So on this basis the Tet Offensive was a resounding success. Yes, it cost the North much in the way of manpower and equipment. But it did not diminish their will or ability to continue fighting. In a different perspective it showed that the VC had progressed from a ragtag bunch of guerrillas hiding in the forest and conducting sneak attacks to a regular army capable of conducting full scale warfare.

On this basis the analysis by people like Tiger hawk is simple wishful rationalizations
rather then a willingness to face the truth.

No, it was not a defeat of the US army, but it was not a victory for the US either.

And you are right, it did play a significant role in the decision of the American electorate to decide that the war was no longer worth the cost, regardless of what the "sunk" cost had been. So Tet by contributing to the American peoples willingness to stop fighting was very successful.

So how long are we going to continue "staying the course" which essentially means continuing to lose? We clearly are not destroying the insurgents willingness nor capacity to continue fighting. If anything it appears to be improving. If we are not doing that, why continue doing the same thing?

It’s important to note that the President's answer demonstrates his myopic posture regarding the war. While Stephanopoulos was attempting to have the President comment on the growing opposition to the war...asking if voters might be at a tipping point...the President sought to make the point that the terrorists might be attempting to create a Tet Offensive moment. Essentially, his answer virtually ignores the political implications and suggests that he is holding fast to the strategy that connecting the Iraq war to terrorism will produce GOP support. I don't think voter sentiment is moving in the direction that the President may think it is or hope it will.

Read more here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com

I'm curious, now that Bush has, ahem, admitted that Iraq is like Vietnam, will the Mainstream Media also admit that Iraq is like Vietnam? You know, how the insurgents can't beat us on the battlefield, how we can only lose by giving up the will to fight, how big a role propaganda plays in the "war" now, and just how unbelievably bad things are going to get after we leave. Double plus extra bonus points if it also leads to a further loss of status for America and if the military can be brought down three or four more notches.

HINT: Add something to the discussion and THEN link to your own blog.

But the other part of the analogy, that the perception of futility is being fed by the panoptic nature of this war, is apt.

Contrast this to Gulf I, where the panopticism of the media created the spectacle of America as all-powerful. The problem isn't media, then, but a war ill-suited for a media age (which isn't to say this war would be suited for any age)

This is indeed the choice we face. Whether we should have done things differently at the tactical level–or even gone to war in Iraq in the first place–we are where we are. While elections are and should be a referendum on the past performance of leaders on the ballot, they are also a means of deciding future policy.(emphasis added)

Indeed, we have a choice between more of the same actions that you readily admit are not defeating the enemy, and something, anything different.

As for Al Qaeda, you don't seriously think they would survive in a Shiite theocracy do you? The only way Al Qaeda could have a save haven is if Iraq is partitioned and the Sunni's take Anbar. However, I still don't think the Shiite block would accept or allow an autonomous Anbar. Iraqi Kurdistan is small enough in comparison to allow, they've been independent for a long time anyway, but Anbar is still considered part of "mainland" Iraq, they won't let go easily.