There is a great divide in America between those who are actually fighting the war in Iraq and everyone else. This explains why most Americans think the war was a mistake in the first place but there remains a debate over ending it. If the Americans who aren't suffering from the war had to do so, the war would be over in very short order.

George W. Bush gave a press conference in the summer of 2006 which said it all. When asked if he would ask Americans for sacrifices to win the war, he replied sharply "Americans sacrifice plenty -- they pay taxes." But in fact, almost NO American taxes are being used to pay for the war. The war has been "off-budget" since it began. The money that America pays for "defense" ON-budget actually goes for expensive Cold War era toys, which the grunts in Iraq never see and couldn't use if they did see them. The off-budget money is borrowed, and will have to be repaid (with interest, of course) at precisely the time Baby Boomer retirements peak in the next 20-30 years.

And THEN Americans will pay for the war in reduced benefits. Remember, Social Security and Medicare are NOT welfare programs. Everyone who receives them WORKED for at least ten years (unless disabled). They are funded by regressive payroll taxes that come with the promise of a certain level of support when you most need it -- in your old age. This promise will be broken, if possible, by those who will whine that you cannot raise taxes on the rich to pay for these expenses -- the same voices that have demanded that taxes on the rich be LOWERED in time of war.

For these people, the Tax Cut Traitors, the war in Iraq is a good thing and it doesn't matter if it's won or lost, because in the meantime it serves the purpose of undermining social programs which they hate, because they don't need them and because their tax money goes to fund some of them (though actually the programs are funded mainly by the people who will eventually need them).

So for the Tax Cut Traitors, it doesn't matter if we EVER win in Iraq, as long as our war effort stays low enough so that deficits don't undermine the tax cuts. If we were to actually expand the military enough to WIN the fucking thing, we'd have deficits so huge that the tax cuts would have to go, and when forced to choose between tax cuts and winning, the rich have spoken quite clearly. "Americans sacrifice plenty," their chief spokesman said. "They pay taxes." Not another fucking dime, you grunts.

The problem with throwing these moral degenerates out of power is that MOST Americans also receive the benefit of this Great Divide -- to wit, all but about 5-10% of them have no connection to the reality of the war whatsoever. Though they have gained little from the tax cuts, neither have they had to suffer a draft, or sons and daughters crippled, or any of the things that were commonplace in previous wars. On 9/12/01, most Americans would have GLADLY agreed to sacrifice to bring to justice the murderers on 9/11, but they were never asked to do that. Instead, 5-10% of them were dispatched to fight people who had NOT attacked New York and Washington, while the rest of us were encouraged to go on with our lives as if our fellow Americans weren't suffering.

And when Bush, and now McCain, tell us that we cannot afford to "lose" in Iraq, what they are saying is that we must stay in this situation virtually forever. It's obvious by now that Iraq is too fractured a society to function as a single entity, and it's equally obvious that our presence there isn't changing this. Gen. Petraeus REFUSED to say whether or not he thought we were more secure after the Surge than before, and instead said that we could not afford to pull out any more troops after the Surge ended (which was, remember, the original purpose of the Surge) because it would lead to too much violence.

When John McCain tells us that he thinks we could be out of Iraq in 2013, all he's doing is buying time, and the experience of the Surge proves it. We have two alternatives: beef up our military to fight this war as we fought past wars, by demanding sacrifices from everyone until the enemy was licked, or get the fuck out, because it's WRONG to stick 5-10% of the people with death and hopeless pain while everyone else goes on with their lives.

Anyone who pretends that the present state of affairs can accomplish anything but more slow bleeding is delusional. Or, like Bush and his ilk, perfectly content to watch soldiers die in a war they refuse to fund for victory, so that they can enjoy five yachts instead of only four. John McCain is an honorable man, I believe, but he has made his bed with some very ugly people, and does not deserve to continue the dirty work they started for another four years.

All the President would need to do is bring the pain to Iraq.

Sure, the Iraqi people would suffer, suffer on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War..... but not as bad as the Germans and Japanese suffered during World War II.... you know, no Fire Tornadoes racing up and down the Streets of Baghdad.... no Mushroom Clouds.

Then, if I were in charge of things, once the bad people in Iraq lost their will to fight, I would turn Iraq over to our NATO Ally, Turkey, and let the Turks run that part of the World..... just like they did before World War I.

All indigenous peoples of that area would become Turks.... or they would become Dead Iraqis.

Barring that, the quickest way to end the War in Iraq is for the Draft to be started back up, train Cooks... as well as other Combat Service Support jobs, MPs, and Truck Drivers.... and, bump up the Combat Arms numbers, then have the United States Congress to pass Law stating that there will be no Civilian Security Contractors allowed to function in Iraq..... people I call Mercenaries, because I'm old fashioned.

Then end all Civilian Contractors for the Rebuilding of Iraq, as well as all Civilian Contracts to Companies in Support of the United States Military in Iraq, such as the Civilian Cooks and Truck Drivers, Laundry Workers and the like.

The War in Iraq, without any Profit for Contractors, would be over quickly.

WOW. A lot to respond to here.

You want to make the Iraqi people suffer. Without going into the matter of making people we're supposedly rescuing from tyranny suffer, how could we do that in ways we haven't already used? As I said in a post back on that other thread we met in, neither Bush nor McCain is prepared to enlarge the armed forces because they won't raise taxes. We are already running a massive deficit, so it's unlikely they could possibly borrow much more. The only inexpensive way to do this would be a massive bombing campaign, which would discourage everybody BUT the bad people. As the Brits in 1940 and the Vietnamese in 1970 showed, you cannot win a war by bombing alone. You need boots on the ground. Bush wouldn't put them there, and I don't see how McCain expects to if he won't raise taxes. The Surge is ending because the military feels that it MUST pull the troops out or face massive morale problems.

As to turning the country over to the Turks, all that would accomplish would be to start a war between the Turks and Iranians (and very possibly the Russians, too), which we'd be drawn into one way or another. I said back in 2002 that if we went into Iraq, we had to be prepared to go into every place in the Middle East from Kabul to Algiers. We weren't then and we aren't now. We, as a nation, are simply unwilling to fight a WWII-level war. And that's as much the fault of Bush and his people as anyone else, because to them tax cuts are more important than winning wars anyhow. What the fuck -- THEY aren't getting shot at in Baghdad?

Let me try to put it as simply as I can: if this is a war for civilization, which is what Bush said back in 2003, then let's FIGHT it like it's one. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt didn't whine about taxes. He made them even higher, borrowed whatever he needed, subordinated the economy to the war COMPLETELY, put in place a system of inspectors to make sure nobody was getting fat on the sly (he said that for him, war profiteering was a form of treason) , etc., etc., etc. And he beat two first-class powers in less time than Bush has failed to beat a fourth-rate one.

I TOTALLY agree with what you say about military contractors -- TOTALLY. And in WWII, that sort of shit didn't happen. And yeah, take the profit out of the war and it will quickly be over. But I think you ought to look at whose party is being supported by the war profiteers.

But what I do NOT hear is McCain saying he'll do anything different from what Bush is doing. He wants to cut taxes MORE, which means LESS money to beef up the armed forces. I haven't heard a peep out of him on military contractors, and I think that's because they're big contributors to the Republican Party and he doesn't want to alienate them. In sum, I don't see him as representing a way out of the problem, because he won't attack the root causes of it, which are that we are unprepared as a nation to fight wars that we cannot win quickly and/or on the cheap.

Obama has called for increasing the size of the military, as has McCain, but unlike McCain he has talked about raising taxes which means he understands the need to PAY for it. As for Iraq, he sees, as I think most people do, that very few in this country are willing to pay the REAL price of winning it, including John McCain, so let's collect our chips and split. Iraq should never have been invaded in the first place, as long as the guy who did us the real dirt was alive and living in hope in Afghanistan. So let's stop throwing away the lives of the best men and women this country has to preserve the reputations of a rich punk and his neocon advisers.

You may disagree with that, but I think it's a lot more honest than to say that we must win, but we're not going to do what obviously has to be done to secure that win.

And, I do not believe that Senator McCain will run for a second term if Elected..... so, I do not believe he will honor any Campaign Promise within the realm of Taxes and the Iraq War. Senator McCain will do what he believes is best for the Nation if Elected, not what is best for the Republican Party.

Senator McCain being who he is would also not be worried about how History viewed him because of his not keeping his Campaign Promises, as long as the Nation did not suffer because of it.

As for the Iraqi People, I view them as an ungrateful lot, and believe they had their chance to suffer for their Freedom, didn’t take it, so, they should suffer because of their unwillingness to suffer when they had their shot to fight alongside the United States Military.

And if Turkey takes that area of the World back, well, Iran and or Russia could try to knock on the door of the New Ottoman Empire, but, Turkey is a NATO Member, so, attack Turkey Iran and Russia will not do, as the full force of NATO will land right on top of them... and who wants that?

Taxes are way too low.... a War Tax needs to be started to retire the Iraq War Debt in 5 years.... the total Iraq War Debt.

Then, all Funding for future Operations in Iraq need to be put on the books, not on the Charge Card.... more Tax, on top of the War Tax.

Then the National Debt, without the Iraq War costs needs to be paid down.... more Tax.

If Americans do not like it, they can move to a Nation on Earth which offers a better deal..... but, they would still owe any Tax on the books from their time here.... and they would not be allowed back.

As for the War and Winning.... well, I believe losing would cost the United States much more money in the long run.... and losing a War is never a good thing to have happen.

"Taxes are way too low.... a War Tax needs to be started to retire the Iraq War Debt in 5 years.... the total Iraq War Debt. Then, all Funding for future Operations in Iraq need to be put on the books, not on the Charge Card.... more Tax, on top of the War Tax."

Amen, brother, but do not hold your breath for McCain to do this. He wants to cut taxes MORE -- look at his program.

The wars that I remember or heard about when I was growing up were WWII and Korea and, of course, 'Nam. In all of those wars, it was accepted as a matter of course that taxes went up to pay for them. We ran a deficit, yeah, but the cost of the war was on the books.

You write "Senator McCain being who he is would also not be worried about how History viewed him...as long as the Nation did not suffer because of it." But the nation is NOT suffering -- except for the troops and their families. 90% of the American people have no contact with the war at all, not even in paying for it. The other 10% are being bled white.

If McCain wants to honor those 10%, he ought to be saying something like "HEY, you wusses, supporting the troops means DOING SOMETHING to help them out. If you don't want to fight, then pay for those we do instead of pushing it off onto the next generation." But it's actually the wusses he honors when he calls for making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Wake me up when he changes his mind about that. In the meantime, though I respect the man's service, when HE fought his war, Lyndon Johnson jacked up taxes and we had a draft.