My neighbors to the north answered by offering two non-existent choices, neither of which are on the table, and neither of which is politically, militarily, or even (in the case of the second) morally feasible. They offer either "Get out all the way" or "Send in enough troops to wipe 'em all out". Along with the first, they offer the vision of us sitting in our homes, embracing one another as Al Qaeda kicks down our doors to rape our men and kill our women . . . or whatever.
The truth is, as always, quite different. First of all, the war in Iraq and the "War on Terror" (I really have no idea what that might be) are related only to the extent that, by invading Iraq, the United States has now created a terrorist petri dish in the Cradle of Civilization. Our attention should have been Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda - the fact that the Taliban is poised to reconquer Afghanistan should tell us how successful the Adminsstration has been - and by directing our attention to Iraq we may have created a situation in which we are more at risk no matter what measures we take now to straighten ourselves out.
Second, as the President has tried to wage the war of the bumper sticker - "cut and run", "stay the course", "we'll stand down when they stand up" - the Democrats have offered numerous alternatives that, while differing in detail, boil down to this: get the troops to Kuwait and the Kurdish north and allow the Sunni and Shi'a to either war or work it out. If KBR, Bechtel, and Halliburton want to stay, they are more than welcome to the private security firms now used by the United States to guard their dignitaries, but they should be out of a job because the Marines should take over their traditional role at the American embassy compound.
Finally, I just wish to say something that should not need to be said, but bears repeating in our sophomoric media culture - the Republicans who crow loudest about supporting the troops, and who insist that dissent from the war is unpatriotic have never fired a round of ammunition in anger; many of those who dissent are decorated war heroes. That should tell us all we need to know about the upside-down world we have been living in the past few years.
As for the issue of supporting our troops, I stand by what I have said, and what exists in numerous news reports since the invasion began in 2003. Republicans talk a good game, but at every opportunity they have managed to actually undercut our troops in the field and once they return. The fact that parents of troops had to send them night-vision goggles, balaklavas for those cold Iraqi winter nights, and the troops themselves had to armor their own vehicles - all this while the troops guarded oil fields and KBR truck convoys while the embassy hired out security to private firms are enough evidence to ensure Republicans are never taken seriously in matters of National Security again, for at least a generation.
UPDATE: Crooks & Liars has the text of Howard Dean's Veteran's Day statement, of which some I shall quote below:
For too long the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration have failed to keep that promise [to veterans]. When Democrats take control of Congress, we will offer America's veterans and military families a renewed commitment to fully fund veterans health care, expediting the processing of benefit claims, and providing affordable health care ti thousands of members of the Guard and Reserve by providing them full TRICARE benefits.
Would funding need to be restored if Republicans, in full and complete control for Congress for 12 years, had funded it properly in the first place?
