You don't say! Why, she knows even more than the Gen. Abizaid about what's happening on the ground:
"So, aren't we already at a war with Iran through its proxies in Iraq?" Logan asks.
"No. We're not at war with Iran through its proxies. We are in a period of making it clear to the Iranians that they need to move to help stabilize Iraq and not destabilize it," Abizaid says.
"Everything I see on the ground in Iraq ... they don't care what we're making clear. They're consolidating their power and their hold on Iraq. In fact, American commanders in Baghdad say more American soldiers are being killed in Baghdad by Shiite militias backed by Iran than by Sunni insurgents today," Logan says.
"Well, that's not true," the general replies. "The majority of the casualties still come from the Sunni side." [emph. mine]
Wonder where she got her intel from because we need to tap into HER sources, apparently. Forget the 30+ year professional military officer and his direct reports--reporter Logan has the real skinny for us on Iraq, yes, Sir!
"We hear very little about the victory in Iraq these days. We hear a lot about how to manage the defeat. And a lot of…," Logan says.
"What defeat?" the general asks.
"How we minimize…," she continues.
"That's your word," Abizaid states.
"…defeat," Logan says.
"You talk to our commanders in the field – they don't believe that they've been defeated. Defeat is your word, not my word. Can Iraq stabilize? Yes, Iraq could stabilize," Abizaid says.
"Is that victory now? Is that what victory will look like in Iraq, just stability, that's what we're aiming for?" Logan asks.
"Victory in Iraq is the nation at peace with its neighbors. And Iraq hasn't been at peace with its neighbors in a long time. It is a country that respects the rights of its citizens," Abizaid explains. "It's a country that can defend itself. It's a country that's not a save haven for terrorists. Exactly what form of government they choose to develop I think would be a uniquely Iraqi solution to the problem. But the fact that they will come to a solution where they've gotta take into account the rights and desires not only of ethnic groups of individual, rights and desires, is actually a revolutionary change in the Middle East."
"Increasingly in this country, people are talking about how to manage defeat in Iraq. There's a loss of support for the war very clearly shown at the present. Not a loss of support for the military or for the soldiers," Logan says.
"Again, let me say I don't think people in the country are trying to figure out how to manage defeat in Iraq. I think people in the country are trying to figure out how to manage our involvement in Iraq so that Iraq can stabilize. You just can't walk away from these problems of the Middle East and hope that things are gonna get better," Abizaid says. "Look, many people have said we're already at the beginning of World War III."
Asked if we are, Abizaid says, "No. We're not. And our involvement in the region will prevent it."
And there you have it, folks! "We support the troops and all, except when we start screaming, 'Game over, Man!' and 'We've lost!!!' to each and every insurgent we get to read our papers. And even that we do OVER the express opinion of the guys ACTUALLY on the ground!"
What a complete and UTTER tool. It's not just idiocy; it's deadly, brazen idiocy made-to-order for the enemy:
Defeat the United States at Home
Another enemy strategy involves bringing about a political defeat by inflicting high allied casualties. NASTIs might seek to maximize US and allied casualties in a short time to influence US and allied public opinion to oppose the war effort. This strategy is as old as the Vietnam War, which was lost in the US rather than on the fields of battle in Indochina. The future loss of thousands of troops in a few hours as a result of one or more enemy WMD strikes could force the US and some of its coalition partners to retire from the field, driven away by domestic political opposition and fierce internal criticism of the mounting death toll.