(General) Pace Defines 'Winning' in War on Terror

[sabra]

http://www.blackanthem.com/News/military200610_1743.shtml

Pace Defines 'Winning' in War on Terror
By Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Defining "winning" is important to the war on terror, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said at a news conference today.

The war on terror is not going to end as World War II did -- with an instrument of surrender signed on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace said winning in this war on terrorism will be determined by conditions, not a signature on a piece of paper. "Winning is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function," he said.

He used Washington, D.C., as an example. "Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function," he said. "That's what you're looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or anyplace else."

:crazy:

[ixion]

1. okay, general, the problem is you still have not set defintive parameters

for 'winning' this so-called 'war' on terror. In fact, you admit in your 'defintion of winning', that in fact there can be no end in the traditional sense of 'war'. There can be no enemy surrender, because, in fact, the enemy is stateless. Without a nation-state, you've got no war.

All you've spewed is the same old talking point, rephrased slightly.

[trotsky]

2. That sounds amazingly like a Kerry quote that he was crucified for.

When he said that ultimately you can only hope to reduce terrorism to the level of a "nuisance." The Bushies POUNCED on that then, but here is their top general admitting Kerry was right.

[sabra]

6. great point... they also just stole Kerry's Iraq benchmarks idea too

[Iceburg]

3. I say get gw drunk for a week, withdraw the troops, when he sobers up

tell'm We won! We won!

[poverlay]

5. Best idea ever. Get me drunk too would ya? n/t

[poverlay]

4. In other words: When we win... we win. Problem is that we don't know

how to do that, and have made things progressively worse. It's like instead of defusing a bomb we've lit it, are about to blow ourselves sky high and think when our eyebrows grow back we'll be victorious!

Can I call these administration parrots "useless slapdicks" without getting my post removed?
I guess we'll find out. :argh:

[sinkingfeeling]

7. I might agree if you're talking about the 'war on terror', but I'm more

interested in what constitutes winning in Iraq.

[gratuitous]

8. Riddle me this, Mr. Pace

How does brutalizing and terrorizing the population of a country with our wehrmacht--sorry, "coalition of the willing"--bring about the conditions that allow "normal citizens" to "go about their daily jobs"?

[Bandit]

9. Sounds like an open admission that the war on terror is a police matter

Not an Armed Forces Matter. When the police can maintain control like they did in Iraq before the USA invaded and occupied it. Since the US invasion and occupation there is no control. go figure....

[slaveplanet]

10. Hmmm,

didn't Saddam and the Taliban...

"Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function,"

have things pretty well under control before some invaders showed up?

:shrug: