iraq
Photo by: soldiersmediacenter

One often hears the defeatist whine that it's impossible for us to win in Afghanistan because we are squandering our military resources in Iraq. The following blogger has an interesting take on fighting on two fronts:

Cyberhillbilly, 10 Sep 2008, Petraeus Key to Victory in Afghanistan?

Once upon a time America was engaged in a bitter struggle in a multi-front war. Several years into the conflict the country wasn't convinced it was worth fighting or even winnable. Then a star arose; a General who helped win victory on one front with his dogged tenacity. But victory on a single front did not win the war so the General was called to oversee the effort on the other front as well as assume responsibility for the entire course of the war. The General? U.S. Grant. Now it's General Petraeus's turn.

Of course, fighting on two fronts is nothing new to America, during World War Two we had to fight in the Pacific as well as in Europe, either one of which was enough of a war all by itself.

The Israelis fought successfully on three or four fronts in a number of wars and probably did not win decisively in last year's Lebanon War precisely because it was NOT fighting on multiple fronts.

Fighting on many fronts simultaneously by itself does not mean one is doomed to failure, unless you are a defeatist, leftist coward. Indeed, success is almost entirely dependent on will, on spirit. If the defeatist cowards in Congress had just kept their mouths shut we would not have had an insurgency in Iraq. They encouraged resistance among the jihadists by giving them the idea that it was possible to get America out of Iraq by the simple expedient of killing our soldiers. Muslims saw weakness in our resolve to pay any price, endure any burden to ensure democracy in that country.