On Monday’s "Situation Room," CNN reporter Jeff Greenfield discussed the possibility of American losing in Iraq and whether it would turn out to be such a terrible thing. He began by describing several historical military defeats, including Vietnam, and, according to Greenfield, many of these examples seemed to lead to positive outcomes. It’s fitting that host Wolf Blitzer introduced him by noting that the reporter was "contemplating the ‘L’ word."
Greenfield: "In one view, such setbacks encouraged America’s adversaries to be more bold in their assaults. But over time, another picture emerges. Less than 20 years after the fall of Vietnam, the Soviet Union literally ceased to exist. More than half a century after China became communist, the U.S. is economically, at least, a partner. And America's biggest companies see China not as a threat, as but a huge market. And Vietnam? It embraces an American president and American investments. As for Iraq, the turmoil there almost surely means that the ambitious goals of the invasion, a stable, functioning democracy are beyond reach. But if the United States chooses to engage and chooses, as well, to talk with nations in the region like Iran and Syria, that course will likely trigger a profound debate, perhaps even reaching into the next presidential campaign. And what would that debate be about? More than anything else, one key question: Would this engagement tell the world that the United States has become weaker--or wiser?"
Greenfield paused briefly before adding "or wiser." A verbal cue, perhaps, to tell Americans which description he agrees with?
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 4:46pm on December 4, follows:
Wolf Blitzer: "More now on our top story: The situation in Iraq and the upcoming report from the Iraq Study Group which will be released on Wednesday. When it comes to the war in Iraq, our senior analyst Jeff Greenfield is contemplating the ‘L’ word -- losing. Jeff?
Jeff Greenfield: "Even before we know what Iraq Study Group will recommend, a pessimistic notion seems to be gathering strength. The idea that there is no good course to pursue, that the goal should be to make the best of a bad situation. So could the U.S. lose in Iraq? And what would a loss mean? Think of what happened when the French left Indo-China after a military debacle in 1954. More than a communist triumph in the north it helped mark the end of France as a legitimate international power. The same was true of Britain after it abandoned its efforts to hold on to its African colonies half a century ago. And some argue that the Soviet loss of Afghanistan in the 1980s marked the beginning of the end for that nation. But what about what happened in Vietnam in 1975 after the U.S. pulled out and the communist north conquered the south? Or when the Shah of Iran, a longtime U.S. ally, lost power to the Ayatollah Khomeini? And when U.S. hostages were held in Iran for more than a year without any effective response? In one view, such setbacks encouraged America’s adversaries to be more bold in their assaults. But over time, another picture emerges. Less than 20 years after the fall of Vietnam, the Soviet Union literally ceased to exist. More than half a century after China became communist, the U.S. is economically, at least, a partner. And America's biggest companies see China not as a threat, as but a huge market. And Vietnam? It embraces an American president and American investments. As for Iraq, the turmoil there almost surely means that the ambitious goals of the invasion, a stable, functioning democracy are beyond reach. But if the United States chooses to engage and chooses, as well, to talk with nations in the region like Iran and Syria, that course will likely trigger a profound debate, perhaps even reaching into the next presidential campaign. And what would that debate be about? More than anything else, one key question: Would this engagement tell the world that the United States has become weaker--or wiser? Wolf?"
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
...SIgh.. More SPECULATION fo
December 4, 2006 - 18:21 ET by Six String Spiff...SIgh.. More SPECULATION form a "news" channel... I am so tired of the elitist "journalists" who think they know whats best for this country. Hey shit bag, why don't you get a real job and find out what we are trying to protect! Suuuuure we could embolden the enemy, but what about the positive taht comes from a negative? What? Only a liberal.. Reagan.. hear me
Not all Muslims are Terrorists. However, all the Terrorists have been Muslim.
Somebody make that guy sit
December 4, 2006 - 18:44 ET by lnthompSomebody make that guy sit through "The Killing Fields" and then see what he has to say.
LNTHOMP previously posting as LEENT. U.S. Navy (ret.)
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.
It wasn't that bad!
December 4, 2006 - 19:31 ET by UnsaneHate to say this, but they'll shrug, say everything in the flick was an exaggeration, that they'll bet the Cambodians were MUCH happier under the Khmer Rouge, and that it was made with someone with an axe to grind against communism. Then they'll walk away, totally unmoved.
They CRAVE and NEED a weak, pathetic America so that we can concentrate on exterminating the real terrorists, the Rich Leeches, and turning government into a Big Nanny. (If I sound redundant, apologies, but the truth about these clowns has GOT to get out.)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Maybe these idiots should tal
December 4, 2006 - 19:47 ET by Clear thinkerMaybe these idiots should talk to a woman I know. When Pol Pot came along, he sent his killing squads to her village. They took the first born of every villager, tied them together in a pile in the middle of the village, doused them with Gasoline and burned them alive. All the villagers were forced to watch. The woman I speak of has only one child left, the other five (and her husband) were killed off in equally grotesque ways. Yeah, us leaving the area was a great idea... not!
What do you expect from the l
December 4, 2006 - 18:56 ET by rimskyWhat do you expect from the liberal MsM.. quitters! All of them! They actually think it is a good thing that we cut and run in Vietnam!
Greenfield
December 4, 2006 - 19:00 ET by pocomocoIn typical liberal think, Greenfield lists all the countries that cut and run and proclaims that, today, the countries are better-off for it.
One important point that the glassy-eyed liberal fails to bring up, though, are the 2 to 3 million people murdered in the so-called re-education camps in Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos.
And the liberals express abosolutely no guilt over it.
But, according to him, it's business as usual.
Sure, we are much better off
December 4, 2006 - 19:31 ET by Clear thinkerSure, we are much better off handing over Iraq to terrorists. Who in their right mind thinks losing is a good idea?
Liberals..... silly people, but still very dangerous!
These liberal/left wing toads
December 4, 2006 - 19:33 ET by spiderdanThese liberal/left wing toads have not the slightest desire to see American prevail in Iraq -- or anywhere.
You may bet the house these same dungballs and moonbats will be braying -- like the jackasses they are -- about how "Republicans lost the war" and "Neocon chickenhawks that never served couldn't devise a winning strategy", etc. To get admissions of defeat from anyone credible would result in wholesale Dummycrap pronoucements of "see, I told you so."
Forget Bush Derangment -- these people are pure scum. There is no logical explanation for any of these idiots to suggest "we're losing" or "we've lost" except to further their gutless and anti-American agenda.
One of the attributes of the
December 4, 2006 - 19:57 ET by pocomocoOne of the attributes of the liberal mind is that it has no common sense, hence, it is incapable of rational thought. It operates purely by emotion not logic.
To them, Iraq is just a sideshow to regaining power. If it means embarrassing America - so be it.
It's beginning to look a lot
December 4, 2006 - 20:23 ET by balboaIt's beginning to look a lot like Christmas!
cthoulhulives.org
December 5, 2006 - 17:56 ET by UnsaneIt's beginning to look a lot like Fish-Men!
www.cthoulhulives.org
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
A portion of the problem is
December 4, 2006 - 20:38 ET by Right2thePointA portion of the problem is that those in decision making power and setting agendas are less than informed on the makeup of the opposition.
Somehow they seem to act like that if our opposition were budist monks then just knowing they wear safron robes is good enough to defeat them.
I am sure Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are well read on and have a historical perspective as such things as the seige of Vienna.
They think that they can't treat this with the same indiference as the 650 page bill they just voted for on the recommendation of their staffers and the money tilt of their various lobbiest contributors.
Such ignorance is self supporting and continuing.
One day they will learn that Reader's Digest is not an international policy think tank.
It's perverse how much plea
December 4, 2006 - 20:45 ET by PSOSIt's perverse how much pleasure the thought of losing gives to these people. They seem to derive some sort of masochistic delight from the triumph of Islamofascism. Losing has become an almost sexual experience to these maniacs. It's a good thing they keep the camera angles above the waist.
So true PSOS
December 4, 2006 - 23:56 ET by terrigWhen the MSM describe the "confusion and possiblity of losing in Iraq" it's almost like they're having an orgasm on tv.
China is our partner? Not a
December 4, 2006 - 22:53 ET by GalvanicChina is our partner? Not according to their military writers, who see us as their biggest rival and threat.
China is our partner in the sense that (a) our astronomical trade deficit with the PRC continues to explode, (b) China holds literally tons of US dollars in their foreign currency reserves, and (c) China's banking institutions hold a lot of our national debt. And with her prosperity, our "partner" invests 12-15% of her annual budget in modernizing her air force (PLAAF), navy (PLAN), and missile force (its 2nd Artillery Corps).
Pretty scary partner, no?
Galvanic "Pretty sca
December 5, 2006 - 00:42 ET by ww thumperGalvanic "Pretty scary partner..." YES Thankx to bill clintooon... .....Political correctness when dealing with Islam will kill america....ww .....
Let's not forget their attemp
December 5, 2006 - 01:48 ET by UnsaneLet's not forget their attempts to "blind" one of our satellites not too long ago...
Although I must say their owning "a lot" of our debt is a bit misplaced. At a given moment, one-third of our debt is foreign owned, and that is ALL foreign players, to include China.
That being said, there are two ways to solve that: 1) buy more of our debt ourselves (whatever happened to those bond drives of old?) and 2) make demands of our government that they begin paying down the debt (well, I can dream, can't I???). That alone would cut the budget 15%, of paid off in full!
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Another revisionist trying
December 4, 2006 - 23:43 ET by mikecali80Another revisionist trying to rewrite history to fit his left wing agenda the fall of the soviet union had absolutely nothing to do with the war of vietnam It had to do with a Great President that decided to stand up to the soviet union and show the strength and greatness of our nation.The liberals hated it and bickered and now are trying to exclude Reagan from his great achievement. I wasnt alive during Vietnam but I can tell you one thing as a veteran. America is to great of a country to lose military if we lose it will be too political pressure and a left wing agenda driven media and the radical leftist that dont want us to suceed due to their hatred of our current president.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Ronald Reagan
Also anybody want to guess wh
December 4, 2006 - 23:45 ET by mikecali80Also anybody want to guess why they always add up the tally of our deaths and never give the amount of deaths of the terrorist we are fighting. I suppose its because its such a high number I believe over 5,000 last i heard. It doesnt fit their agenda that they are trying to promote that we are actually getting defeated. The terrorist have a great ally here at home its called the lamestream media.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Ronald Reagan
Greenfield will not be forgiven for this.
December 5, 2006 - 00:14 ET by CTConsider the Soldiers, Sailors and Marines that have given their lives for their country in Iraq and how much Jeff Greenfield values that sacrifice. One only wonders why this $hitbird feels safe to walk the streets in America.
"I wouldn't give a hoot
December 5, 2006 - 01:32 ET by mattm"I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed." - GS Patton
So, now that the MSM has prog
December 5, 2006 - 03:53 ET by Indiana JoeSo, now that the MSM has progressed beyond the "we're going to lose" mantra to this "losing is a GOOD thing" hogwash, can we maybe get a little honesty from them, finally?
Remember way back when, like for the past year or so, when it seemed the libs WANTED us to lose Iraq? Remember the outrage that anyone who asked if that were true was "questioning" their "patriotism?" Remember "of course we WANT to win?"
Well, for people who DIDN'T "want to lose," they sure seem awfully delighted at the prospect that we "may lose." Almost gleefully rubbing their hands together, and talking about what a "good thing" it could turn out to be. And not one soldier has yet to be "re-deployed." But the celebration just can't wait.
So, which is it, liberal media? Does it sadden you that we may end up leaving the Iraqi people to the kind of fate suffered by SE Asia in the '70s? Are you happy about the prospect of a "civil war," the one that probably WILL finally develop when we pull out, mission incomplete? Do you at all feel guilty over doing everything in your power to misrepresent the facts, and sway public opinion with lies, just to bring down a President you loathed and return your buddies to power in this country? How many Iraqi lives was THAT worth to you?
In short, did you really, REALLY "want to win?"
I think we know the answer.
December 5, 2006 - 05:06 ET by Andrew H.I think we know the answer. Now that they have some leverage, what will they do with it? Will what they do be in the best interest of the US? I think we know the answer to that too.
Never relent.
Oh, yes, AOH, we KNOW the ans
December 5, 2006 - 07:33 ET by Indiana JoeOh, yes, AOH, we KNOW the answer. I just wish these guys would once, just ONCE, have to answer for their constant re-inventing of themselves, and come out and admit they have an agenda. They're worse than politicians. At least we KNOW politicians have an agenda.
The only reason they can get away with flip-flopping more than John Kerry is, THEY'RE the ones who are supposed to report this kind of hypocrisy. Which they won't. It's the ancient story of security and protection:
"Who will guard the guards?"
Only in the deepest, darkest
December 5, 2006 - 09:21 ET by Dave ROnly in the deepest, darkest recesses of the diseased, non-linear drug-infested liberal mind could cutting and running in Iraq be construed as a positive development. The libs loved us pulling out of Vietnam because it weakened this country in the eyes of the world. If we do the same in Iraq, it will serve to only weaken us further. Whatever few allies we may have been able to count on for help in the Jihad that Jimmy Carter has brought upon us, will never, ever trust us again. This is exactly what the brain damaged media libs, such as Mr. Greenfield, want to see happen.
For the mental gymnastics required to reach his hideous conclusion, I give Mr. Greenfield an 11.
Diseased mind
December 5, 2006 - 09:28 ET by BarberianInteresting assessment from a forensic phychologist. Kind of explains what we're up against.www.townhall.com/columnists/LyleHRossiterJrMD/2006/12/04/the_liber...