Maybe we're losing.

I think we don't hear about it as much because:

1.) It is a pretty steady stream of bad news, with about 2.3 Americans killed per day.

2.) There really isn't any debate any more about whether we should have gone in or not.

3.) Nobody really believes we are going to leave there, and there is no end in sight.

4.) The opposition party is embarrassed they didn't take a stand at the beginning, so they don't/can't make an issue of it today.

5.) This war has been run so that the American public is not involved. Hell, we aren't even paying for it- it's on credit!

Nationalism has fizzled into apathy. It's a giant shit sandwich that we all are going to have to keep taking a bite of and paying through the nose for. Most American's don't feel any safer for the $285 billion already spent.

PS- Crid, I can't tell if you are serious or just baiting us so-called lefties...

Agreed in all respects save one; who you callin' "so-called"?

We finally meet in the middle! Praise Jesus! I want a Hallelujah from the redhead!

That would depend on what was going on before now. For instance, it is estimated that 3000+ Iraqi's were being murdered per month by Saddam. U.S. death counts are given here. Pay particular attention to comment #1.

Okay, Oligon, so if that's the issue, why aren't we in Sudan? We're talking about the war here. Whether we should be the world's policeman is another issue. If we are in Iraq to be the world's policeman (oh, come on!) then, we have a few unpoliced areas around the world we need to send the military into as well.

And, yes, Eric, it's nice to see you all playing so nicely. And it's only 9:14am PST.

> I want a Hallelujah from
> the redhead!

She doesn't do Hallelujahs... Ask anybody!

> it is estimated that 3000+
> Iraqi's were being murdered
> per month by Saddam.

Excellent comment, Oli. I think we were largely responsible for the wretchedness in Iraq before the invasion, too. The death meter is still spinning backwards, even if it's recording American deaths. Now personally, I think the deaths of American soldiers are worth more than the deaths of many other kinds of people... These kids, had they survived or not come home maimed, would have gone on to lead especially productive, nurturing, taxpaying lives as Americans in the decades ahead. Besides, they're, y'know, OURS. So these losses hurt like Hell even if they're a statistical trickle. (They tend to be the most promising of our minorities, too, and that makes it even worse.) But we have a tremendous responsibility in Iraq. If anyone had a imagined a way to pay that debt bloodlessly, I wish they'd have mentioned it. Earlier. Like about 1974.

And tell us how you did that hyperlink.

> why aren't we in Sudan?

The word "policeman" grotesquely oversimplifies what we're talking about here. People used to use the word "oil" with the same effect... But lately, they've learned to feel shame for being so naive.

> it's nice to see you all
> playing so nicely.

Let's put a stop to THAT. Reviewing with an eye towards irritation:

> 1.) It is a pretty steady
> stream of bad news

Bad news PRODUCT. In the course of my lifetime, TV has lost its preeminence as a source, and newspapers now follow. For good reasons. In a book from many years ago called Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, Jerry Mander argued that TV can show death much more readily than life. Death is a discreet event, often with a single cause, often with visually distinctive features, that occurs in a bounded (and thus broadcast-able) period of time. Life isn't like that. As American fulfillment exploded in the postwar era, Cronkite and company would have had you thinking that things couldn't have been worse. All these points apply equally to the New York Times... It's the nature of journalism, in Iraq as in America. No good news from Baghdad will chart as nicely as the deaths from Oli's link.

The United States has chosen to live closer to its cherished values by chasing a loathsome tyrant from an important land. This is some of the best news of my lifetime.

> 2.) whether we should
> have gone in or not.

Perhaps Americans have figured out that we did the right thing, even if it hurts our short-term interests in any number of ways. Americans are geniuses and subtle.

> 3.) there is no end
> in sight.

I don't know why this would forestall conversation. And I think we might lose this thing. But you never know how things will play out when you start war. GHWB had no idea that we'd be permanently sheltering the millions Kurds when he began Gulf War I. Nobody knew the no-fly zones were going to be sustained across three administrations. I'm certain that the positive outcomes from this invasion, even if murky and trivial to us today, will ripple through history until the end of time.

> 4.) The opposition party is
> embarrassed they didn't take
> a stand

Don't make it sound mechanical. This wasn't a paperwork error at the DNC office that happened over a holiday weekend, when Kerry happened to be out windsurfing as his cellphone sat ringing in his pants on the beach. Democrats supported this war because it was in line with their own thinking, the thinking of the vast majority of their constituents, and voluminous rhetoric from their own leadership over the previous decade.

> 5.) This war has been run so
> that the American public is
> not involved.

I can't argue with the most practical financial angle... Bush's fiscal insanity is globally historic. But the reason the Americans aren't broadly involved (as in WWII) is that we don't need to be. We're huge. And there's a difference between 'feeling safe' and being safe. We're safer from Kissingerian hypocrisy than we used to be, and that counts for something.

(Bitchslap issued 10:14am PST)

Godammit, missed you on the radio again. Was it good?

It was. Love doing Tammy's show. She's going to have me on even more often, her producer tells me. Talked about my Whole Foods SUV weenie.

In all seriousness, is it really fair to compare inner-city crime to an actual military war zone?

Yes, the media should be reporting it. But comparing Iraq to Detroit or Dallas is silly.

LYT is right. Watts is a mess (I'm there on a daily basis), but it ain't Baghdad.

Rarely have I found a more obvious misuse of media.

First: comparing any theater of battle to another in such simplistic fashion is fallacious at best, and demonstrative of malice or ignorance at worst. Why? The death rate must always be compared to the goal and the benefits of that goal. I have not a care in the world what the death rate in Iraq vs. Vietnam, Korea, accident rates, etc. is because they are irrelevent.

Next: why is it that we are treated to a view of reporting in the USA, by comparison? We accept thousands of deaths per year by automobile, reporting them while not crediting anyone anything for advanced driving instruction, or even acknowledging that such is available; we neglect reporting of a thousand or so gang killings per year in each of the dozen or so major metro hotspots for same because "that would be racial profiling".

In short, horrible things happen here already that we have decided are just not newsworthy.

I wonder why it is that the efforts of people I know personally who have served in Iraq do not see their stories told. Don't you?

I am also wondering what this means: "We're safer from Kissingerian hypocrisy than we used to be, and that counts for something." Right now, we are operating under the War Powers Act, which was passed so that Congress could sit back and point at how wrong the President was while they shirked their actual duty. We don't have a WAR in Iraq because Congress has not declared one. This is allowing all sorts of dishonesty from every quarter, including the cultural fratricide you're seeing even now.

> wondering what this means:
> "We're safer from Kissingerian
> hypocrisy

Realpolitik was rightly condemned by peaceniks in the Viet Nam era as a moral abomination. I wish everyone prattling nowadays about how "You can't *inflict* democracy on people!" would acknowledge their implicit endorsement of the Dark Side of the Force.

> We don't have a WAR in Iraq
> because Congress has not
> declared one.

This is sociological change. How many of our large military operations have been declared as war by congress? People are well aware of what's going on in Iraq. There's no "cultural fratricide." People righteously disagree.

Paperwork will not protect us.

Crid "Paperwork will not protect us."
Not even signing statments ? ( Sarcasm )
I guess it's "socialogical change" all right when Congress sits on its collective duff while the administration makes a mockery of responsiveness to the people : of course, if the place hadn't been sold out many times over ....