So your and Obama's grand strategy is to give up when you are finally winning? That makes a lot of sense.
We are winning now because we didn't give up ... like Obama said we should do in early 2007, and then again right before the surge.
Any victory now will be a phyrric victory at best.
No, it's going to be a wonderful victory. One that will mean freedom and prosperity for the Iraqi people for the first time in generations. One that spells eventual defeat for al-Qaeda and islamofanatic dictatorships throughout the middle east.
About 100 K Iraqis are dead and over a million have had to flee their homes.
Most of which occurred because al-Qaeda chose to make Iraq the primary battlefield in the war on terror. A fact that you and Obama strangely still do not seem to grasp.
We are now starting to lose ground in the war in Afganistan
The article you quote does not say what you claim. In fact, it only points out that the US death toll in Iraq has diminished to the point that for the first time the death toll in Afghanistan is greater.
In fact, you seem to be equally unclear about the actual situation in Afghanistan. Perhaps because you are only listening to the same sources that were telling you Iraq was unwinnable a year ago, six months ago and even telling you that now.
Here are some other views of the situation:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/media_spins_success_in_afghani.html "February 08, 2008, Media Spins Success in Afghanistan as Failure, American and Coalition forces have taken the initiative in Afghanistan, and have the Taliban on the run. Yet major American media outlets, to the extent they cover fighting in Afghanistan, are portraying the Taliban as "resurgent". Going on the offense and succeeding at it always increases violence. *But is being spun onto bad news. The increase in fighting in Afghanistan is not a sign of a stronger Taliban, but rather a more desperate one. Despite all the media reports to the contrary it is we who are surging in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. ... snip ... No American media, except for the AP, not even the media that carries AP content, ran the story that NATO officially reported that the Taliban was not resurgent in Afghanistan.* Most of the American media buried General McNeill's statement as well while continuing to use the "resurgent Taliban" characterization. Why? It should be painfully clear. To acknowledge that the Taliban is losing instead of winning is to validate the war policy of President Bush in the war against terror. When combined with a surge success in Iraq, the implications are dark for any Democrat nominee for the White House."
http://www.thestar.com/News/Columnist/article/427330 "Taliban 'losing momentum', Canadian UN official says most militants are looking for a way out of war they cannot win, May 19, 2008"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-Taliban-insurgents-'on-brink-of-defeat'.html "Afghan insurgents 'on brink of defeat'... snip ... June 2, 2008, Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have "decapitated" the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a "tipping point", the commander of British forces has said. ... snip ... In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the "very effective targeted decapitation operations" that have removed "several echelons of commanders"."
The Taliban was allowed to escape into nuclear-armed Pakistan and is now a serious problem in Pakistan.
"Allowed to escape?"
You don't know what's going on in Pakistan either.
http://sharonchadha.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-taliban-winning-or-losing.html "The London Telegraph quotes the commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, Brig Mark Carleton-Smith: "The new "precise, surgical" tactics have killed scores of insurgent leaders and made it extremely difficult for Pakistan-based Taliban leaders to prosecute the campaign, according to Brig Mark Carleton-Smith.... Taliban fighters are apparently becoming increasingly unpopular in Helmand, where they are reliant on the local population for food and water. "I can therefore judge the Taliban insurgency a failure at the moment," said Brig Carleton-Smith. "We have reached the tipping point." Telegraph report suggests that the insurgency is running out of so much juice in Afghanistan, it has to be fought by foreigners: "The number of Afghans involved in the insurgency has also fallen, with increasing numbers of Pakistanis, Chechens, Uzbeks and Arabs found dead on the battlefield." Now how does the NY Times sees the situation? Today's headline: "Taliban Leader Flaunts Power Inside Pakistan" gives us a clue."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/28/pakistan.taliban/ "June 28, 2008, Pakistan launches Taliban offensive ... snip ... (CNN) -- Pakistan launched an offensive against the Taliban on Saturday, the biggest military push against militants in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region since a civilian government took power in March."
My prediction? Pakistan will just be the next place that islamofanatics are defeated ... as long as we don't put an anti-military, surrender when you are winning, terrorist appeasing democrat like Obama in the White House.
) OK, I really meant the enemy. But the point is, you'll NEVER completely rid the field of those whose ideologies are based on fear and hatred ... the best you'll ever do is limit their potential to do harm. And the further you push that limit, the better.