No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure -- but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq.Perhaps the President's definition of victory is different from the one that involves the withdrawal of troops, but one could safely ague that withdrawal of troops doesn't necessarily equate to or ensure victory for our enemies.
Indeed, as originally intended, the Iraqis were supposed to "stand up, so we could stand down." Thus, by Bush's own definition, withdrawal of the troops is a necessary part of the victory equation not a sign of defeat. Again, we see the president trying to have his cake and eat it too.
What's most irksome about George Bush's Iraq "plan" is the shifting quicksand for both rationale for the initial invasion and the definition of victory that makes the whole debacle quite untenable. At nearly $ 5000 dollars per second, and many lives lost already and no end in sight, I ask this question once again. At what point does one more GI KIA no longer worth it?
Can you tell this kid filming his/her father's funeral that her/his dad was a "necessary cost?"