Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think they can or should. They need to call it a war to insure that we get money and troops for the operation. In addition, no one wants to hear that their son or daughter has died in a "minor military skirmish" in the Middle East.
But anyone with an IQ above six who comments on the war in the media or as a pundit (And especially those that like to see themselves as cutting through the spin and the political B.S.) should see that what is happening is a minor military skirmish and refer to it as such. We should hear over and over again from the pundits that the administration calls this a war, but for a war there are practically no deaths, and for a war this operation is incredibly cheap.
Instead the concept that this is a war is accepted yet everyone focuses on how expensive this war is and how many US military personnel have been lost. However, if you understand that the media is full of liberal morons who don’t understand how important it is that we prevail, and that staying the course is relatively inexpensive in terms of blood and treasure, you get what we have to day. Plus there is the added bonus if they mischaracterize what is happening that will encourage the US population to want to pull out, which they want, and although that will be disastrous for US foreign policy, it will make the Bush administration look bad, which is something they want so badly they are willing to sacrifice the interests of this country.
|
How many Iraqis need to die for it to graduate beyond a skirmish?
Our participation has certainly been half-hearted from a military perspective. Bush was unwilling in the early days, when it would have been effective, to take the risks necessary to execute on his proclaimed objectives, knowing that the level of American casualties would be unacceptable. That was a Catch-22 of his own making, and the problem with waging war with lukewarm support.
But what we have today is probably best described more in the nature of near-anarchy, or possibly insurrection or civil war. But when we have committed essentially all available military personel to the theatre, it's hard not to call it a war - even if we're being cautious about the use of force while they are committed. This is aside from the fact that the only remaining justification for being there that Bush can use with a straight face is that it is part of the "war on terror".
And, yes, given that Bush has trouble explaining why the hell we're there (he certainly never came up with a reason Ford would buy), it is not surprising that those "liberal morons" don't understand how important it is to stay the course. Was Ford a liberal moron?
