Misunderstanding the Iraq war, part 2

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more." –John F. Kennedy "So in war, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark. A powerful iron will overcomes this friction, it crushes the obstacles..." –Clausewitz, on "friction" in war. Here, Clausewitz reveals another way the Mass Media Podpeople's Army and the DNC (but I repeat myself :-) misunderstand the Iraq War and the President's prosecution of it. For the MMPA and the DNC, problems, mistakes and barriers to a successful conclusion to the war are all reasons to declare it a failure, a "quagmire". They particularly decry George W. Bush's "stubborness" in refusing to admit defeat. Clausewitz knew—and the American soldiers on the ground know—that obstacles are there to be overcome, not to be surrendered to. That mistakes are there to be corrected or worked around, not whined about. That the unknowns are always greater than the knowns, but that courage and determination are key in overcoming both the friction and fog of war. The MMPA, the DNC and their annointed champion, Jean Fraud sKerry, do not understand these things. The "Neville Chamberlain of the 21st Century" is not interested in a determined prosecution of the war on Islamic jihadists. To him, Islamic terrorism is akin to the "nuisances" of prostitution and illegal gambling. To him, magnifying, misrepresenting and actual lying about mistakes committed or problems faced by the boots on the ground is simply a political expedient for use in gaining power and position. Where is the "iron will" in Jean Fraud sKerry's character necessary to overcome the friction of war? He has no obvious consistency of position on any issue except for his consistency as regards blaming America first. In that, he is no different today than when, in 1970, he adopted Madame Binh's seven-point negotiating position and advocated the North Vietnam/Viet Cong position to the American people. His only consistency through the years has been to blame America and seek to make her weaker. Is this a person who can understand or achieve success in Iraq? Perhaps his willingness to have others "pay any price, bear any burden" to advance his own petty ambitions would be enough. But I doubt it.