Posted by
Dawnsblood on Sunday, January 14, 2007 9:32:15 PM
But he makes
a number of valid points. He and I agree on one thing however:
What was good about the President’s speech? He remains committed to
victory. Whether he will achieve it or not is a separate matter; the
mere fact that he seeks it sets him on a moral plane above the mass of
the American left that thinks defeat a wholly palatable option. These men reject the rhetoric of a “surge,” preferring instead “escalation,” apparently on the premise that fighting harder
is somehow discrediting and bad. This is to be expected from that
corner, of whom no more need be said here. The President also spoke
openly of what has been obvious to observers of this war for years:
that Iran and Syria are actively engaged on the battlefield against us.
One wishes he had been this forthright when United States Marines were
grappling with Iranian jihadis in Najaf in April 2004, but better late
than never. The warning to these enemy states — coupled with the odd
and portentous mention of Patriot batteries and a carrier battle group
— is a step in the right direction. This war is bigger than Iraq: and
it may have to get bigger still before it is won.
My thanks to Paul at Redstate for the link. BTW personally believe the correct term is reinforcement. As Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines it (I chose number 4).
Often, reinforcements. an additional supply of personnel, ships, aircraft, etc., for a military force.