New Phrase Enters War of Words Over Iraq: “We’re not winning. We’re not losing.”

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: A New Phrase Enters Washington’s War of Words Over Iraq
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: December 21, 2006

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 — First there was the “mission accomplished” banner. Then, last year, there was a “plan for victory” and, just this past October, the presidential assertion, “Absolutely, we’re winning.” Now that President Bush is seeking “a new way forward” in Iraq, he is embracing a new verbal construction to describe progress there: “We’re not winning. We’re not losing.”

The latest shift in the official language of the war is begging the question: Well, which is it? A tie? A draw? Something else?

Mr. Bush essentially endorsed the not-winning-not-losing assessment in an interview with The Washington Post on Tuesday by way of attributing it to Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When asked if the United States was winning in Iraq, Mr. Bush said, “An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, ‘We’re not winning; we’re not losing.’ ” To those who closely follow the president’s rhetoric on the war, the answer was something of a dodge.

“This is pretty weak, but they have pretty weak material to work with at this point,” said Christopher F. Gelpi, a political scientist at Duke University whose research on public opinion and the war has been studied by the administration. “He’s in a difficult rhetorical situation because he stuck so long with the ‘we’re making progress’ argument, yet clearly he does finally understand this is his last chance to make a major policy correction in Iraq.”

At his news conference Wednesday Mr. Bush was emphatic that victory in Iraq was achievable and that winning was what he had in mind even when he referred to General Pace’s remarks.

Yet, by the generally accepted David-versus-Goliath rules of counterinsurgencies, the insurgents are winning so long as the counterinsurgents are not....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/washington/21memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. We're not in control

Winning or Losing indicates that we have control over the results. We don't. But, we'll not be hearing that from Bush.

[Ezlivin]

2. Okay, we're clear on what's NOT happening - now what IS happening?

Bush sucks so hard....

[HereSince1628]

7. What's happening is we are losing lives and treasure.

It looks like the US can not bring about stability thru force yet Bush seems to be committed to the notion that sooner or later one side of the civil war must prevail. Unfortunately it looks like Cheney and Bush are siding with the Shia, which puts us in direct conflict with Saudi Arabia.

How do we think this must inevitably turn out? The US which is going toward a trillion in debt to support their proxy, or S.A. which is funding their proxy with surplus revenue?

[Ezlivin]

9. This simply cannot be turned around; there is no "winning" possible

Just the lesser of two evils.

We'll be saddled with tremendous debt, a poor reputation in the eyes of the world and we will be no safer from the bogeyman of "terrorism."

[spanone]

3. Any insugency that stops a SUPERPOWER from winning, is itself winning.

This is bushit, pure & simple.

[Ian David]

4. You can't win or lose someone else's Civil War

Did France win The American Civil War?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Sounds better than the truth. "We lost."

[Solly Mack]

6. It's d'attente! (waiting/standby)

attendre son heure (to wait its hour)

[Turbineguy]

8. I guess that means

Nobody is winning their life over there.

[RobofSWVA]

10. alright, we'll call it a draw

[radfringe]

11. somewhere between

not drowning and not swimming?

[jwirr]

12. Just spinning our wheels. Stuck in a quagmire.

[Sherman A1]

13. I guess we Have Turned a Corner?

At least in the "reality" part of the Bush Administration's thinking. Amazing what happens when ya take off the rose colored glasses.

[montanto]

14. let me explain. I think I've got it figured out.

Usually "getting your ass kicked" is actually you getting punched in the face. If you are getting punched in the face by a person (i.e. "getting your ass kicked")it is almost impossible to simultaneously BE getting kicked in the ass by that same person; therefore we ARE getting punched in the face, but we are NOT getting our ass kicked. There. That should clear it up.

[kentuck]

15. Or as Jon Stewart inquired last night??

"Are we covering the spread?"