… and of course, I’ll twist it around so it’s really about me.

I realized this morning that one of the reasons I was hoping Kerry would win was so I could back to ignoring politics — the big “problem” with Bush (for me) is that the guy draws attention to himself — he forces me to notice what he’s doing. Sure, I might go a week or two in relative peace and quiet, but sooner or later he trips into another china closet (or one of his staff does something that looks suspiciously like sneaking in and emptying one), and I’m back to shaking my head and trying to figure it out. I was looking forward to being able to ignore the presidency.

That’s a pretty crappy thing to realize about yourself, but there it is — I was hoping to make a choice, see it through, nod to myself, and go back to sleep. It wouldn’t have worked anyway — no one could have single-handedly righted what’s wrong, partly because just over half the country doesn’t see the wrongs as wrong. Clear separation of church and state. Flailing economy (typoed, but I like the way it looks). The right of two people who love each other to be together in a legally acknowledged union regardless of their beliefs, race, background, or gender. The right of a woman to make her own reproductive choices. A war entered on false pretenses. These are problems, and part of a longer list.

About half the people in the country think Bush is the guy to see us through. So be it. I suppose that in a way this is a good thing — with Bush around, I’m unlikely to forget that any of this is going on. I keep looking on, like during a car wreck or reality television.

I wish I got it. I wish I at least understood what just over half of the country sees in Bush. I mean, I know some of the people who voted for him, and the ones I know fairly well I can say are smart people, so there has to be something there — something appealing. Look at his really *close* supporters and you see a lot of loyalty, and that’s got to come from somewhere — it can’t all be cronyism and payoffs. I wish I could see it. I don’t.

(Side note: I can’t be entirely bitter — I think pretty much everything but the presidency and the electoral vote split went ‘my way’ on the ballots (except for that NUTJOB Tancredo who aired an ad yesterday that compared Mexican immigrants to Chechen Muslim rebels, I-shit-you-not) — heck, Colorado has the first Democratic majority in the House and Senate since 1960.)

Anyway.

Abroad, we’re in a war in Iraq that will be a nightmare if we stay and a nightmare if we leave. It’s very unlikely to improve and it for damnsure isn’t spreading peace out in ripples to the rest of the Middle East. Bush got us in there, and I suppose it’s just as well that he be left to sort it out. That’s just.

At home, we’ve got (actually, *had* for the last two years, but who’s counting?) a Republican majority in D.C. Great. This is where they can really step it up and push all the agendas they think will solve everything. Show the country what you’re talking about. Show us it works. Or try it, fail and face the fallout — I’m good either way.

Well, that’s not true. I’m a little nervous about how things could go — my cynical brain cells keep whispering to my paranoid brain cells that we’ve got a group in charge that’s mostly religious fundamentalists steered around the stage by corporate mouthpieces. Mostly I ignore both of sets of cells. Mostly.

Four years before Hillary Clinton runs. And hey, maybe Nader will be too weak to stand by then. That’d be alright.

Can the Democratic party grow a backbone in that period of time? Maybe if they back more stem-cell research in Cali.

Maybe it’ll be McCain and Jon Stewart on the third-party ticket. :)

It's actually not that hard to understand my pro-Bush stance, if you would like the data point.

Fundamentalist Islam wants to conquer the world and destroy the civilization I am accustomed to. Having some idea what my society and their society are like, I prefer mine. They have proven their willingness and ability to strike at us and cause us harm. They will keep trying until they either cease to exist or reform to such extent as to become unrecognizable.

I believe Bush will actively work to stop them from destroying us. I did not believe Kerry would.

As a secondary, everyone in the world who wants us to fail at this task wanted Kerry to win. So, there's some spite involved.

Domestic issues, stem cells, abortion, gay marriage, reconciliation with Europe, the economy, none of it matters as much as winning the war. We can fix all the other issues after survival is secured. I think Bush will try to win it. I thought Kerry would merely try to end it, which isn't the same thing.

Simplistic? Maybe. But there's power in simplicity.

That's fair reasoning. I understand it. I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.

Now, to explain why I don't agree, I have state an opinion on this whole Iraq thing, which may be a first here, but whatever. Everything else I say is predicated on this opinion, so if the opinion itself doesn't work for you, then the rest of this isn't going to work either.

I don't think winning in Iraq is possible any longer, because there is no entity to beat: there's no government to surrender and no formal organization fighting us to throw in the towel. With the exception of the unknown numbers of foreign fighters and terrorists, all experts on the topic agree that the vast majority of the current insurgents are the Iraqis themselves.

So, unless we glass the country to "save" it, we're in a kind of stalemate: Lots of people to kill, but no one to *beat*.

Add meaningless attrition: Our troops, amazing soldiers, are not peacekeepers or policemen. The U.S. military is not (on the whole) trained as guerrilla fighters. They are the wrong force for the kind of conflict Iraq has *become*. Targets.

The administration went in unwilling to face the political fallout that would occur from nation-building in Iraq, but put ourselves and Iraq into a position where nation-building is the first, best solution.

Absent nation-building, the next option is to leave. However, if we leave there's either a a civil war or hostile occupation from neighboring states. Stay and cause instability, or leave and cause instability.

Still, you cannot choose your destiny while occupied by a foreign army.

So we leave. Right? Wrong? Fuck.

Bush is still trying to win in Iraq -- that is his goal. I can't believe in that.

Now, to be fair, John Kerry's claim that he could salvage the situation is either stupid or lying -- you're option -- one or two years or even six months ago we could have accomplished something by reinforcing and strengthening the Moderate Muslim element of the Middle East (certainly, it needs it), but it's too late for that to do any good *in this situation*.

So, we'll probably have to leave Iraq in the next four years. That said, I don't mind it being on Bush's head. His administration planned it, his administration botched it, his administration gets to see it through.

Amen, Doyce, Amen...

David.

It's an unwinnable war they way we are currently fighting it. Nobody in the modern era, has ever won a war against terror.

Ever.

The only ways terror has been "defeated" is through some sort of political maneuver, or genocide. You chose.

All fundies are bad, be they christian, hindu, buddist, hebrew, or muslim.

Seconded.

Some people see Iraq and have no idea what we're doing there. Whether or not you agree with WHY we went in, the cold hard fact is we NEED to be there. For the reasons stated by David above.

They want our obliteration, have stated this for decades. And we've shown them nothing but weakness for decades, a willingness to take their hits and keep moving along. So they finally hit us HARD (not counting all the little hits over the past double dozen years), killed 3K of our countrymen all at once. People got mad for a while. Then they got bored.

I'm neither mad, nor am I bored. I'm a mother, with two children. And no one is going to endanger them. No one.

For the record, since Doyce and BD replied, I was seconding David's sentiments.

It will be interesting to see how much Bush will -- or can (in temperment, strategy, or resources) -- pursue the war on Islamofascism. Certainly I agree that was one of the big items in the pro-Bush camp, but unless things go terribly, terribly *right* in Iraq (and nothing goes wrong in Iran), I don't think the GOP can count on much of a boost on the matter in 2008 -- unless the Dems bobble the ball again.

And... I don't disagree with Seki either. Or David -- their sentiments regarding the danger that terrorists represent -- I'm right there. Show me someone that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is a terrorist and I'll put a bullet in their brain on national television.

Action should be taken to protect the country, our lives, our families. Yes. Of course yes.

The connection I can't make is Iraq.

After this long -- after finding nothing of any significance -- OBL killed thousands of people -- can't find him, so attack some other guy who... well, we know we don't like him, so... close enough. No.

The war on terror is One Thing, and it's a good fight to fight.

The war in Iraq is Another Thing. It was even a good thing to be done, done right. I can believe that.

Except it wasn't done right. The pooch has been well and truly screwed.

Maybe I'm a leftie nutjob, but I think I'm just somewhere in middle America.

For me, with regards to Islamofascism, the statement of "you're either with us or against us" is about it. It is known that Hussein gave reward money to the families of suicide bombers, provided training ground and funding for known terrorists...blah, blah, everything that's been said before.

If Dubya's sole motivation to plant his boots in Iraq had to do with an abortive attempt on his father's life when he was pres, then...not so much a good reason. However. Bad man = gone. Massive American presence on the ground in the heart of Islamofascist Central. And I'm still paying $2 per gallon so it's clearly not about the oil, eh?

What I'm attempting to clumsily illustrate is we do not have all the facts. We are not in the CIA, DSA, whatever. We're not privy to all the details, we do not know the longterm plans and goals. Is Syria next? Iran, Saudi Arabia? Is this a new Crusade? HTF knows. But our willingness to march the hell into Afghanistan and Iraq has had an effect, one that culture (which I grew up exposed to and know something about) will understand.

Damn, you wouldn't think I actually have my own blog, would you. *facepalm*

"Islamofashisim"

*smerk*

God that word still cracks me up.

Terror and Victory.

Yea, we can win in Iraq and we can defeat terror.

Now, I'm a military historian so I have they bias that, yea military force can bring peace.

In 1945, for example, as we were defeating Germany and Japan people said, A, Facsism will never go away and B, Germany and Japan will rise again and quiickly unless we keep our boot on thier throats.

Well that wasn't required, stable governments were created and one of them in a situation that was far more alien to the Allies than Iraq is today.

The only differences between what is happening in Iraq right now and what happened in post-war Germany with the Werewolf movement is that A, there are alot of RPGs around to brewup, B, there is a Media happy to show Allies dying and auction off hostages, B, there are cities to hide and a populace that wasn't bombed for four years who might hide you for money and C, a supply of fighters willing to cross the desert for a chance at A and B's glory.

It's winnable in Iraq and Afghanistan, imagine if this was 1954, would anyone be willing to take my bet that by 1980 the Industrial Korea would be South Korea and that only a handful of Americans would die in the next 50 years on the DMZ? No, not a soul.

In the 1988 Election no one mentioned beating the Soviets and freeing Eastern Europe because in November of 1988 it was impossable to see that outcome without a major land war in Europe.

Terror has been defeated without genocide or a political olive branch in the past. The United States didn't have to kill the 20 million lives the Emperor of Japan was offering to stop the rape and murder and suicide attacks in the Pacific. The Werewolf movement in Germany was stopped when things got good enough in the East and West to take away thier support system.

We aren't far enough away from the war time-wise to look at it as history yet, it's still current events, but from looking at the history of wars like this, things will be better and yea, the US will get out. Someday.

I actually was on the ground during Desert Shield/Storm. After the war, I worked at the HQ for the entire Atlantic Fleet in the intel collection and planning arena. I hope this does not sound like bragging, I just wanted to show that I did indeed have some background in this area.

It is a fact that Saddam had given cash to terrorist bomber's families. It is a fact that on the first night of my war that Saddam launched SCUD missles into Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Syria. Oh, and he also slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians and invaded two neighboring countries.

You say that the war in Iraq and the war on terror are two different things. I have to disagree. When a state sponsors terrorists and then also terrorizes officially, it qualifies as a target in the war on terror.

Russia uses terror. China uses terror. Indonesia uses terror. Half or more of Africa uses terror -- and Sudan has upped it to genocide without more than a scolding from the USA (and nothing from anyone else, true). Many Latin American states have used terror tactics with American approval and advice. Are they all on the list? If we really are making war on Terror then we have a hell of a lot on our plate.

Boulder Dude, nobody in the modern era has ever won a war in Afghanistan. Except us. And the Afghanis, obviously, but not the same war.

Doyce, I wasn't talking about winning the war in Iraq. I was talking about the war on terror, of which the battle of Iraq is a part. In my opinion, Bush is determined to try to win that war. Kerry struck me as wanting to wipe his hands and forget it ever came up.

By the way, I do not think Iraq is going perfectly. Many, many things have gone wrong. But they're closer to where we want them to be than they were when we started, and nothing can stop that progress except us. September 12, 2001, I came to terms with the idea that a great many people were going to have to die, some of them on our side. I think there are people who never did that.

R Trimmer, would you be happy if we invaded the Sudan next? Despite the fact that they aren't threatening the US, would you prefer we get entangled in African politics rather than, for instance, preventing Iran or North Korea from nuking anyone? I'm curious to know where your "invade them" level lies.

The funny thing about politics, I think, is that everyone believes they are a moderate.

Sudan's government is far more "Islamofascist" than Iraq's was. They do sponsor terrorists to the extent of their limited, but growing, resources. If it really is a War on Terror and the spreading of Freedom, then they're on the list. If we honor the anti-genocide treaty we have to do something for Darfur -- but with Bush, America's treaties, like the Geneva Convention, are to be honored only at his discretion, sort of like treaties were just "words on paper". If it's war on actual, urgent threat then, Afghanistan qualified and Iraq didn't. If we're spreading Freedom then we'll leave pretty darned quick after elections. If we're establishing a client state with a nominally democratic government, like Japan was for some time, we won't. We'll want bases there whether or not the Iraqi voters agree.

Iraq wasn't paying people to bomb us. It was paying Palestinian suicide bombers who struck at Israel. There is a difference, really.

As to what I'd like to do about Darfur, no invasion is necessary. Bomb the Janjaweed, bomb the Sudanese government buildings, bomb their bases, drop guns, ammo and radios on the Fur. We have the satellite photos, we have the B-52s, we have tons of Kalashnikovs from Iraq.

Iran? A much tougher nut than Iraq. Do you think we have the manpower? Have their installations been hardened? Want to go nuclear?

North Korea? Only the Chinese have any real influence there. They'll nuke people if they want to. Going in on the ground would be terribly expensive in American lives and impossible without full South Korean participation, which seems unlikely to be forthcoming. Do you suggest a massive preemptive nuclear attack?

A mostly-Saudi bunch killed some thousands of Americans. We go after their Saudi leader and his multinational organization (financed largely by Saudis, inspired by 20+ years of Saudi Wahhabi propaganda) in their Afghan bases, fine. Then we hit Iraq. WTF? Hell, Iraq was on the list by 9-12 and Wolfowitz wanted to hit Iraq first. Meanwhile, the Saudis stonewall us. Go figure.

Dave

Yest the city states of Kabul and Kandahar are glowing example's of, um, democracy. And yes we've won in Afghanistan, just like the british did before us in the mid 1800's. The tribal leaders are still calling the shots in 90% of the country, the taliban is resergent, and Kharzai runs everything as far as he can see outside of his window. Poppy production is back to to the hightest levels ever seen.

Iraq had nothing to do with the "WoT" and everything to do with PNAC/AIE wetdreams. We are going to be there like we were in the GDR during the cold war, or until somebody has the political will to do otherwise. 14 perminate U.S. bases aren't being built just for show. The "WoT' is just the new cold war, because we as a people need to have outside enemies to distract us from what is happening inside this country.

Plus all the thngs that Randy said in his two posts.

So far we've payed lip servide to the concept of "never again" over the last fifty years with the exception of Bosnia (with bush the first glad handing Milosavic). Maybe we need to amend the traty to say "never again, unless you have something we want".

1. It's not Dave. It's David. There are other Daves running around, so for clarity's sake, let's keep that straight.

2. The rightness of the war is not the topic of this post or the intent of these comments. We can have this discussion, but I think it would be rude to do it here. Besides which, I think we are beyond the point, as a nation, where anyone can discuss these things rationally.

3. WTF is a PNAC/AIE?

Sorry, Doyce. I didn't mean to start anything. You asked a question. I tried to answer it. It got out of hand. It's such an easy trap to fall into.

Hey, no worries on my part -- it's probably good to get all this stuff out every so often. I'd call it 'tense, but polite', and everything is cool.

Honestly, if it pissed me off or got to the point where everyone was just screaming about some side topic, I'd have closed the comments :)

I'm just bummed that no one wanted to join my aghast bleating about the fact that we re-elected a congressman who compared Mexican immigrants to Chechen rebels IN A CAMPAIGN AD. Nut. Job.

Doyce, Missed it. But it is typical of Tancredo, and would not of ecpected anything less from him.

It's quite interesting that on both sides, the basic argument boils down to an emotional reaction towards one or both of the candidates. Phrases like "Bush seemed..." or "I felt that Kerry..." are the hinges for just about everything I read on the subject.

Also see:

http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

From this chart it seems that the majority of Bush supporters are more focused on events outside the US, while Kerry supporters are more focused on the domestic situation. Bush was elected mostly by older heterosexual male WASPs, while all other groups tended towards supporting Kerry.

Just a note: Anyone who says that China has serious sway over the North Korean Govt. is... optimistic at best.

I have my own opinions about the elections, and the facts of American policies both foreign and domestic, but I only know one person here, so this is probably not the place for them.

Carry on.

yrs--
--Ben

To answer an earlier question, I believe:

PNAC - Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/)

AIE - America's Invisible Empire (this is a KKK-linked organization)

I can't keep silent any longer - can someone please tell me why Iraq is involved in the first place? cos Bush couldn't find Osama and still needed to whup some ass.