We are not fighting a standing army or nation.

In Iraq, we are an occupying force in a foreign land. As far as the GWOT, before the bush fiasco, fighting international terrorist (not the tactic of terror) required good intelligence, good police work and some occasional limited military strikes. Since the Iraq disaster, it requires the exact same tactics. The difference is Iraq is costing us a trillion dollars, alienating the world from the United States, creating far more recruits and sympathy for Al-Qaeda and most tragically, the horrific human cost in blood of both Americans and Iraqis.

As a father of a Marine wit 2 Iraq tours under his belt, I hate (that is the exact term I want to use) the right wingers who claim my son as a jihadist magnet, fly-paper or target to attract them to Iraq. News flash, terrorist have access to google map and do not need to follow us home to find us and they are capable of multi-tasking, killing our soldiers and Marines in Iraq while continuing to plot attacks around the globe. How many of those good looking Romney kids are flypaper targets? The bush twins or any of these pajamas cowards hiding behind a keyboard blogging on right wing drivel sites instead of joining the war as did my kid.

Holy cow this is so true. The dems should be making this argument tonight. Bush is trying to have his cake and eat it too. I don't know where Dope Head Bush got the idea of running this country into the ground without Americans sacrificing for the cause. It just proves how criminally insane President Bush is, and the people that are letting him continue this insane strategy. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush is benefiting financially by running this countries military into the ground. When the hell are Americans going to stand up to Bush and demand that the legal system remove him from office?

about sacrifice for a long time.  And I've been strongly agreeing with him for a long time.  If this is truly a war for our very civilization, we should be fighting it with the same level of national commitment - by EVERYONE - as we fought World War II.  If not, then what the @#$%#@ are we doing?!?

some alert citizens have been asking over the past few years--- and no one in power has deigned to respond, but thanks for doing so. Maybe times are changing and this time your very good questions will enter public discourse. Back in March 2006 I posted on RK an effort to change the terms of discussion, including the following:

"WAR ON TERROR. There is no war on terror. Terror is a tactic; it's been employed by almost every power hungry group since time began, including the Romans, the Kings of England, the Pope and the Inquisition, the Americans against the Indians and vice versa, the Communists, the Israelis, the Arabs, and so on. Declaring a "war on terror" was a public relations stunt. The response to 9/11 has been mishandled from the get-go, and so far every campaign mounted under its name has not succeeded, including that in Afghanistan; it is as if the Americans roar in, blow everything up, and begin to lose interest, having successfully created hydra-headed terror. What probably started as a War for Oil--- or maybe a War to Make a President Look Good (if we're being honest)--- has now become a Forever War with no definable victory in view, and no strategic plan for "victory," since victory cannot be defined in such circumstances. Al Qaeda truthfully was never in a position to conquer the United States, just hurt some of our people. While Afghanistan rightfully should have been punished for aiding and abetting Osama bin Laden, thereafter it was more a police problem (could Gore have been right?) or some other such surgical operation in which, in 2001, even nervous Muslim states would have cooperated."

Maybe you should cross-post on other spots.

...I think your questions are very valid. I'm not sure why you think it's important to define war.  If we have a large number of soldiers in a country and they're dying every day, I call it a war.  In some ways, it's surprising to me Bush would call it a war.  Usually politicians try to downplay that particular word.  Korea was not a war--it was a police action. Our first troops in Vietnam were not fighting in a war--they were "advising" an ally.  But like Korea and Vietnam, history will call this mess in Iraq a war. 

On your other questions, (the important ones, I think) I have the same frustrations.  How many people actually know someone fighting in Iraq?  Only a small part of our population.  It's the same way all over the country.  We, as a people are not invested in this war.  We see the body count on TV. We read the names in the paper or saw the crosses at Camp Casey,  but most of us have been safely insulated from this war.  Our lives, our entertainments--every little thing is just the same. 

The Republicans have figured out the best way to keep public opinion out of this war is to restrict the number of soldiers involved.  It's better for the right wing to send one soldier on three tours than to send three soldiers one one tour each.  Fewer families are affected and in a country where more people vote for American Idol than who represent us, it's very easy to look the other way, to change channels.  There's not much in the MSM about the war in the first place and if we choose to not look, all we have to do is turn it over to Survivor Wherever--while at that very moment, Survivor: Iraq is blowing up in the faces of our young soldiers every single day.

Your other questions are very valid. For me, the most legitimate is the question of the draft.  I strongly support a draft and I believe a draft would be the tipping point that would hasten the end of this war. 

I don't think benchmarks are a good thing.  Like Jim Webb, I think benchmarks are a feel-good idea for people like me. We must find a better way to get out of Iraq.  If we'd used benchmarks during WW2, we'd probably gone home when the Germans were kicking our asses all over North Africa.  I'm working on a diary where I will expand on my thoughts, but let me say, I hope we can leave Iraq without choppers going off the roof of the American Embassy--and in a manner where we will have an escape plan for those thousands of Iraqis who have thrown their lot in with us, believing we would be there long enough to help them build a democracy.  I keep thinking about all those we left hanging in Vietnam.  They were purged or thrown into re-education camps and still live as the permanent underclass in Vietnam. We have a responsibility for those those same people in Iraq. We created that hope for them and we owe them at least a chance to escape the inevitable mass-murder that will sweep Iraq the day we leave. For a good look at the class system in present day Vietnam, I recommend Jim Webb's Lost Soldiers. 

Thank you for writing this diary.  I wish every American had a real stake in this war. 

"Our first troops in Vietnam were not fighting in a war--they were "advising" an ally."

I disagree with this. When we say Vietnam was a terrible war, we are talking about the war from 1957-75. That's the second Vietnam war. The first was a war over colonization. Vietnam and surrounding areas used to be called French Indo-China and the French were fighting that war from 1946-54.  And I think early on we were truely advising the war.  Now we were fighting in it but I would argue that that didn't start to happen till around 1963-65. That's why they say Kennedy knew when to die. And if Kennedy had lived we wouldn't be talking about this right now because Kennedy was a war hero, he was part of a delegation that went to Vietnam while he was in Congress. After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy decided that the CIA,the head he replaced, Bissell and Dulles for John McCone, should not have the ear as much as they did. In the Cuban Missile Crisis he sought a wider range of advisors.  One of the people he blew off was Curtis LeMay, In Dr. Strangelove George C. Scott's character is modeled on LeMay. LeMay was a damn the consquences type person. When George Wallace ran for president in 68, He picked LeMay as his running mate, then he said I may be a racist but I'm no war monger, back peddled and then sent LeMay on a around the world fact finding expedition. And that was the end of that stinky diaper. Anyhow, Johnson comes in, unlike Kennedy, he doesn't have an foreign policy experience. Kennedy had a Harvard education and therefore could use good judgement when he heard what to do by his advisors because they were Harvards to. Johnson he graduates from a small remote Texas school and is blown away by his advisors. He also loved West Point. Kennedy didn't.

On benchmarks, I think of the Civil War. Lots of people chanted onto Richmond, like people today chanted On to Baghdad. These people failed to get Richmond. One of them was Lincoln's General in charge of the Army of the Potomac-George McClellan, another was Joseph Hooker, John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, all going to Richmond.  One Lincoln general, his first, Winfeild Scott, came up with the Anaconda Plan.  It went like this, if we capture the Mississippi, win some land battles like New Orleans, Savannah and some other places, we'll eventually squeeze the enemy like an Anaconda. And we'll win. And you get generals who fight, we'll win. What are these called-benchmarks. Before the Union won the war they had to win battles, their benchmarks happened at Antietam and Gettysburg. These are called plans. As the origanal poster said, from the start we have lacked a plan. So you have some benchmarks for the Iraqis to meet-even though they don't care-and if they fail to meet them, we're outta there. Sounds like a plan.

In general though I think you made an excellent point.

But you know your history pretty well.  I could talk about this stuff all night.  Fascinating stuff to me and I'll argue either side as long as we get a good conversation going.  I'm pretty familiar with the two wars in Vietnam.  I had the privilege of being drug kicking and screaming into the American War.  Well, I didn't kick and scream but I was not happy to leave my family and go somewhere I was afraid to go to.  I did a lot of growing up over there and today I'm grateful for the experience.

I didn't elaborate my point on benchmarks, so let me try again. No matter how Democrats vote, we don't have a veto proof Senate.  It's all fine and dandy to take a stand, but I still feel if we can't push this thing through, taking a stand on benchmarks can only hurt Democrats politically.  We once again get slammed with the old, we're not supporting the troops deal.  I know it's bullshit, but there's not a damned thing we can do til we either elect more Democrats in Congress or things get so bad over there that some Republicans change their votes.  So, I do see this benchmarks question, at this point in time, to be something to make me and my fellow liberals feel good.  Jim Webb said it and I think he's right.  We can strut around the ring and claim some moral victory but when the fight starts, George bush is gonna knock us into next week with the veto pen. We are forced to bide our time.  I hate it because with every day we lose good soldiers and it make me sick.

The other thought I have is about our allies there.  We have no real provisions set up to allow Iraqis to immigrate here, no plan to get the translators and Iraqi soldiers, barbers, contractors--none of them into some sort of safe harbor.  Should there be a Vietnamese styled purge when we leave. Don't we owe those people at least the chance to atay alive?

  When we pull out, are we just going to leave those who put their faith in the neocons big talk, just hanging in the wind?  I hear a lot on the progressive blogosphere how we're killing all these civilians over.  And it's bad. Many innocent people are dying.  The day we leave is the day the dying really picks up.  Every translator, every person even suspected of working with the US will be drug out of their homes and murdered.  I don't want Americans to die there, but I can't abide another fall of Saigon.  We're dealt a terrible hand here, but we will have to play the cards we have.  Realistically, I don't think we'll be able to get out until after 2008 and if we don't elect more Democrats, we might be there for the rest of our lives. 

I'm still not framing my thoughts very well, but it's very late here in Kentucky and eyes are blurring up pretty bad.  I've been at this computer for sixteen hours. Tomorrow, I'm buying a bigger monitor as soon as I wake up.

  Presidentialman, if you want to talk more about this, you can reach me at nickstump@gmail.com anytime. 

I don't want to get trapped in semantics and I totally agree with points 1-4.  I can easily call the so named "War On Terror" a political war.  However, I can't bring myself to call the Afghan War and the Iraq War anything other than real wars.  Whether we should have gone or not, we are approaching 30,000 American troops killed and wounded and 10 billion being spent per month.  Calling these political wars just to much understates the messes that we are in. 

P.S.
I totally agree with "Newport News Dem".  I am also fed up with seeing these NeoGuys and cute NeoBabes on cable spewing out bush-cheny talking points.  These guys and babes either need to shut up or get their weapons issued and head to the front.

Thank you for visiting RK!

...and simply pointing out that if this IS a "real war" (which I personally believe it is) we should be fighting it like World War II or any other "real war."  At least that's how I read this.

this on the cheap.  Except for the soldiers dying and being wounded there and their grieving families here, it's as if some other country is fighting this "war". I've listened long and hard to my folks describe World War II and how everyone in the country got behind that effort, really made serious sacrifices.  But there is nothing like that now.  And I'm ashamed and feel so badly for these brave men and women are there. 

Of course we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, as we sadly all know. But we are there, and I think we ought to treat it like it means something to us who aren't making life and limb sacrifices. 

Other than soldiers and their families, the only group it means anything to are politicians!

We are fighting this on the cheap and no matter which side we're on we should be outraged.  Originally, Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to go in with, (and correct me if I'm wrong) a mere 15,000 troops. Shock troops, I think was one of the terms used.  I can only imagine where the core neocons learned military strategy, but as they're in favor of torture, believe our spec ops folks can fly and gave no thought as to how we would police the occupation, I can only assume they must be reading old GI Joe comic books. 

Those fools thought we could go in like a Chuck Norris Delta Force movie and I can only assume they thought one or two of the enemy would fall with every American shot fired. The lack of a discernible strategy was just appalling.

All-volunteer force is a terrible idea. One, draftees make good soldiers, but worse, what we risk is here is the building of a homegrown warrior caste.  This warrior caste will come from the underclass created by the basic lack of economic fairness in this country.  Already we're seeing rural Americans dying at a higher rate in Iraq.  That's no accident as jobs in rural America are disappearing, outsourced to countries who have no unions, no FDA, nothing but people willing to work for pennies on the dollar American workers demand.

There is much to think about here and we can differ on how we  get out of Iraq and what we're going to do about the mess we created when we went into Iraq and destroyed their entire  infrastructure; physical, political and military. 

I do believe one thing.  I believe this country's only hope is the Democratic Party.  I know there are those on the left who have been disappointed in the latest vote on funding Iraq.

I too would like a quick and easy way out.  But I hope and pray the left does not become disenchanted with Democrats so soon.  There are no easy solutions, but the only real solutions will come from the Democratic Party.  Look at our history.  Look at the accomplishments of our great party.  We have given this country social security, civil rights legislation and victory in World War Two.  Nearly every progressive accomplishment in our recent history has the Democratic Party to thank. 

Many of us are too young to remember, but I remember going to school with children who had rickets and I remember when a black man could not eat in the same restaurant as I could. I saw these terrible things with my own eyes.  Our progressive goals are never completely satisfied, and never come as quickly as we want--but still, I believe the Democratic Party is our only real hope for positive change.

  Now is the time for all of us to stand fast and work harder that ever to elect more Democrats and elect them at all levels of government. The future of our children and grandchildren depends on us to do so.

Sorry about such a long post, I tend to ramble on once I get revved up, but I think your diary was very on point and well worth a lot of discussion.  Sure we've all talked about the war a bunch, but the war continues...

 

Thanks, that really puts things in perspective.

Thanks Lowell and Dianne.  I don't have a great sense of humor so I sometimes miss sarcastic points.  However, I totally agree with the main point.  This so called War of Civilizations is being fought on the cheap with many being asked to give far more than the ones that actually started the war and still support it.  According to bush, the rest of us are just supposed to be shopping to do our part.  I suspect that future generations will use this as a textbook example of how NOT to fight wars.

Good name.  Have you noticed all the right-wing women pundits are blond and look like over-priced hookers.

You know your right all these Blonde neo's should be sent to boot camp and given a rifle. The whole lot of em...See how they react on the line when there buddies are talking to them one second and then minus a head the next. Maybe they'll think before they say, Let's go fight the, "War on Terror". I don't profess to have a clue what war is like, but I know these FOX News whores don't either.

I think we all know that it's just as patriotic to not to want to fight useless war started by a criminally insane, alocoholic, drug addict, cheating, lying, sadistic, dictatorial leader who, no joke, blew up frogs with firecrackers as a kid. Everyone knows the criminally insane start by hurting animals as children. That's Bush.

exactly right.