons" It's nothing like that, it's simply "it's working, be patient. Look at these results!" But it's obviously "not" working.

The best way forward, is for the Republicans and Democrats to not divide it between keep doing what we're doing, or leave, but rather, "How can we both be realistic?"




 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
People who think everyone in the military is pissed about what Reid said have obviously never been in the military. While it is safe to say that the military on average is more conservative and more supportive of the war then most americans... its nowhere near the levels you seem to think. There are TONS and TONS of people in the military who simply loathe Bush, and hate this war.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
People who think everyone in the military is pissed about what Reid said have obviously never been in the military. While it is safe to say that the military on average is more conservative and more supportive of the war then most americans... its nowhere near the levels you seem to think. There are TONS and TONS of people in the military who simply loathe Bush, and hate this war.

From my experience, I think the problem is that people think military folks can be categorized as cookie cutter conservatives in the same mold as Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. But while the military is overall more conservative than the general population, I don't think they fit the one-dimensional conservative mold everyone seems to have in mind. From the military men and women I've dealt with, they seem to be far more pragmatic than your average armchair conservative. They may not view the Iraq war as lost either, but they also seem more concerned about actually defeating the enemy than in whether he's "emboldened" or not. While I've met a lot of former and current military folks that want victory in Iraq and think it's still possible, I don't think I've met very many at all who believe the way to win is through political posturing. When you get right down to it, winning a war requires physical support from the government (in the form of troops and guns and direction), and military folks don't seem to feel they've gotten enough of that from day one, whatever Harry Reid or George W. Bush think about the way the war is going.

But I still have to agree with eskimospy, people (especially conservatives) seem to think that every single person in the military is some sort of dyed in the wool Republican supporter. I don't know how many arguments with a conservative involve the conservative suggesting he or she has the implicit support of every single man and woman in uniform. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and all the rest can hardly go a single show without bringing that conservative fantasy up. But in my experience, it's just not true. I've never served in the military, but I know quite a few folks who have, and while I'd say they are certainly politically different from the average American, calling them GWB style conservatives is just silly.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I don't think its realistic to try to peg where the average military Joe or Jill sits on what we call the liberal conservative spectrum. The point is that they have considerations that put them into a another dimension. Because from their perspective--it becomes a question of personal survival---and at any minute---and for any random reason---their number may come up.

And here I set behind some computer keyboard stateside. And how can I possibly understand some soldier in Iraq is worrying about getting blown up in the next moment. Shall I step here, there, or that other place---no way to tell---anyone of those options could trigger that ied.

But when I cite that kind of thinking---I am not saying its more profound, less profound, or more productive in solving the broad questions of the Iraq war---but rather its not a a matter of its better, or worse, but it sure is totally different.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
War? Did someone mention war? This isn't a war... It's a scam ... A big Lie to the american people to spend huge amounts of cash.........

If this was a real WAR we would have WON and been back home last 4.5 years ago... Now, back to your desk and keep working and making lot's of cash and Christ's sake Pay your taxes we need to keep funding this scam on America...

 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
New on drudge. link
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.
I don't see how these comments can be anything but harmful, unless you are a terrorist.

Can anyone explain how declaring that our military has 'lost' a war is helpful to the future of America?

Yes, because we wouldn't want to embolden the enemy. :roll: You're a broken record, PJ.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
New on drudge. link
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.
I don't see how these comments can be anything but harmful, unless you are a terrorist.

Can anyone explain how declaring that our military has 'lost' a war is helpful to the future of America?

Yes, because we wouldn't want to embolden the enemy. :roll: You're a broken record, PJ.


Ditto Why is hard to understand? I have even see CNN and MSNBC correspondants say this and then say the terrorist look forward to timetables because they then know how long they have to hold out. Not from the FOx newsers.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Pabster
Harry Reid is on whatever side the big bucks are on. For him, that would be the hard, extreme left that puts millions in the coffers.
And you know this HOW? PROOF, or retract it.

Hello Pot? This is kettle!
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
New on drudge. link
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.
I don't see how these comments can be anything but harmful, unless you are a terrorist.

Can anyone explain how declaring that our military has 'lost' a war is helpful to the future of America?

Yes, because we wouldn't want to embolden the enemy. :roll: You're a broken record, PJ.


Ditto Why is hard to understand? I have even see CNN and MSNBC correspondants say this and then say the terrorist look forward to timetables because they then know how long they have to hold out. Not from the FOx newsers.

There is only one way out of Iraq and that's for the Iraqi goverment to make the tough choices it needs to make so it can defend itself. They have had more then enough time to do that and then some.

If they can't do it then how can we expect our soldiers to acomplish "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis? We're not just an occupying force, we're THE occupying force that screwed everything up in the first place, so no one trusts us.

The truth is this kind of pressure should have been applied to Iraq several years ago and wasn't. That's why the GOP got it's azz handed to them in the last election and if they don't wake up and start using their head for something besides a place to hang their hats they will get their azz kicked again in '08.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: GoPackGo

So sue me for spelling.

The thing most people don't get around here is the war is over. As in 1945 WW2 was over, but there were still soldiers deployed (and still are) all over the world.

The war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein is over. He and his boys are dead and so are a bunch of his cronies.

Our soldiers right now are acting as police. There in lies the problem.

By the way, Harry Reid emboldens the criminals. Every time a soldier or an Iraqi citizen is killed by these thugs and cowards a crime is committed.

Are these criminals organized and funded? If so, then by whom? My guess is Iran.

I'm trying to stay with your string of arguments on this one, but they are jumping all over the place. So by not supporting the war Harry Reid is emboldening the Evildoers... and by emboldening he is an accomplice to their crimes? Does this mean that if someone passes a law that is shown to cause an increase in crime that he is an accessory to all those crimes and should be jailed? Abetting aside (as it's obviously not that) How is this treason again? Are you seriously trying to make the argument that being against the war is treasonous? Does this apply to all policies of the executive in relation to foreign governments? If you are against NAFTA, is that treason? If you were against the bombing of Bosnia and Kosovo, was that treason? Maybe you can outline what the scope of acceptable political thought is so that we can be sure to stay out of jail.

Also if you think the war is over... you should definitely let the President, Congress, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff know because they keep calling it a war. Even worse, they keep passing these emergency funding bills for the war. These things are really expensive, so if the war is over someone PLEASE let them know so we can save a ton of cash!

My Grandparents come from Czechoslovakia. Their villages were targeted by the Germans. In alot of ways they didn't care who they killed.

In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.


Which had nothing to do with Iraq period. So your point again ?

Don't you think it was our policies of the 1930s that made Japan and Germany think they could get away with Pearl Harbor?

EDIT - Sorry this was to the other guy.
You talk about money? What did the Marshall Plan and us keeping troops in Europe for 60 years cost?

They keep calling it war for political reasons. Don't get me wrong...i disagree with many things on how we have handled things after 9/11

"the enemy" was not Iraq. Nothing happened in the 90s that spectacular. You can't attack "terrorists". No such country exists. This is what was obvious to some and not obvious to Bush. We are paying for this mistake.

No...you are right...Iraq was not behind 9/11 but the war in Iraq did happen after 9/11.

There were a lot of smaller events that led up to 9/11 though.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To drift3r,

Who says----By the way, Harry Reid emboldens the criminals. Every time a soldier or an Iraqi citizen is killed by these thugs and cowards a crime is committed.

As someone who opposed this war from the get go, I still understand what you may be thinking. But from my standpoint, someone has to say the honest thing and admit this occupation is in fact lost. The criminal, or terrorists or whoever you think they are don't need Mr. Reid to tell them they are winning---the fact that they can operate and continue to operate freely is mute testimony to the fact that they are winning. And if things continue unabated---sooner or later Iraq will go into a full blown civil war that will likely take the whole mid-east with it.
And suddenly the debate will instantly shift to the question of can we get our troops out alive.

But I have underestimated the furor telling the truth would generate---or should I say Senator Reid did. If Reid were smarter and more politically astute he would have praised it differently and said--------" It now looks like the Surge plan as envisioned by GWB has increased and not reduced the the level of Iraqi violence. And its now time for this Country to look at alternatives plans GWB refuses to use. Failing that, I fear the Iraqi occupation will be a lost Cause. And its therefore time for the legislative branch to act"

That would be even more honest, maybe would not be as offensive to you, and would place the blame exactly where it properly rests.

But it came down to the same thing in Vietnam---Nixon finally bowed to political reality, used the McGovern peace plan as a model, renamed it peace with honor, and we sailed home saying yippee we won---after peeing away 58,000 unredeemed and wasted lives because no one had the courage to admit we blew it.

This time its far easier---we just have to admit GWB misled us and the rest is a lot easier. The question of how we salvage something from Iraq is a lot harder---but first things first.
We have to get GWB out of the way of progress---and thats THE BOTTOM LINE.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But it came down to the same thing in Vietnam---Nixon finally bowed to political reality, used the McGovern peace plan as a model, renamed it peace with honor, and we sailed home saying yippee we won---after peeing away 58,000 unredeemed and wasted lives because no one had the courage to admit we blew it.

I'm a bit disgusted with the usual liberal retort about Vietnam. Do you guys recall how many innocents were killed after we left?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But it came down to the same thing in Vietnam---Nixon finally bowed to political reality, used the McGovern peace plan as a model, renamed it peace with honor, and we sailed home saying yippee we won---after peeing away 58,000 unredeemed and wasted lives because no one had the courage to admit we blew it.

I'm a bit disgusted with the usual liberal retort about Vietnam. Do you guys recall how many innocents were killed after we left?
No how many? How many innocents were killed during the bombings of Hanoi?

I do know that it took the Vietnamese Army to stop Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I do know that it took the Vietnamese Army to stop Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia.

Great, then you're fully aware that over 2 million Cambodians perished. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see my point.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I do know that it took the Vietnamese Army to stop Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia.

Great, then you're fully aware that over 2 million Cambodians perished. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see my point.
Pssst.... Pol Pot was Cambodian, not Vietnamese:confused:
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Pssst.... Pol Pot was Cambodian, not Vietnamese:confused:

I'm fully aware of that. However, when did Pol Pot begin his mass genocide?
Probably around 74. What's that have to do with us leaving South Vietnam?
Your comparison is like saying if we leave Iraq we'll be responsible for any mass killings in Syria:roll:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Pssst.... Pol Pot was Cambodian, not Vietnamese:confused:

I'm fully aware of that. However, when did Pol Pot begin his mass genocide?
Probably around 74. What's that have to do with us leaving South Vietnam?
Your comparison is like saying if we leave Iraq we'll be responsible for any mass killings in Syria:roll:
Don't forget Singapore and Cleveland. :roll:
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Pssst.... Pol Pot was Cambodian, not Vietnamese:confused:

I'm fully aware of that. However, when did Pol Pot begin his mass genocide?
Probably around 74. What's that have to do with us leaving South Vietnam?
Your comparison is like saying if we leave Iraq we'll be responsible for any mass killings in Syria:roll:
Don't forget Singapore and Cleveland. :roll:
He probably doesn't realize that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were supported by the Chinese not the Vietnamese and that it took intervention by the Vietnamese Army to put a stop to the genocide. Of course he probably bthinks the Chinese, Cambodians and Vietnamese are all one in the same.

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
He probably doesn't realize that Pol Pot was supported by the Chinese not the Vietnamese and that it took intervention by the Vietnamese Army to put a stop to the genocide. Of course he probably bthinks the Chinese, Cambodians and Vietnamese are all one in the same.


He probably doesn't realize that Saddam Hussein was supported by the U.S., not Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and that it will take intervention by the American people to put a stop to the Bushwhackos' genocide against our own troops. :(
rose.gif


Of course he probably thinks the the Sunis, Sheites, Kurds Iranis and Syrians are all one in the same. :roll:
 

SoylentG

Senior member
Oct 26, 2005
256
0
0
1. There is no acceptable definition of 'lost.' What were we trying to accomplish? Despite what we said, I beleive we were trying to remove Saddam Hussein from power--most likely a feasible option due to his history of violence. From what I understand, his sons were responsible for a large amount of deaths throughout the country.
2. This isn't a war. I've never thought of the military action in Iraq as a 'war.' There was never an organized army fighting against the US troops, right? This is a conflict in my book, and not with the nation of Iraq. What *would* happen if we pulled out today--within the hour? From what I have heard, from acquaintances in the military, the fact that we're being there has been preventing violence (to a greater degree than we are having from staying).
3. Making statements like this is just a cheap attempt at making a bigger name for yourself (getting in the headlines), and doing a really poor job of accomplishing anything politically. Very few people are going to change which party they affiliate with, when you're just spouting negativity constantly (perhaps a few disassociating themselves with the party spreading the negativity...).


That's my opinion on the matter.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: eskimospy
People who think everyone in the military is pissed about what Reid said have obviously never been in the military. While it is safe to say that the military on average is more conservative and more supportive of the war then most americans... its nowhere near the levels you seem to think. There are TONS and TONS of people in the military who simply loathe Bush, and hate this war.

From my experience, I think the problem is that people think military folks can be categorized as cookie cutter conservatives in the same mold as Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. But while the military is overall more conservative than the general population, I don't think they fit the one-dimensional conservative mold everyone seems to have in mind. From the military men and women I've dealt with, they seem to be far more pragmatic than your average armchair conservative. They may not view the Iraq war as lost either, but they also seem more concerned about actually defeating the enemy than in whether he's "emboldened" or not. While I've met a lot of former and current military folks that want victory in Iraq and think it's still possible, I don't think I've met very many at all who believe the way to win is through political posturing. When you get right down to it, winning a war requires physical support from the government (in the form of troops and guns and direction), and military folks don't seem to feel they've gotten enough of that from day one, whatever Harry Reid or George W. Bush think about the way the war is going.

But I still have to agree with eskimospy, people (especially conservatives) seem to think that every single person in the military is some sort of dyed in the wool Republican supporter. I don't know how many arguments with a conservative involve the conservative suggesting he or she has the implicit support of every single man and woman in uniform. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and all the rest can hardly go a single show without bringing that conservative fantasy up. But in my experience, it's just not true. I've never served in the military, but I know quite a few folks who have, and while I'd say they are certainly politically different from the average American, calling them GWB style conservatives is just silly.


These seem like pretty fair assertions to me, concerning the attitude of the average millitary personel. I think the stigma of military = conservative comes from the fact that most in the military will probably vote conservative, simply b/c the conservative party has a stronger history of defense spending and overall support for military funding than does the democratic party, despite what political philosophies an individual may lean towards. A vote is largely cast based on a person's perceived chances of financial stability, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that you see the majority of the military leaning conservative in terms of ballot numbers.

Political ideology is a different matter.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Zinfamious has hit the myth squarely on the head---When you get right down to it, winning a war requires physical support from the government (in the form of troops and guns and direction), and military folks don't seem to feel they've gotten enough of that from day one, whatever Harry Reid or George W. Bush think about the way the war is going.

War---what war?---our military won the war in the first week---this is now an occupation----and GWB does not have enough troops for an occupation---Shinseki told Rummy that long before we invaded----and when there is nothing left to win---its not a matter of what the US military thinks it needs---the outcome of the Iraqi occupation is decided by the Iraqi people.
And we have long ago worn out any welcome---the big blunders of this occupation are all political---not military.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But it came down to the same thing in Vietnam---Nixon finally bowed to political reality, used the McGovern peace plan as a model, renamed it peace with honor, and we sailed home saying yippee we won---after peeing away 58,000 unredeemed and wasted lives because no one had the courage to admit we blew it.

I'm a bit disgusted with the usual liberal retort about Vietnam. Do you guys recall how many innocents were killed after we left?
No how many? How many innocents were killed during the bombings of Hanoi?

I do know that it took the Vietnamese Army to stop Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia.

So, your assertion is that no one died in South Vietnam after we left? Do some research into the Hmong people, and then go ask the remnants of them around Fayetteville, NC, what happened when the NVA arrived.

So, the Viets stopped Pol Pot so that excuses what they did to thousands upon thousands in South Vietnam. Is there some form of "goodwill" fund that excuses bad acts? Perhaps we could tabulate the good things that the US has done to satisfy the account with the critics of the administration.
 

Vortex22

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2000
4,976
1
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
New on drudge. link
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.
I don't see how these comments can be anything but harmful, unless you are a terrorist.

Can anyone explain how declaring that our military has 'lost' a war is helpful to the future of America?

This post reminds me of something: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUhxOFZ8Pj0