I think it is instructive to consider how some on the right try to frame this debate about the wisdom of our continued involvement in the affairs of the Iraqi people.  The right loves to claim that “Republicans want to ‘WIN’ in Iraq” and that “Democrats want to ‘accept defeat’ in Iraq”.

There is, however, a constantly shifting definition of “winning”, and, therefore, an equally shifting definition of “being defeated”. At its very essence is this erroneous idea that our enemies are making some stand in Iraq and we must “win” against them there or they will have somehow “defeated” us. This view of this involvement in Iraq as some sort of time constrained contest is artificial and tends to skew our perspective away from reality. This is not some global sporting event and we are not in the third quarter of a fixed time game. Our real enemy seeks to outlast us - not on the battlefield in Iraq, but in the timeless worldwide war of ideas and influence. In that war, we “win” when America’s social and economic interest is felt in the world and when those interests prevail in the world. We certainly need to look at that war with a wider, longer view… we definitely want to WIN that war of influence and ideas over the next century.

Is it really sensible to choose Iraq as the hill upon which we will die this decade? Can’t we admit that we made an error in elevating Iraq into some symbolic preeminence that it did not and does not deserve? Our war is against Islamic extremism… and that war will not be won militarily, but socially, politically, and most importantly, economically. Our war is not against Iraqi Sunnis and Shi’ites who really want to fight one another in a turf battle for oil and a 1200 year old grudge match over Islamic interpretation and ascendancy. Let them settle their own intramural differences without our continued muddying influence.

Those of us with a military background know full well that, in the major wars that have engulfed our planet in the last century, America has removed itself from individual battlefields when it became clear that continuing to fight on that spot was not helping us win the larger victory…. when it became clear that that was not the hill we should chose to die on…. but America prevailed in those large wars because we did NOT let ourselves become obsessed with winning any one battle at the expense of overall victory.

I am all for fighting and winning the war against Islamic extremism.  I know full well that our military will play a role at times in that war, but that ideas and economics will play a greater role. From the very outset, I have been against the action in Iraq, not because I didn’t want to fight and win the war against Islamic extremism, but because I did not believe that our planned action in Iraq advanced our cause in that larger more critically strategic war.

Saddam was a terrible and evil man…. but he was an unwitting ally of ours in our war against Islamic extremism. The vision of Islamic extremists has no place for secular nation states like Jordan or Syria or Egypt or Saudi Arabia OR IRAQ. Saddam, therefore, had no vested interest in promoting or assisting an ideology that was bent on his own destruction.

Saddam was an evil dictator, but he did three things very well - three things that we would LOVE for someone to be doing better than we are doing them today, and at less of a cost to America:

1. he kept Islamic extremists from gaining bases of operation in Iraq (and don’t start about Saddam’s support for terrorists - his support was solely for NATIONALIST terror organizations and, as repugnant as they were and are, they are not the same as the Islamic extremists that threaten us).

2. He kept rival Muslim sects from slaughtering one another in a country that was unique for its arbitrarily conflated mixed population of Sunnis and Shi’ites and Kurds on the border between Arabia and  Persia…. and

3. He acted as a foil against Iranian regional hegemony.

We need to admit that we will NEVER be able to do those three things as well as Saddam did them and that we committed a tactical blunder by removing him from power and forcing ourselves to occupy a large portion of our military, our economy, and our diplomatic energy in trying to keep Iraq from boiling over when we could much more effectively use those assets to our benefit elsewhere in the world.

No one wants DEFEAT in the war on Islamic extremism, but I think we should consider accelerating our departure from the battlefield we created in Iraq and, instead, focusing our efforts on winning the WAR against Islamic extremism that we should have been fighting in the first place.

There is a Chinese curse, which often is said to be a proverb, “May you live in interesting times.” Well we do, perhaps it’s always been so. The past 6 months have proven it, as we head towards the election of 2008. It seems it should be a very serious election during a time of war; even those that are unhappy that we are at war must realize that we are and the outcome matters?

So what do we have? On the more interesting side we have the candidate of self-professed ‘experience.’ Other than proximity, that seems pretty difficult to measure. She got it through osmosis? Or maybe she came upon it by some different type of sex, depending on the definition? Oh yeah, she’d be the first woman elected, that should be a point, but she failed to make that one.

The other candidate on that side, well it seems that he’s selling ‘redemption’ for our tired souls or maybe he’s just trying out for making EMT commercials? No doubt he ‘inspires’, but what has he really said? The only difference I’ve seen between him and Hillary, to his credit, he doesn’t want to force those that choose to go without insurance to pay for it. It’s a point. Did I mention he was black? That wouldn’t stop me from voting for him and I’ve bantered about doing so, but it’s become an issue, as he’d be the first Black president.

The other political party brings less to the table and will likely lose, unless the other side wants to hand it to them. Seems most likely that the nominee will be a 70 year old ‘Maverick’ or firebrand. C’mon, 70 year olds are neither. Crotchety, cranky, immoveable perhaps. Maverick? Not playing. Will I vote for him? I really don’t know.

Why don’t I know? I can list so many reasons not to. Then there are Ms. Experience and Mr. Change. I know that with him conservatism is out the window, but it’s been so with the last two Republican presidents too. It could be argued that Clinton was more conservative than either Bush. What can also be argued is that McCain has more in common with Bush II than I, regarding the War on Terror. I’m well aware that he flirted with a timeline withdrawal of troops, back in 2006, then again, Bush was still stuck with the less is more take on war.

Both of the alternatives are for withdrawal as soon as possible and increasing our taxes, though they differ in what, how, and exactly which groups. Mr. Maverick has a record of somewhat holding spending down, while being cantankerous regarding following conservative issues. All of the leaders, regardless of party will open the amnesty far and wide, leaving the borders open.

So who to vote for?