Well, this is interesting because it can be used to observe an often mis-understood point: We are talking about two different wars.

The first was a war between the US and Saddam Hussein. We defeated his army, conquered his country, and successfully ended remaining pro-Saddam resistance.

Mission accomplished! Yippie!

The problem was that we now stuck around for the second war - the Iraqi Civil War that was precipitated as a direct and fairly predictable consequence of war no.1. In all fairness, the reason we did this is probably because of some vestigial sense of right and wrong surviving somewhere in the reptilian core of the administration's brains. After all, it wouldn't be right to des...

Well, this is interesting because it can be used to observe an often mis-understood point: We are talking about two different wars.

The first was a war between the US and Saddam Hussein. We defeated his army, conquered his country, and successfully ended remaining pro-Saddam resistance.

Mission accomplished! Yippie!

The problem was that we now stuck around for the second war - the Iraqi Civil War that was precipitated as a direct and fairly predictable consequence of war no.1. In all fairness, the reason we did this is probably because of some vestigial sense of right and wrong surviving somewhere in the reptilian core of the administration's brains. After all, it wouldn't be right to destroy a country and just let it go to pieces... would it? (Don't answer that question.)

The current question is who are we fighting? Who is fighting us? What is our goal? How can we win?

This is what makes it so difficult for Republicans to explain the progress we are making - because we have no particular direction or goal that can be achieved. By their somewhat 19th Century conception of warfare, we already won. The war should end when the government falls. But this is the 21st Century and honestly, I don't think they really understand what is going on.

They don't understand that this conflict is more than a war. It's not an affair of armies and nation states. Its a free-for-all of semi-organized civilian violence. The main targets in this violence are members of Iraqi society, not the US.

We are outsiders, and our intervention is obviously not welcome. Further more, because we have not openly taken a side, we can only stalemate the conflict, not resolve it. In Iraq there is a civil war between the Iranian-supported Shia majority, and the Al-Qaeda-organized Sunni economic elite. Both sides are ostensibly enemies of the US, ironically, even as we fight and support both sides at the same time.

And thanks for your clip, Debby, which provided the quotes that prove my judgment of McCain's ignorance and naivitee was right!

By the way Cabanaben, I like your brain-surgery analogy, because while many of us are good at the things we do, and generally we're all good people, that doesn't make up for the fact that some times one kind of experience doesn't count for another.

Serving in the Senate doesn't count for Executive leadership experience. Serving in the Navy in Vietnam doesn't count for foreign policy experience. Serving on the senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn't count as diplomatic experience.

He's a heck of a guy, and I personally like him a great deal, but I honestly don'...

And thanks for your clip, Debby, which provided the quotes that prove my judgment of McCain's ignorance and naivitee was right!

By the way Cabanaben, I like your brain-surgery analogy, because while many of us are good at the things we do, and generally we're all good people, that doesn't make up for the fact that some times one kind of experience doesn't count for another.

Serving in the Senate doesn't count for Executive leadership experience. Serving in the Navy in Vietnam doesn't count for foreign policy experience. Serving on the senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn't count as diplomatic experience.

He's a heck of a guy, and I personally like him a great deal, but I honestly don't see any vision or experience that prepares him to lead the country.