How unrealistic am I being by hearkening back to the domestic tactics we used in World War II that successfully gave every American a stake in our victory or defeat? Obviously, very little of what I proposed above would be possible or even practicable.

If we did it in WWII why is it not possible nor practical to do it today?

I’d be on board with the Iraq war if I thought the administration was truly serious about winning it. We should have called for a draft, rescinded the tax cuts and implemented many of the measures you mentioned in your OP at least two years ago when it was clear that we were losing in Iraq. But that would have been unpopular and would have threatened Republican chances of hanging on to power so it wasn’t even considered.

If the administration is truly serious about their “Clash of Civilizations” rhetoric, why then have they told the general public to “just go shopping” and not called for some serious sacrifices from the American people?

When I was about eight years old we moved into a house that happened to have a huge stack of old National Geographics in one of the closets, left over from the previous occupants. I read every one cover to cover and I can recall vividly that the magazines from the years of WWII had several articles in every issue about the war effort, including photos and reporting on combat in all the theaters of the war. I was fascinated by those war era magazines and learned a lot about WWII in my very early years.

The reason the American public is not on board for the Iraq war is that the administration has made it quite clear by it’s actions that it isn’t really serious about winning this so called global clash of civilizations. Actions speak louder than words and as long as the actions do not match the rhetoric the administration will never be able to get the public on board for a war that was sold as a “cakewalk”, that I doubt it will last six months”, that it was a “slam dunk” that Iraq had WMDs, that we would be greeted as liberatorsand that “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.”.

Does anyone seriously think that Rumsfeld would take such a position without the approval of President Bush?

This war was lost before it ever started, when the planning for the occupation was completely ignored because it would cost too much and use too many troops.

General Shinseki’s professional opinion was that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to occupy Iraq, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz both publically disageed with that estimate and said it was much too high.

General Abizaid has since said that Shinseki’s original estimate was in fact correct.

Place the blame for this debacle where it really lies, on the highest levels of the civilian leadership, President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz.

For those of you who have never read Belmont Club’s “Three Conjectures,” now would be a good time google it, read it, and think about it.

If you’re going to try for Lincolnesque conclusions, though, you may want to back that up with Lincolnesque leadership (see below). One without the other comes off as rather more comical than you intend.

we marched in and promised everyone we would stop a murderous tyrrant from murdering his own people and instead transformed the country into an endless, pointless bloodbath, a full scale civl war with neighborhood fighting positions dug in and shias and sunnis lobbing mortars at each other

78 percent of Iraqis living in al anbar province recently told pollsters that it was better under saddam

we caused it because we failed to secure he country because we fired the one general who thought we couldn’t do it on the cheap

don’t you see, we are not just guilty for killing innocent people, we are guilty for putting a mcth on gasoline, that everyone from arab neighbors to european allies said would cause a horrible sectarian civil war.

we caused it

we might not have killed each and every one of them. but we caused all their deaths with this completely botched “democracy” exercise

but for you to just poo poo our role in this is typically rightwingnuthouse material

no, like I said, I worked at the Pentagon. I know

and you don’t

most of the high command in the US arm ed forces think this is over

we’re not talking abou who the AEI can pay to sell a point of propaganda, we’re taling about most of the military is against this

yes, I support our troops by telling the truth

how do you support our troops?
send them into a quagmire , a full scale civil war with little or no body armor?

the America is Always Right Crowd is always wrong

now go on and pontificate all day on the Wah On Terra

Right Wing Nut House, sort of coincidentally, covers some of the same territory in

What was your threshold for language again?? It’s pretty high, I guess.

The Lancet article has been debunked. Okay, so which is it 600,000 like Lancet says or 115,000, or 190,000. Make up your mind. They all can’t be right. The point is you said we have killed hundreds of thousands. It’s still a lie because WE didn’t kill them all. The Iraqi’s are killing each other. It’s a civil war remember. Isn’t that what NBC declared it? Isn’t that what the Democrats have been screaming for months? You say you support our troops. Well, why don’t you tell them that they have killed 600,000 Iraqi’s and see what kind of response you get.

For every military leader you quote who says this war is not winnable, there is one who says it is.