Are we at war with Islam?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by x-factor

I'd rather fight the harder fight with honor than have my kids grow up with the moral stain of some of the more expedient solutions suggested in this thread. Maybe I'm a foolish Jeffersonian idealist, but I think its worth the risk to try and preserve the flower of our society.

I have not suggested that we do anything of the sort.

On the other hand, I think that it would be prudent to do some worst case planning. As noted, with age comes pragmatism and reality, except for the most diehard of libs.

I also think that most of the American Muslims, even the more radical ones, would be ripe for recruitment as anti-radical insurgents, if they saw the dichotomy of the Muslim states as practiced, rather than as preached.

If you want to look at historical examples, I further recommend examining treatment of Loyalists during the Revolutionary War and Unionists in the Confederacy (or Confederate sympthizers in the North).

I would rather fight those who have no honor without it myself, rather than see my children not grow up at all. Sometimes, you have to amputate a limb to save the patient. Did Lincoln destroy the Union when he suspended Constitutional rights and freedoms?

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Did Lincoln destroy the Union when he suspended Constitutional rights and freedoms?

TR

Glad to see you've changed your mind about our greatest President!

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Glad to see you've changed your mind about our greatest President!

I did not say that.

I will grant you that I believe he was better than Jimmy Carter.

TR

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I have not suggested that we do anything of the sort.

To be clear, I wasn't implying that you had. I was responding to the general issue your rhetorical question raised, not to you in particular.

On the other hand, I think that it would be prudent to do some worst case planning. As noted, with age comes pragmatism and reality, except for the most diehard of libs.

I don't want to give the impression that a) I believe anyone here has anything but good intentions or b) I don't think anything needs to be done. I already mentioned a couple of pragmatic policies I think would be appropriate (domestic CT agency ala MI5, beefed up surveillance capability to include more judges to speed up the warrant process, etc) and your notion on recruiting American Muslims is another one. I think its important to distinguish, as Peregrino said, between policies that enforce our existing laws and ones that rewrite them.

As for worst case planning, certainly I'm all for that too, but even in the worst case there's still lines we shouldn't cross and creative tactics that we can use to avoid having to cross them.

My concern is that we don't seriously damage half a millenium (at a minimum) of evolution towards a better world (from the Protestant Reformation to the Enlightenment to present day America) out of panic.

I would rather fight those who have no honor without it myself, rather than see my children not grow up at all. Sometimes, you have to amputate a limb to save the patient. Did Lincoln destroy the Union when he suspended Constitutional rights and freedoms?

I know we made amends for Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and the Japanese internment after the threats had abated, but still we need to be very careful its a slippery slope.

We amputate one limb for this enemy and what about the next one? Or the enemy after that? Again, like Peregrino said, we can win and still fail.

Nevermind that I think some of the harsher methods won't work anyway. The more overtly draconian in dealing with our own Muslim citizenry we get the more we'll just be playing to the jihadists' hand and helping radicalize the fence-sitters both at home and abroad. I'm going to paraphrase Peregrino one more time since his last post was so good: the key to the fight is proving our way of life is better, not confirming the enemies' lies about it.

[3SoldierDad]

Originally Posted by x-factor

My concern is that we don't seriously damage half a millenium (at a minimum) of evolution towards a better world (from the Protestant Reformation to the Enlightenment to present day America) out of panic....

I know we made amends for Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and the Japanese internment after the threats had abated, but still we need to be very careful its a slippery slope....

We amputate one limb for this enemy and what about the next one? Or the enemy after that? Again, like Peregrino said, we can win and still fail...

Well written. I agree ...I'm almost persuaded to take back some of my harsh exhortations. I love our country, my family and my fellow citizens....

I'm deathly concerned, however. I dare say I don't think we have had or will ever have an enemy like this one again in our history.

Couple thoughts...

• America is special - We need to take care not to damage our freedom and liberties
• We do need to think through our contigencies - Once hell breaks loose - Hell is upon us.
• We need to work with the American Islamic community to recognize how to preserve their best interests in America.
• We need to be infinitely vigilant to preserve our freedoms and way of life - to enforce the laws we have and reorganize our capabilities to protect ourselves.

Everything is in God's hands.

Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

[3SoldierDad]

The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.

BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.

What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.

The Iranians, of course, never cease denying that they intend to build a nuclear arsenal, and yet in the same breath they openly tell us what they intend to do with it. Their first priority, as repeatedly and unequivocally announced by their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to "wipe Israel off the map"--a feat that could not be accomplished by conventional weapons alone.

See the rest of the ariticle...It's quite insightful.

http://opinionjournal.com/federation.../?id=110010139

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

[The Reaper]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...nding_war.html

May 30, 2007
Unending War
By Cal Thomas

Before Congress adjourned last week on another of its lengthy holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated a phrase she has previously used about the war in Iraq. She again referred to it as "the Bush policy of unending war in Iraq."

She got it partly right. It is an unending war, at least until one side vanquishes the other side. There will be no truce in this war; no "38th Parallel" as with the two Koreas. This war will be unending, not because of the "Bush policy," but because of the Islamofascists whose jihad they believe is a direct order from their "compassionate and merciful" God. Some compassion; some mercy.

Were the dominant surrender wing of the Democratic Party to have its way, American troops would immediately come home, causing all of Iraq to devolve into murderous chaos. There would be religious retribution against those who not only worship differently from the majority, but also the murder of "collaborators," meaning those who voted, assisted in the writing of Iraq's constitution and helped the U.S. while trying to help themselves.

As the Pentagon reportedly drafts scenarios related to U.S. troop withdrawal, the enemy plans for victory. Al-Qaida's number two (an appropriate designation for those who can remember junior high humor), Ayman al-Zawahiri, has urged his supporters to extend the "holy war" to other Middle Eastern countries. Zawahiri sent a letter to the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, claiming al-Qaida is defeating U.S. forces and urging followers to expand their campaign of terror. Clearly, Zawahiri sees this as an unending war. He is not planning a pullback of his forces, but urging them on.

In Lebanon, a country that until last summer's disastrous war between Israel and Hezbollah had enjoyed a level of peace and prosperity, Islamic forces in the siege at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp reportedly have spent months digging underground bunkers in advance of an anticipated battle they promise will last "two years or more." The Sunday Telegraph reports Shihab al-Qaddour, the deputy leader of the Fatah al Islam group (another number two), said his band of several hundred "battle-hardened" fighters had built extensive subterranean fortifications. Fatah's military commander is quoted as saying his group is "ready to blow up every place in Lebanon."

Unending.

The SITE Institute, which monitors jihadist Web sites from its base in the U.S., reports a flood of support for Fatah al Islam from members of Internet forums affiliated with al-Qaida since fighting broke out a little more than a week ago. Democrats repeatedly say we should only be fighting al-Qaida, so does that mean we should invade Lebanon? Since al-Qaida is in Iraq, shouldn't we continue the fight there until we and the Iraqis prevail?

This political battle in America isn't about al-Qaida and it isn't about victory, otherwise Democrats would be trying to help their country win in Iraq, not just for the sake of Iraq, but for their country's sake. Instead, the liberal and controlling wing of their party cares more about political victory here than ending this war with victory for Iraq, establishing a second democracy in the region and teaching the jihadists a lesson they will not soon forget.

Wars are frustrating. People die. Mistakes are made. The United States has made many mistakes in previous wars, but the nonstop media weren't broadcasting them in real time, as they are in this one. And where is the media balance depicting honor and heroism?

The Iraq war is not like Vietnam. We can't pull out until stability is achieved and the terrorists lose. Vietnamese communists didn't come after us when that war ended, but Islamic terrorists will and are coming after us. They will be emboldened to kill more than the 3,000 who died on September 11 if we don't demonstrate resolve at least equal to theirs.

Among America's past enemies, only Japan had a religious motivation for fighting us. Douglas MacArthur rightly separated religion from state when he was in charge of Japan's reconstruction. That is a worthy objective in this war, but first we have to win it, or it will truly be unending until they win it.

CalThomas@tribune.com

[The Reaper]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...leaving_i.html

May 30, 2007
The Hard Truth About Leaving Iraq
By Ed Koch

To those who believe that when America leaves Iraq, Islamic terrorists will be satisfied and stop fighting, I say this: wake up. The hard truth is that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will continue their attacks on Americans everywhere, including our homeland. And they will use Iraq as the new base of their terrorist regime.

In a May 28th New York Times article, reporters Michael Moss and Souad Mekhennet provided a chilling report on what the future holds. The article begins, "When Muhammad al-Darsi got out of prison in Libya last year after serving time for militant activities, he had one goal: killing Americans in Iraq. A recruiter...told him he was not needed in Iraq. Instead, he was drafted into the war that is seeping out of Iraq. A team of militants from Iraq had traveled to Jordan, where they were preparing attacks on Americans and Jews..."

In other words, the terrorist jihad will continue and many of the terrorists will be those who are now fighting in Iraq. It cannot be stated often enough that the goal of the Islamic terrorists is the destruction of Western civilization and the restoration of the caliphate. The caliphate would unite all Muslims in one theocratic state, running from and including Spain to Indonesia, encompassing nearly 1.4 billion Muslims.

In a Times article on May 27th by Michael Gordon and Alissa Rubin, they report, "'Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans to leave,' said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the parliament." The article continues, "A bare majority of Iraq's 275-member parliament recently signed a petition promoted by Mr. Sadr that called for a timetable for American troops to depart. Even so, the petition said the Americans should not leave until Iraqi security forces were ready to take over the job...[A Shiite tribal sheik said] 'But leaving, withdrawing completely from Iraq, that means erasing Iraq from the map.'"

The article reported on a poll taken by ABC News in Baghdad which showed, "About 64 percent of Baghdad residents [polled in February and March] said American forces should remain until security was restored...or until Iraqi forces could operate independently."

Everyone, including the president and his advisers, and of course, his Democratic opponents, recognize that the heretofore efforts and tactics of the U.S. have not prevailed and must change. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said recently, "I think that the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it." The "surge," an increase of 30,000 American soldiers on the ground, will be over by then. If it works, we can all admit our doubts that it would.

What will the "different direction" that McConnell referred to be? The radical Democratic left inside the Congress led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid and their supporters believe that the U.S. should get out now and certainly no later than early next year. From the administration come vague comments that there may be a reduction of 100,000 troops in the wind sometime in 2008. The Times reports in a May 26th article by David E. Sanger and David S. Cloud, "The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate."

In my judgment, were it possible to remain in Iraq and accomplish the obvious goals of bringing a true peace among the warring parties -- Sunni, Shiite and Kurd -- with a stable central government accepted by all, that would, of course, be ideal. But the Shiite majority does not want to forgive the Sunnis who oppressed them for so many years, and will not share government power or oil revenues with them. The Sunnis, who are 20 percent of the population, appear to be militarily more capable than the Shia and are primarily responsible for the car bombs and the improvised explosive devices that have killed American soldiers and Iraqis, both military personnel and civilians. It is devastating for American soldiers to learn that those serving in the Iraqi army, being trained by and fighting alongside American soldiers, cannot be trusted.

A May 28th Times article by Michael Kamber reported on an incident in February "When [American] soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber's body, they found identification showing him to be a Sergeant in the Iraqi army." Kamber quotes an American soldier, "I thought 'what are we doing here? Why are we still here?...We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us."

My own view is that the administration should demand the Iraqi government pass the power and oil sharing changes immediately, and if it doesn't, we should get out immediately. Further, and I have stated it many times, we should give our regional Arab and NATO allies an ultimatum that if they don't come in now with troops, we will leave immediately.

Waiting for the Iraqi army to be battle ready is like waiting for Godot. They seem to know how to kill U.S. soldiers and terrorize each other and innocent civilians, but are unable to keep the peace.

Many Americans refuse to believe the Islamic terrorists are a threat to the free world and those who talk of the danger are thought of as war mongers. They simply refuse to take them at their word as many refused to take Hitler's warnings in Mein Kampf seriously. In the Times article of May 29th, written by Michael Powell, he quotes a woman in Atlanta asking candidate Giuliani, "Why does so much of the world hate us? Haven't we failed to understand Arab grievances? We misinterpret their word 'jihad' which is not necessarily a hostile word." Truly an Alice In Wonderland view.

A terrorist recently convicted in Great Britain was deported to Jamaica after trial. The Times reports in an article of May 26th by Alan Cowell, "Mr. Faisal had been convicted in February 2003 of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred...urging his followers to kill Hindus, Christians, Jews and American citizens...During Mr. Faisal's trial, prosecutors played a videotape showing him telling 150 young followers after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States that the Koran justified attacks on non-Muslims. He was also heard to promise teenage Muslim boys that their reward in paradise would be 72 virgins if they died as religious martyrs."

You can't make this stuff up. Will we and the rest of the Western world wake up in time so that we can survive the 30-year war that will take place after we leave Iraq? They want to kill us, and apparently, many Americans don't believe it.

One more thought. If we stay, we should tell the Iraqi people in each province that if a significant number of them support the insurgents and terrorists against our soldiers, or if a significant number of them do not step forward and assist us by providing information to protect us from the insurgents and terrorists, we will leave that province and not protect them from those who want to kill them in a religious civil war. Perhaps the recognition that U.S. soldiers will no longer be considered expendable may raise thoughts of cooperation, if only for their own self-protection.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

I don't know if this is true; Iran negotiations?

Beautiful shots of the US Navy.
Thanks to all those on board, where ever you may be.

(add the http://)

patdollard.com/2007/05/30/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-our-talks-with-iran/

[3SoldierDad]

Originally Posted by pegasus

I don't know if this is true; Iran negotiations?

Beautiful shots of the US Navy.
Thanks to all those on board, where ever you may be.

(add the http://)

patdollard.com/2007/05/30/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-our-talks-with-iran/

What No One Is Telling You About Our Talks With Iran

Watching the pundits discuss our historic meeting with Iran, you would have mostly heard despair at the notion that we have no leverage in these talks, and so therefor why would Iran give on anything? Why would they stop waging war against us in iraq if they have nothing to fear? To all the experts in the media, the whole thing seemed like some grand puzzlement. Was it just an attempt to appease the administration’s domestic critics who have been chiding it for not engaging in diplomacy ( a vaguery if there ever was one ) with the world’s top terrorist? No one you heard from could really quite grasp what was going on.

For some reason, no one told you that just 5 days before Monday’s talks, an entire floating army, with nearly 20,000 men, comprising the world’s largest naval strike force, led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Stennis, and also comprising the largest U.S. Naval armada in the Persian Gulf since 2003, came floating up unnanounced through the Straight of Hormuz, and rested right on Iran’s back doorstep, guns pointed at them. The demonstration of leverage was clear. And it also came on the exact date of the expiration of the 60 day grace period the U.N. had granted Iran.

And it came just a few weeks after Vice President Dick Cheney had swept through the region and delivered a very clear and pointed message to the Saudi King Abdullah and others: George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran’s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure if they do not abandon their drive for military nuclear capability. Plain and simple. Iran heard the message as well, and although a lack of leverage may seem clear to America’s retired military tv talking heads, it is not so clear to the government in Tehran.

The message to both Iran and Syria is that if the talks in Baghdad fail, the military option is ready to go.

The administration is almost freakishly confident, in marked contrast to media reports like the one featuring Newt Gingrich’s attack on the President below. The U.S. is in the midst of another dipolomatic surge through the region to bolster allies for the final showdown with Iran. Moqtada Al Sadr has sent signals he may be ready to break with Iran. And, frankly, the military turnaround in Al Anbar province is of greater strategic significance than the increase in U.S. casualties this month. In addition, the surge is still not entirely deployed, and whole key neighborhoods of Baghdad have yet to be entered. While John McCain was being mocked for having to wear a flak jacket in a Baghdad market, the bigger story was that his son, a Marine newly deployed to the Al Anbar province, and a frontline grunt at that, was more likely than not to never see a shot fired in an area that until just weeks ago was called “the most dangerous place on earth”.

Oh, and preparations are under way for the construction of new U.S. airbases in Kurdistan, so we are not, under any circumstances, giving up a firmbase posture throughout Iraq.

And special props to VP Cheney who had nearly been ordered by his doctors to not even make the first trip. A compromise was had and he flew with a physician. He is preparing for a trip to Iran’s various northern neighbors like Uzbekistan and Khazekstan to shore up our position for offensives from the north.
We want to have them entirely surrounded.

Pegasus, great little overview of what's going on...

I love this quote...

George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran’s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure if they do not abandon their drive for military nuclear capability.

Thank you...Thank you - I needed to hear that. I really did...Lest I lose my mind as our planet careens toward insanity.

As I and others have noted before, President Bush has made numerous mistakes in the GWOT - mostly in Iraq (that's not to say we shouldn't be there) - However, the best news in the GWOT is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS FIGHTING THE WAR....Needless to say, our CIC has made more errors than precinct moves in this cosmic struggle...If this war were a game, we've had a bad first half...Since this will be The Long War - A bad first five minutes.

Yet, if he (a) Gets Iran to back down or (b) bombs their nuclear capability back into the middle ages - He will have redeemed himself totally in my book...

We have only cursorily engaged the real enemy in this war.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

[3SoldierDad]

We have only cursorily engaged the real enemy in this war.

Our enemy is a trinity of sorts - a trinity of darkness... And, each needs to be confronted in several dimensions.

The enemy lives in three forms...

• 1. the enemy state - Iran (The Shia religious leadership)
• 2. the residence of enemy doctrine - Sunni fundamentalist mosques and madrasas; primarily in Egypt, The Gaza/West Bank, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia
• 3. the enemy reality - The Arab street (not the Persian street).

IMO, the reality on the Arab street is historical humiliation - primarily ancient familial jeolousy against the Jew and material jeolousy against the West. This sense of humiliation has metastasized into a sociopathic bitter loathing against the West - America imparticularly - and Israel.

Aside from a bitter hatred against the West and Israel - Arabs once activated by Koranic Islam are profoundly self-loathing - Arabs bitterly hate and distrust themselves. They loathe themselves for historic, religious and familial reasons.

This is why the greatest victims of Islamic violence and murder have been Arabs, are Arabs, and will be Arabs.

The most horrific victims of Jihad since Islam's first century until now are Arabs.

Three Soldier Dad...

.

[The Reaper]

I think that you have to consider conflict across the full spectrum and shape events in the non-combat arena as well.

Conflict is multi-dimensional, with diplomatic/political, informational, economic, as well as military facets.

We need to press foreign governments politically, build allies up, and undermine opponents, while building domestic popular support, as the will of the American people is always the Center of Gravity for us. We need to work the UN better, or at least, as best we can. Tactically, we need to respect and utilize the tribal and religious systems to our advantage.

We have done a terrible job of getting our message out, and the enemy has done a great job of it. The US plays games with and humiliates prisoners and it incites global backlash and two years of media coverage. The enemy saws off civilians' and POWs' heads, drills kneecaps, mutilates bodies, etc., prints and distributes a manual on how to do it, and it gets ten seconds of coverage. The Arab (and Iranian) street needs to get a real news source geared towards them, their culture, and in their language. An anti- al-Jazeera if you will.

We need to find a way to help the HN governments provide economic opportunity and create a middle class in Muslim societies. Their own governments tend to be corrupt and to see graft as a way of life. Look at Yassir Arafat's fortune. How do you think he earned it? While his people lived in abject poverty. And the fat bastard was hailed as a hero when he died. Sanctions need to be imposed on our opponents. How did Sadaam and how do the Iranians continue to receive arms shipments and nuclear processing equipment? I would board, inspect, and sink any ship destined for those countries carrying war or WMD materials.

On the military side, in addition to everything that we are currently doing, we need to be actively supporting Iranian resistance movements and fomenting revolt in Iran. If they have to expend resources on internal security and further alienate the populace, it takes focus away from WMD programs.

Finally, it occurs to me that if we developed a real alternative energy solution, and exploited our own resources in the interim, the region would be a lot less of a concern to us.

Just a few thoughts that our planners may have missed somewhere along the way.

TR

[HOLLiS]

TR,

On the home front, it seems to me, that partisan political fighting is our worse enemy.

Before I continue, allow me to expand that. I was reading a article on the cost of the war at home. Not many people felt the war or it's impact at home. Life just goes on as usual. The American people are pretty isolated with the day to day aspects of the war. That allows politicians to play political football with the war. That in a way aids the enemy. The media also wanting to shape "public opinion" does the same.

I don't think our current political system is capable of running a effective war which is carried on for any duration. Regardless of the planning, the implementation, the achievements or events as they unfold will not be shown in a positive light. The political value for those who seek re-election or political control will out weigh the need for national unity during the time of war.

We have a great system, it is just not for fighting a war.

[3SoldierDad]

Originally Posted by HOLLiS

TR,

On the home front, it seems to me, that partisan political fighting is our worse enemy.

Before I continue, allow me to expand that. I was reading a article on the cost of the war at home. Not many people felt the war or it's impact at home. Life just goes on as usual. The American people are pretty isolated with the day to day aspects of the war. That allows politicians to play political football with the war. That in a way aids the enemy. The media also wanting to shape "public opinion" does the same.

I don't think our current political system is capable of running a effective war which is carried on for any duration. Regardless of the planning, the implementation, the achievements or events as they unfold will not be shown in a positive light. The political value for those who seek re-election or political control will out weigh the need for national unity during the time of war.

We have a great system, it is just not for fighting a war.

If we REALLY get hurt - I mean WMD hits us or where tens of thousands die and everyone feels threatened for their welfare....

Our system is perfect for fighting a war... A war of, for, and by the people can be fought brilliantly. Indeed, I think the day will come when it will be.

Our system is perfect for fighting a REAL war... Problem is folks don't recognize that they are in a war - a real war, yet.

YET!

[HOLLiS]

Originally Posted by 3SoldierDad

If we REALLY get hurt - I mean WMD hits us or where tens of thousands die and everyone feels threatened for their welfare....

Our system is perfect for fighting a war... A war of, for, and by the people can be fought brilliantly. Indeed, I think the day will come when it will be.

Our system is perfect for fighting a REAL war... Problem is folks don't recognize that they are in a war - a real war, yet.

YET!

I am pragmatist, regardless of what we call it, Your last sentence defines the problem. We can discuss the meaning of which word correctly describes the conflict but we are ultimately faced with the grim reality of our political system. As TR stated, "......as the will of the American people is always the Center of Gravity for us."

Which means regardless of how we define it, it is our collective view as American People that will define the situation. The "Culture of Defeat" which effectively cause the US to give South Viet-Nam to the communist is a prime example of this. In 1969, we lost over 16,000 Americans to that war. That cost did not motivate our political system to unity but rather seeing the Military victory in RVN as a loss. We are facing the same mechanism here at home today, that was employed in during the Viet-Nam war.

Even at the height of the Civil War, President Lincoln had to deal with McClellan and the copper heads in the North to keep up the fight and maintaining the Union. I can not think of a more sober time in our history when unity was paramount.