Nice. It's well established that troops who see stressful combat assignments encounter difficulties reintegrating with society and one of the defense mechanisms is to remain in the military

Am I to understand you to say that the only reason we have a military that's as strong as it is, is due to mental problems? Next we'll hear about how you support the troops but not the mission.

Its also interesting (and revolting) to note that the Bush admin is fighting hard to deny mental health benefits to combat vets. Might there be a method to their madness?

Well one thing is for sure, the lapel pin patriots are fighting hard from the safety of their homes. (yes bit, I mean you)

This is an example of flawed thinking here. The LAST thing we need to do is distinguish between "tactical" & "strategic" success.

But I love winning the battle to lose the war, damn it.

Bithead:

And how many of the troops are re-upping voluntarily?

Nice. It's well established that troops who see stressful combat assignments encounter difficulties reintegrating with society and one of the defense mechanisms is to remain in the military. It's similar to how some prisoners actually prefer prison because they become habituated to it and can't easily adapt to being free- and so they go out of their way to get sent back in.

Here are the warning signs:
1) general recruiting is down (true)
2) heavy combat groups report elevated suicide and PTSD (also true)
3) instances of spousal abuse and divorce skyrocket among veterans (again true)
4) heavy combat units reup at suspiciously high levels (as you pointed out, true)

It all adds up to a serious mental health crisis, but because it's convenient for the warmongers it'll be used. Assholes.

Who is staying Bit? Are you in Iraq getting shot at because Bush is a fool? I think not...

brave unselfish noble citizens who are not sitting
around hating their country and trying to undermine its war effort with their typers and their liberal indoctrination and their seething rage for a good man and a good president.

So, back to the point I was making with Dave...If we elect a "cut and run" Democrat, what message does THAT send, I wonder?

But Dave's final graf says:

That doesn't necessarily translate into either “stay the course” or “bring the troops home”. I think it translates into the path that all three of the presidential contenders seem to be advocating: draw down the troops to a sustainable level (and to where things don't go oblong).

If that's correct, neither of the Dems can be characterized as being of the "cut and run" persuasion. Is there some other Dem candidate that we don't know about, but you do?

Oh... and guess who it was back then screaming for withdrawal regardless of consequences? Well, they got their wish.

Evidently not enough to keep the army staffed at it's required levels

So, all these reports about how Recruiting is on target are all lies, then?

So, back to the point I was making with Dave...If we elect a "cut and run" Democrat, what message does THAT send, I wonder?

Please tell me you have a better argument for sending Americans to die than the perceived message it would send to our enemies.

And how many of the troops are re-upping voluntarily?

Evidently not enough to keep the army staffed at it's required levels.

Who is staying Bit? Are you in Iraq getting shot at because Bush is a fool? I think not...

And how many of the troops are re-upping voluntarily? How many of them do we need to hear saying taht te fight is worth fighting before you take them at their word?

we're staying to see this thing through

Who is staying Bit? Are you in Iraq getting shot at because Bush is a fool? I think not...

I think we need to distinguish between tactical success and strategic success.

This is an example of flawed thinking here. The LAST thing we need to do is distinguish between "tactical" & "strategic" success.

There can only be one notion of "success." Given the fact that the entire enterprise was concocted by Bush for undecipherable reasons makes this difficult.

But my sense is that the reason we haven't left Iraq is because of some fear that the political situation will degenerate in our absence.

So the "measure of success" surely shouldn't be simplistic measures of levels of violence which James latches onto--it should be the extent to which our military escalation helped create conditions for political stability.

The surge has been a resounding, notable tactical success. That's obvious. Whether it's been a strategic success remains to be seen. My own view is that it can't be a strategic success in the timeframe required by the impatient American people.

Well, it's down to the resolve shown by the American people just now. I say it that way, because the one point neither you nor James mentions is the violence vs the election cycles here in the US.

Hume, tonight:

If you had any doubt that insurgents in Iraq are aware of the political seasons here in the U.S., consider this: New data from the Defense Intelligence Agency shows that enemy initiated attacks during the entire course of the war peaked in October 2006 — the month leading up to the midterm elections. That month, the total number of insurgent led attacks was at more than 5,000.

The data shows that between November 2006 and May 2007, attacks remained at the highest levels of the 5 year conflict. However, the numbers indicate that since the surge was fully implemented last summer that attacks have dropped significantly — down about 70 percent since June 2007.

So, here's the problem; Showing a resolve to see this trough in the face of Iran and AQI playing for the election cycle news coverage, is not likely to be easy. BUt as to the value of showing resolve to see it through;

Alex;
I must admit to being surprised by your response. I, too, think the surge a tactical success but for perhaps a different reason than Dave... I think you under-estimate the psychological effects of the surge, from the stand point of sending the message both to the Iraqi people as a whole, and the terrorists, we're staying to see this thing through.

So, back to the point I was making with Dave...If we elect a "cut and run" Democrat, what message does THAT send, I wonder?