Not to my knwledge, but Japan and Germany had those loyal to their fallen leaders and governments and fought for years after the end of WWII. Japan might be considered a bit similar to the current situation in that the populace had viewed their emporer as a god, so the religious aspect comes into it. Germany....nothing like it, really.

It depends on how you define victory. If victory is a stable, basically uncorrupt, representative, non-repressive government, then we're talking about a sea change. Who knows how long that will take.

This idea about victory and defeat is one of the things I find most frustrating about McCain. He never defines victory, yet postures a lot about it. It is only a feeling but it seems to me that in the Iraq War McCain is reliving the unfinished business of Vietnam 40 years too late.

If victory means a basically uncorrupt government than we should overthrow our own.

So define victory. Because no one else has.

When do we start?


Seriously, the biggest thing gone wrong with our government is we can no longer overthrow it. Setting up a future overthrow was endemic to the Declaration of Independence ... and technology has progressed to the point where the populace of our nation could never mount a successul insurrection against our tyrannical government so long as the military and police powers remain under their control.

The ability of the populace to stand up to a tyranical government was the main reason for the second amendment.

You are indeed correct (oringially meant for ISM but it applies to JW as well).

Victory....my definition doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

Establishment of a constitutional democracy (whether parliamentary, direct, representative, whatever) in which the elected government has the capability militarily to protect itself and the people from the overthrow of that government.

This is as far as I am comfortable defining it. Do I hope it goes beyond that? Certainly, in terms of establishing an ally and a US friendly democracy in the region.

Go ahead. Rip it apart. I'm sure it will be.

But, who defines what it takes to meet that goal? And who decides when it has been met? The military? Congress? The Iraqis? The President? The UN? Bush's horoscope? The casting of bones?

I don't disagree. And I don't think Obama disagrees, though there's some disagreement with the best method to succeed. I have never been for a summary troop draw down. I AM in favor of setting more concrete goals and forcing the Iraqi government to stand up and take care of its own sh*t. I believe Obama will do that. Suggesting that Obama wants to just abandon Iraq with no plan at all is as absurd as suggesting he wants to sit down and have tea with Ahmedinejad. It's a grossly distorted interpretation of his position. All he wants is to stop playing nanny in Iraq and start putting the responsibility on Iraqis to take control of their own country.

Again, I do not fundamentally disagree. But as much as you don't want it to be about whether we should be there or not, that IS a crux, if not the crux, of the discussion. Because to me the question is, who has the clarity of judgment to make the right decisions going forward, whether it be on how to finish the job we stumbled blindly into, or whether to wage more war elsewhere. And I believe Obama to possess better judgment.

You can point to the surge all you want. There is no proof that the surge is the only reason things have improved there, or that they wouldn't improved without the surge. But hey, I'll give the administration that one, let's say the surge was the difference maker. That's one good decision after boatloads of awful ones, and the first time that Bush actually decided to listen to the generals on the ground. And it's one that's about controlling a specific situation in the short term. It's not remotely on the same scale as deciding whether to invade another country and understanding the large scale ramifications. I believe Obama (and his advisors) have better judgment on that scale. And perhaps Obama doesn't have the chops for handling the smaller scale day-to-day combat decisions (as if Bush does), but I expect him to defer to those that do. For instance, Patreus's replacement, Odierno, who has already said he expects to start calling for significant troop reductions of the next year, that weak, unpatriotic bastard.

A strong military is important. However, I do not think that throwing money down the military drain, using force to shove democracy down the world's throat, and threatening countries with invasion are signs of a strong military.

Just to briefly address one point - yes, Bush did not make good decisions. We're not talking about Bush, though, and his judgement, which is the grand strategy of Obama.....to say McCain = Bush. I don't think they are equivalent. Again, I think McCain would have run this vastly differently, as his push for the surge....18 months was it? ...before it happened.