Victory in Iraq? Not according to US military officials.

Wow - every day that goes by results in another shiv in the backs of Dear Leader, Herr Rummy and their merry band of criminals.  According to a web-only commentary by Newsweek's Michael Hirsh,, members of the US military have indicated that they are moving away from a goal of "victory" in Iraq or even in the "war on terrah".

So now, get ready for the new buzzword for repairing all of the fuckups that they have created throughout the Middle East - containment.

The Hirsh article really slams Bu$hCo nicely and talks about how these ass backwards people in charge aren't even dealing with reality (nice to see that by a publication like Newsweek).

The article starts off with a bang:

An old word is gaining new currency in Washington: containment. You may be hearing a lot more of it as the Bush administration hunkers down for its final two years. Containment of Iraq's low-level civil war, which shows every sign of persisting for years despite the new government inaugurated this week. Containment of Iran's nuclear power, which may lead to a missile defense system in Europe. Containment of the Islamism revived by Hamas and Hizbullah, by the Sunni suicide bombers in Iraq, as well as by the "Shiite Crescent"--as Jordan's King Abdullah once called it--running from Iran through Southern Iraq and into the Gulf.

A missile defense system in Europe?  Will these jackasses ever learn?  Talk about living with a pre-9/11 mindset....That is how you are going to fight terrorism, with missile defenses that have only proven to fail time and time again?  I can't even believe that I am reading this tripe.

But not only that, even with the Cold War-era talk about "containment", these bumbling idiots aren't even thinking one step ahead:

During the cold war, containment doctrine was based on the premise that the Soviet Union was a powerful force that was going to be around for a long time to come...The policy was carefully laid out in NSC-68, the basic blueprint for containment, in the spring of 1950. Forty years later, the policy succeeded.

No such strategizing surrounds the current version of containment. Indeed, few people in the Bush administration will even concede they are thinking in such terms, because the president has not permitted an honest reckoning of the difficulties he faces. On Monday, Bush again appeared to sidestep the realities, calling the new "free Iraq" "a devastating defeat for the terrorists." Back in Iraq, however, it was just another typical day: some 20 Iraqis died in bombings and drive-by shootings, with few or no arrests.

So today's containment is a furtive policy being developed willy-nilly behind the scenes, as Bush's pragmatic second-term officials seek to clean up the vast Mideast mess left by the ideologues who dominated in the first term. A series of cautious concepts similar to those that came to dominate the cold war are emerging as the least worst way of holding off powerful forces that are also going to be around for along time: disintegration in Iraq, expansion in Iran, Islamism all over.

So how does this relate to Iraq now?  Well, as we have seen from many many Army officials, retired generals, and ex-Administration officials, things ain't as rosy as The Decider and his wrecking crew have proclaimed.  The people on the ground have been speaking up (and on that note, everyone should read Paul Reickoff's book "Chasing Ghosts" about his experience in Iraq).  And these people know the truth about what is going on.

They realize that there is a civil war brewing and has been brewing for quite some time now.  They know what should have been done but wasn't.  And they are talking about what is realistic, even though the brave leaders in Washington in cushy offices won't do so.

Containment, says one Army officer involved in training in Iraq, is at least "doable." He adds: "The only real question is: How do we keep Iraq from becoming a permissive environment for terrorists."

The U.S. military is already gearing up for this outcome, but not for "victory" any longer. It is consolidating to several "superbases" in hopes that its continued presence will prevent Iraq from succumbing to full-flown civil war and turning into a failed state. Pentagon strategists admit they have not figured out how to move to superbases, as a way of reducing the pressure--and casualties--inflicted on the U.S. Army, while at the same time remaining embedded with Iraqi police and military units. It is a circle no one has squared. But consolidation plans are moving ahead as a default position, and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has talked frankly about containing the spillover from Iraq's chaos in the region.

So I guess the question to ask is "why does the military not support our troops?"  If they aren't able to achieve total victory, then is it our fault by calling it out for years now?  Or is it due to the most excellent planning that was done by Rumsfeld and the neocon crew?

Or of course, you can do what Chimpy always does - lower the bar and still declare victory.  After all, he was never even able to fill the lowered expectations put on him......