Why they call it a war

Oliver North reports from Ramadi:

"If everything went as planned, they wouldn't call it 'war.'" That was the tongue-in-cheek assessment of a U.S. Marine major as to why our helicopter flight from Baghdad to Ramadi had been delayed for half a day.
By the time we arrived on the Landing Zone at this outpost of freedom it was the middle of an unusually cold, damp night. A hot cup of coffee was gratefully accepted as the major helped us load our backpacks, camera gear and satellite broadcast equipment aboard a dust-encrusted Humvee. Just hours later, this widely respected and much admired Marine officer and two brave U.S. Army soldiers were dead, killed by an IED -- an improvised explosive device -- the insidious weapon of choice for terrorists in Iraq.
The tragic loss of three more Americans in bloody Al Anbar Province -- like the four killed in a CH-46 helicopter crash the day we arrived for this, our eighth "tour of duty" in Iraq -- will be cited by critics of this war as "proof" this is a war that cannot be won. That's the essence of an exchange earlier this week between Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and soon-to-be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Robert Gates at Mr. Gates' confirmation hearing to become the next defense secretary:
Mr. Levin: "Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?"
Mr. Gates: "No sir."
Mr. Gates hastily added that, "we're not losing either," but also said that he sees "the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration." In short, his testimony was seized upon in Washington as yet another depressing appraisal of the war in Iraq.
To the so-called mainstream media and our political elites it hardly matters that President Bush disagrees with such dismal assessments. White House spokesman Tony Snow noted that the president still believes the U.S. is winning in Iraq. "What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission," Mr. Snow added.
The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines with whom we're embedded here in Ramadi concur with their commander in chief. Not one of the many with whom we have spoken since arriving here believes that they are failing in their mission. They see the growing effectiveness of the Iraqi army and police as proof of their effectiveness -- and evidence this war is heading toward a favorable outcome for the U.S. that they volunteered to serve -- and the people of Mesopotamia.
...
Eyewitness participants here are understandably reluctant to comment on a report they have not read in its entirety, but privately many express grave concerns it appears to be at odds with what is seen by those who are fighting this war. After a single four-day visit to Baghdad, the Study Group finds the situation here "grave and deteriorating" and accused the Pentagon of "underreporting" the violence in Iraq.
The report calls for a "new" emphasis on training Iraqis to assume greater responsibility for their own security. Yet, it pays scant attention to dramatic improvements in the capabilities of Iraqi police and Army units being wrought by Military Transition Teams (MTTs). One MTT officer who has lived with his Iraqi "counterparts" for months dryly observed, "I wonder what the hell they think I've been doing out here?"
...

You would think that those in the best position to know the gravity of the situation in Iraq are the ones closest to the action and not the one relying on questionable reports from the Associated Press. The AP knocks those of us who blog from this country and who are not facing the dangers, but reporters like North and the troops he is with face those dangers everyday and they certainly have a better idea of what is happening than those who limit themselves to Baghdad.