Asking The Right Questions About Iraq

Schieffer: We Haven't Lost In Iraq, But We Aren't Winning

(CBS)  Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News chief Washington correspondent and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.

---

For months now, the administration has been telling us, let's wait until we hear from General Petraeus before we decide where to go next in Iraq.

Well, tomorrow we hear.

The atmosphere is much like the time during the Vietnam War, when the commander then, General William Westmoreland, was brought home to answer the question: Are we winning?

He assured us we were, and the government offered a blizzard of statistics to back him up. They weren't wrong. They were just irrelevant.

All we really learned then is that we were asking the wrong question. When we have to ask, "are we winning?" we're probably losing. Victory is always obvious.

The right question would have been: Is it worth the cost?

America eventually concluded it was not, and we left the war.

Let me preempt that question to General Petraeus. We haven't lost this war, but we're not winning it. We're hanging on. Victory would be obvious. Iraqi families would be strolling the streets of Baghdad, and Osama bin Laden would be walking out of a cave somewhere with his hands up.

Instead of that question, let's hope the general will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money?

And here's a follow-up: When the Iraqi parliament went on vacation during August, I gave up on trying to help them find a way to have an effective government. They have to do that. What we need to know now is whether keeping a large American military force in Iraq is the best way to make America safer.

To me, that's the real question.

---

E-mail Face the Nation.

[omega39-2009]

Instead of that question, let''s hope the general will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money?

If you happen to be Bush or Cheney, or one of their benefactors that happen to be getting rich, rich, rich off this debacle, the answer is undeniably yes.

[j_flood]

I hope plain English prevails at these hearings and with the General''s report. Everybody present will have agenda''s other than America''s fighting forces best interests. Most in Congress are well detached from having relatives fighting there. The President has shown his war fighting capabilities were best served in a congressman''s re-election campaign in Alabama. Let us not forget the brave men and women dying to keep Iraq free - it is simply foolish to think their valiant efforts are as appreciated in Baghdad as they are in America.

[feelfree1]

Re: "When we have to ask, "are we winning?" we''re probably losing. Victory is always obvious."

"The right question would have been: Is it worth the cost?"

Let me explain something to you, Mr. Schieffer. The "war" against Iraq constitutes an illegal "war of aggression", and is a clear and serious crime, as defined by the Nuremberg Charter. The "war of aggression" against Iraq is also in clear violation of the U.N. Charter. Both of these Charters constitute U.S. obligated international treaties, and such international treaties are described by our own Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land". As such, the illegal war of aggression against Iraq is a very serious offense against our own Constitution.

It is not possible for you to "ask the right questions" about this criminal debacle, when you have demonstrated time and again, that you lack the ability to frame it properly.

The illegal war of aggression is not only a crippling defeat on the military, legal, and moral fronts, but it is one of the most heinous and disgraceful criminal episodes of the entire history of our country.

Many top WWII German leaders were tried, convicted, and hanged for participating in crimes that are remarkably similar to those committed by the Bush regime against Iraq and elsewhere.

Until you can demonstrate a basic grasp of these realities, you should consider keeping your uninformed opinions to yourself, or risk deepening your own complicity in these heinous crimes.

[wogerwabbit]

Well said, FeelFree1. But when the media is controlled by the few as it is, we''ll never hear the truth.

[xzavierbrown]

Well said, FeelFree1. But when the media is controlled by the few as it is, we''''ll never hear the truth.
Posted by WogerWabbit at 08:00 PM : Sep 09, 2007
+ report abuse

*********

controlled by the few?? maybe you mean when the media starts telling you what you want to hear..THEN THEY ARE TELLING YOUR VERSION OF TRUTH..

there are several topis on cbs that touched this issue..we have the liberal netroots..well that is pretty much life fishing in the sewers..you catch nothing but..then you have the comedy central types..well they are running out of skits with cartoons and hand pupperts to keep the young liberal base''s attention to actually imprint that crucial "really care instead of going with the fad" transition...and then we have the all famous new york times who''s overzealous attempt to make a buke comprised our secrets and tactics by flashing it all over the 10 o clock news...using adobe photoshop and allegations that brought down a lot of misguided liberal news reporters..AND WHEN THEY GET KILLED..THE VERY SAME PEOPLE THEY ARE TRYING TO MILK WOULD TURN AROUND AND CONDEM.

you know when you know that combating terrorism in iraq and clamping down on cells and home grown fanatics is worth it????

when you have to do a 10mile walk to work because you can your waste more on gas than you make in a day(if you still have work) and you are worried that you might find an IED on the side of PCH..and some mohammad threatening you that you are gay and allah is not happy with that.

[feelfree1]

WogerWabbit,

Re: "Well said, FeelFree1."

Thank you.

Re: "But when the media is controlled by the few as it is, we''ll never hear the truth."

On the other hand, it appears that they are finding it to be ever-more difficult to maintain their deceptions, AND manage the many informed voices of dissent, does it not?