Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Dave Dillege at Small Wars Journal comments on Chuck Hagel's Vietnam analogy:

We disagree with Senator Chuck Hagel's analogy comparing the current conflict in Iraq with the war in Vietnam. Our bottom line is that North Vietnam regulars and the Viet Cong did not kill innocent civilians on American soil, nor did they wage a global terrorist campaign; again, against innocent civilians. This dubious distinction is confined to the Islamists we are fighting on the front lines. Those front lines are beyond our (U.S. and allies) borders - though from time to time the evil they represent makes an appearance within our homelands.

Better there than here - otherwise we are compelled to build fortress America, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, etal... - a fortress defensive in nature manned by those awaiting the next attack to react to. All the while mourning the deaths of innocents to include children and demanding yet another investigation, expert-panel, commission to "figure-out" what went wrong and who is to "blame". It would be refreshing if at least one of these expensive and rearward looking efforts placed the blame where blame is due - on the murderous creatures who inhabit our planet and recommend the removal of the same "with extreme prejudice".

We are facing a global terrorist / insurgency movement. The bad news is that our enemies - forces of evil - give innocent noncombatants no quarter, the good news is that the forces of good are giving this murderous group no quarter in return - when not hindered by political and news media distracters.

What many do not understand or otherwise chose to ignore, though it is well documented, is that successful counterinsurgency campaigns are not won "overnight". Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, their countrymen, and their families - weak of heart need not apply. Examples of such abound - and these were confined to a particular country at best - region at worst. The threat we now face is global in nature and it may take a generation to remove this evil. We must get beyond the "100-hour" Desert Storm expectation of victory in battle. More good news - the threat we face - in the grand scheme of things is not large, not a true popular movement and is increasingly alienating those that dwell in their traditional bases of support. Now is not the time to get weak knees...

As far as the news articles we link to here - much like the DoD Early Bird - we provide a window on what the Main Stream Media is serving up. We note, with great sorrow, that many of the "good" news items and achievements our young warriors and diplomats accomplish are passed by for headlines and articles that extol - "if it bleeds - it leads". To those on the front-lines - Soldier, Marine, Sailor, Airman, Coastie, coalition partners, State Department foreign service personnel, other Interagency and NGO's - we tip our hat to you and appreciate your efforts. You guys and gals have the Right Stuff.

I see no valid comparisons with Vietnam. While the enemy is persistent, he is weak. He is too weak to mass forces without suffering significant losses. He is too weak to attack defended position. He represents a minority of a Sunni minority. The US and our Iraqi allies dominate the battlefield. Our side has over 10,000 enemy detainees. The enemy is too weak to hold any. He also is too weak to hold any real estate. Unlike Vietnam he has no sanctuaries. He has no powerful country supporting him. His most effective means of attack is very inefficient, i.e. he must plant 900 to 1500 IED's a month to inflict casualties on US forces of from 20 to 30 KIA's. This is a lot of effort for results that are militarily insignificant, i.e. they do not effect our ability to operate. Does Chuck Hagel thinks we are losing when our casualties for the entire war are less than they were in numerous battles in World War II? I could go on but finally, pulling out would not stop the war. Just as they attacked here before and in London, they will keep attacking until we defeat them. A Hagel type pullout would be a Mogudishu squared.

Update: Powerline weighs in:

Nebraska's Senator Chuck Hagel has become a vocal critic of the Iraq war. Today he said that the United States is losing in Iraq, and Iraq is like Vietnam. The Associated Press reports:

A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

But wait! What exactly makes Chuck Hagel a "leading Republican senator"? Not seniority; he is a second-termer. Not any official responsibilities; Hagel is not a member of the Senate leadership, nor does he chair a Senate committee. Not legislative accomplishment or influence; Hagel has little noteworthy legislation to his name, and is more often an eccentric voice--e.g., in his call for reinstatement of the draft--than an influence on his fellow Senators. It is hard to escape the conclusion that for the Associated Press, any Republican who attacks the Bush administration and claims that we're losing in Iraq is automatically promoted to "leading Republican senator" status.

And "prospective presidential candidate"? Not as a Republican.

Hagel clearly does not have a good grasp on what is happening in the war, nor does he have a grasp on the politics of the war outside of the NY Times echo chamber.