Bush continues to try and define an Iraq victory

With popular support for the war in Iraq dwindling, the casualty count rising daily (four military personnel were reported killed on November 30), and recent criticism of the White House's strategy by decorated Marine Vietnam veteran and Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, President Bush and his advisors are attempting to retake the offensive in the PR war.

On Wednesday, November 30, the White House released a document entitled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," which was accompanied by a Bush speech at the United States Naval Academy.

Did he outline a new strategy? Has victory been defined? What does it say about the prospect of getting the bulk of American forces out of Iraq? Are there any other tid-bits that surfaced that help us understand the administration's thinking?

Total victory: The only acceptable outcome for Bush

Bush has been steadfast in saying the US will not give up on its efforts in Iraq. In this speech, he once again declared that there is no other outcome he will accept other than victory -- and victory on his terms.

"I will settle for nothing less than complete victory. In World War II, victory came when the Empire of Japan surrendered on the deck of the USS Missouri. In Iraq, there will not be a signing ceremony on the deck of a battleship. Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation."

"There is only one way to honor the sacrifice of Corporal Starr and his fallen comrades -- and that is to take up their mantle, carry on their fight, and complete their mission."

With only "complete victory" a possibility, the question becomes, if we are to achieve it, we have to defeat some group. And who is the enemy?

"The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists."

The three-headed nature of the enemy complicates the road to victory, as each group has its own motivations and will require a different approach to overcome. Some may be defeated by giving up arms and joining the political process (rejectionists and perhaps some Saddamists), while others will undoubtedly have to be killed in battle or taken into custody (some Saddamists and most terrorists).

Bush provides the Administration's insight into each group, its motivations, and its future.

• Rejectionists:
  

  "The rejectionists are by far the largest group."
  
  "These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group."
  
  "Many Sunnis boycotted the January elections -- yet as democracy takes hold in Iraq, they are recognizing that opting out of the democratic process has hurt their interests."
  
  "We believe that, over time, most rejectionists will be persuaded to support a democratic Iraq led by a federal government that is a strong enough government to protect minority rights.

• Saddamists:
  

  "The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller, but more determined."
  
  "It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein -- people who still harbor dreams of returning to power."
  "These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community."
  
  "They lack popular support and therefore cannot stop Iraq's democratic progress. And over time, they can be marginalized and defeated by the Iraqi people and the security forces of a free Iraq."

• Terrorists:
  

  "The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda."
  
  "Many are foreigners who are coming to fight freedom's progress in Iraq. This group includes terrorists from Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and Iran, and Egypt, and Sudan, and Yemen, and Libya, and other countries."
  
  "They're led by a brutal terrorist named Zarqawi -- al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq -- who has pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden."
  "Their objective is to drive the United States and coalition forces out of Iraq, and use the vacuum that would be created by an American retreat to gain control of that country. They would then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America, and overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, and try to establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain."
  
  "They will fail. America's will is strong. And they will fail because the will to power is no match for the universal desire to live in liberty."

Bush's three elements of victory: Political, security, and economic

Bush went on to talk about how the US would secure victory. In fighting a three-headed enemy, he spoke about a three-pronged effort that he believes will lead to victory.

"To achieve victory over such enemies, we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy in Iraq."

"Our strategy in Iraq has three elements."

"On the political side, we know that free societies are peaceful societies, so we're helping the Iraqis build a free society with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the interests of all Iraqis. "

"On the security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive against the enemy, cleaning out areas controlled by the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, leaving Iraqi forces to hold territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives."

"And on the economic side, we're helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure, reform their economy, and build the prosperity that will give all Iraqis a stake in a free and peaceful Iraq. In doing all this we have involved the United Nations, other international organizations, our coalition partners, and supportive regional states in helping Iraqis build their future."

But no timeline, and an open door for more troops

For those hoping for a troop reduction or a timeline on troop withdrawals, the President did not offer anything positive. Instead, he restated his view that the job will be done no matter the time or number of troops required.

"We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. If our military leaders tell me we need more troops, I will send them."

The purpose of victory?

Interestingly, the President stated:

"Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere -- but I believe they're sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory."

So just what is our purpose? Originally, we were told we invaded Iraq to eliminate the threat of a rogue and dangerous regime that we believed had or would soon acquire weapons of mass destruction that would be used against the United States. However, there are many anti-Bush critics who claimed the invasion of Iraq was simply part of a broader goal of the neo-conservative movement to secure and democratize the Middle East and increase the security of Israel. Bush's own words seem to echo this aspiration.

"In the short run, we're going to bring justice to our enemies. In the long run, the best way to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East."

"Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. Freedom's victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, and spread hope across a troubled region, and lift a terrible threat from the lives of our citizens. By strengthening Iraqi democracy, we will gain a partner in the cause of peace and moderation in the Muslim world, and an ally in the worldwide struggle against -- against the terrorists. Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is the mission that created our nation -- and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans. We will meet the challenge of our time. We will answer history's call with confidence -- because we know that freedom is the destiny of every man, woman and child on this earth."

So, what about that victory?

From the speech, we learned from Bush his views on why, who, and how we were fighting in Iraq. But the bulk of the speech was spent on pointing out the success of training the new Iraqi army and police force. While it is promising to hear that the Administration and military have learned lessons and are changing some of their tactics -- and according to Bush, seeing more success -- the reality is that this is simply a continuation of the existing policy: A policy of training Iraqis so they can do what are soldiers, private security personnel, and support staff do now. It may be improved, but it's the same old policy, and the cost in American soldiers continues to rise because most won't come home until victory has been declared. As Bush said:

"And as the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down -- and when our mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will return home to a proud nation."

Will even Bush-backers support the war in 1, 3 , or 5 more years? According to Bush, the strategy will not change until victory is acheived or his term ends.

"Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends."

"To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief."

A President with a bad track record for predicting the future

On May 1, 2003, Bush said on the deck of the carrier, with the infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign in the background:

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

"The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory."

Over two and one half years later, that statement doesn't seem to ring true as Bush said:

"Before our mission in Iraq is accomplished, there will be tough days ahead."

For the future Marine officers in the audience who may soon be on foot in Iraq, it could not have been comforting. If the tide had turned in May of 2003, why are so many soldiers being killed by IEDs in Iraq in 2005? If it hadn't turned, why was the Administration so wrong?

Even those who don't like Bush cannot hope that the war goes badly, because that means more of our soldiers will be wounded and killed. But with "complete victory" a mirage forever years away, we all need to ask: Is Iraqi democracy worth the death of over two thousand Americans?

Sure, we can't go back in time. We can't cut and run. We created the current mess, so now we need to fix it -- or at least stabilize it. But we can and should hold our leaders accountable.

The Iraq War wouldn't be the first time American soldiers suffered as a result of a misguided political agenda. It would be nice to think that it would be the last time.

The Senate finally does the obvious - it tries to make the mistreatment of prisoners outside the law

Yesterday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly in support of an amendment to a military appropriations bill to regulate how the military can treat its prisoners. Led in part by Republican Senator John McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam for over 5 years who was repeatedly mistreated/tortured, the amendment's goal is two-fold: 1) To ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;" and 2) to make US armed forces comply with interrogation techniques as outlined in the latest version of the Army Field Manual.

McCain stated:

"Mr. President, let me just close by noting that I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America. We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world – a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies"

It's tough to argue against the Senator's logic. While it is sometimes inconvenient in situations such as military and police actions, disregarding the rights of others puts us on a slippery slope that has and will continue to lead some to go too far. At least with this amendment in place and part of our laws, Americans can truly point to situations of abuse and say that the perpetrators are not following sanctioned conduct.

By the way, the vote on this amendment was 90-9 (with one Senator not voting). Care to see who wanted to keep mistreatment/torture as a legal tool in our interrogation arsenal? See the voting results here.

So what is the White House response? In the October 5th press briefing, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan made these statements:

"Well, there are already laws on the books, and so I think part of this, if you go back and look at the statement of administration policy that we put out, it would be unnecessary and duplicative. And it would limit the President's ability as Commander-in-Chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism."

"Well, we put out the statement of administration policy, which stated our concerns about that and stated -- let me specifically refer you to it -- our views when it came to if those amendments were part of the final legislation. It said, if it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto, I believe."

So in order to keep the legal capability to mistreat prisoners, the White House is willing to veto the bill, despite the fact that McCain notes the amendment has the support of "28 former high-ranking military officers, including General Joseph Hoar, who commanded Centcom; General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; RADM John Hutson and RADM Don Guter, who each served as the Navy’s top JAG; and LTGEN Claudia Kennedy, who served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence."

Certainly tough times call for tough measures, but when tough, experienced men like McCain say we need to not only condemn, but also make illegal prisoner mistreatment, it's about time we did. Better late than never.

Let's hope this bill and its amendment make it out of Congress, forcing the White House to explain just why they need to keep mistreatment a viable option for our citizen soldiers.

By his terms, the President can't win the War on Terror

On October 6, President Bush delivered a speech that outlined why America was fighting the War on Terror in general, and fighting in Iraq in particular. Given the Administration's declining poll numbers, the speech was an important event. Rather than relying on the right or left to interpret the Administration's strategy and goals, let's examine the President's own words (note that some of the quotes are out of order in order to create logical groupings; hopefully, nothing is taken out of context).

In the President's own words

On the current struggle:

"And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people."

"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century."

"We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy."

On the enemy:

"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom."

"Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda..."

"Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda..."

"Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed."

On the global militant strategy:

"First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions."

"Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments."

"Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia."

"Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves."

"We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world."

On state support of terrorists:

"They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews."

"The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder."

On victory:

"We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won."

"Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder."

On negotiating with the enemy:

"In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder."

The US strategy:

"We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy."

"First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur."

"Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation."

"Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes."

"Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror."

"The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East."

"If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end."

On the progress of the War on Terror:

"Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations."

"We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail."

Examining the message: A can't-win strategy

American soldiers continue to die in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the world as part of the War on Terror (for the most up-to-date official numbers, go to the Department of Defense page here, then on the right column, under "Press Resources," click on "Casualty Reports"). Casualties will occur in any conflict -- whether a military action is viewed as justified, such as WW II, or questioned, such as Vietnam. But America should avoid engaging in a strategy that cannot succeed. We should have clear, achievable objectives (if it can't be won, at least tell us that it's our modern day Alamo, out last glorious stand -- for an ideal we all hold dear or for self-preservation). Unfortunately, the President's own speech demonstrates that his War on Terror -- as he defines it -- is simply unwinnable. Why? Because:

• We are fighting an idea. First, he defines the combatants as a variety of militants and terrorists, banded together by an extreme view of Islam. He then goes on to describe a shared agenda and strategy. He lumps together groups, such as Iraqi insurgents, 9/11 hijackers, and Beslan terrorists, as one and the same, even though their actual agendas and motivations are not identical. What we are really fighting is a series of global skirmishes with a variety of organizations that are loosely grouped together under the banner of extremist Islam. But you can't wage war on an idea, and you can't arrest and kill a concept. Unfortunately, that is what we are doing now.
  
  
• There is no way to win according to his goals. The President says the United States will never back down until it has achieved "complete victory" and "until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken." But is this outcome possible given the three groupings of militants the President described? We could win WW II by forcing the unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany. How can we get all the militants to surrender? They don't answer to one leader or live in one country. No one can stand on the deck of a battleship and sign a peace treaty. And since the President says "no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder," there is no way to achieve victory except through the surrender, capture, or the killing of each and every militant in the world.

We certainly shouldn't back down from a fight that we think is justified. But if we are fighting an idea, don't accept anything but absolute victory, and refuse to contemplate any non-military solutions, victory can never be achieved.

We shouldn't give in to terrorists, and there are many that will fight to the death rather than change their ways. But we can't continue on with this fool-hearted strategy. We need coordinated and dedicated military, law enforcement, diplomatic, cultural, and social efforts to rid the world of the existing terrorists and to prevent the next-generation from emerging.

In his own carefully crafted words, the President outlined a strategy that cannot be successful. It's time for Republicans, Democrats, and others to understand this failure and demand a change.

Our duty is to learn from mistakes, not pretend they didn't happen

There is little debate that the U.S. just can't order its troops, contractors, OGA personnel (i.e., CIA-types), and others to immediately pack their bags and leave Iraq. We've created a huge mess, and the vacuum created by a quick exit – without a properly trained, equipped, and motivated indigenous force in place to replace our personnel – would spell disaster for the already suffering Iraqi population.

That said, a question that no one seems to ask or answer seems extremely relevant. For all those supporters of the invasion, including those in Congress and the American public who were behind the initial invasion, would they have voted for it if they knew some of what we know now:

• The primary justifications for military action, the threat of imminent use or creation of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), turned out to be wrong
  
  
• The human cost would be over 1,800 US soldiers dead (growing weekly) and over ten thousand wounded
  
  
• The financial cost would be hundreds of billions (Question: Whatever happened to Iraqi oil financing the invasion/reconstruction, Mr. Wolfowitz?)

Again, the question is not whether we believed – at the time – Secretary Powell and administration’s UN PowerPoint slides and talk of yellow cake uranium and aluminum tubes. But rather, are the costs outlined above, in terms of international credibility, human life, and dollars, worth the effort to rid the country of its murderous leader? Are they worth it to promote democracy in the region? The neoconservative movement, which believes that Israel's safety begins with a democratization of the region, would have voted for action without the WMD justification. But would the Congress and US public have supported to war knowing that the primary reasons to do so did not exist, and the cost would be so high?

I think it is obvious that a vote in Congress or a public opinion poll in early 2003 would not have supported this action if the WMD reasoning was not used. While this opinion certainly won't help us get out of Iraq, at least it helps redefine the reason we are there. We are really there for an ideal – the neocon view that Iraq needed a regime change – that Americans, both elected and ordinary, would not have supported.

Most Americans, except for a few extremist nut jobs, support our troops. It's a shitty job they have been tasked with, a job most of us can't even fathom. They "embrace the suck" of Iraq everyday, trying to do the right thing. Were there sacrifices – and not just of the dead, but the wounded, both physically and psychologically – worth it? This question seems to have taken center stage now. Nobody want to tell the family of a fallen or wounded soldier that what they did was not worth it.

But the answer is not something that can be wished for. Everyone wants the sacrifice to have been worth it. The sacrifice made by soldiers of any era, even for a misguided policy or mission, should never be belittled. Whether you supported the Vietnam War (at least initially), you would have to be inhuman when walking within the Vietnam Memorial in DC not to sense the incredible magnitude of sacrifice of the over 50,000 Americans who did what they were asked to do. That war may have, in hindsight, been a waste of human, material, and financial resources, but thankfully, in hindsight, the country no longer ignores the sacrifice made by those veterans.

Wrong wars (or police actions or excursions) don't negate sacrifice. Soldiers who died in the hills of Korea, during the failed Iran hostage mission, on the beaches of Grenada, and throughout Iraq deserve our utmost respect, particularly from those of us who like to talk about the use of force and sacrifice but have never been in uniform fighting our countries battles.

But those same soldiers, their families, and the country, need to know that we live in a country that can analyze our actions, understand when we have made mistakes, and learn from those mistakes. After a battle, the military takes pains to analyze what happened and learn from the actions of officers, soldiers, and the enemy. Americans, especially our leaders, need to assess all actions that involve our military. Did we fight for the right reason? Did we give the troops what they needed to win? What can we learn from this engagement to help us avoid repeating mistakes?

Learning from policy mistakes and saving the lives of current and future generations of soldiers should be a top priority as we figure out how to extract ourselves from Iraq. Calling fellow citizens traitors because they don’t support a misguided and mismanaged war is counterproductive at best, and against the very American ideal of free speech and public debate that our soldiers fight for at worst.

Anti-American branding, whining about Bush, and overcoming your political apathy

It's incredibly annoying that some of those in the Right Wing have managed to re-define patriotism. This new brand of patriotism tolerates no dissention. It promotes blind loyalty and labels anyone not conforming to its views as a liberal at best, or a traitor at worst.

What's is so annoying is that: 1) this is an obvious attempt to bury criticism; and 2) that people – both Red and Blue staters – actually put up with this nonsense.

For many people, America is appealing because of its supposed tolerance. We used to relish standing up for the little guy and celebrate diverse opinions. Our fathers and mothers left other countries to practice their religions and make a better future devoid of old world, close-minded thinking. Now some – particularly Right Wing pundits – would have us think that the only true American can be one that backs the Bush administration and its policies (the Iraq War, Social Security reform, etc.). Having a contrary opinion, according to this strain of thought, demonstrates a person’s anti-American tendencies, is clear evidence of their hatred for our country, and belittles the sacrifice of the troops.

Governments need criticism to learn, improve, and do the right thing

So when did having different opinions – having an argument – become a bad idea? In most organizations, input from multiple sources improves the final product. For example, in manufacturing, R&D, marketing, sales, and others help develop new offerings. When writing a book, the collaboration between the primary author, draft readers, and editors makes the final output stronger. In a country as large and diverse as the United States, we should encourage multiple viewpoints, debate the ideas, and then select temporary winners by voting, answering public opinion polls, and supporting the people, products, and services that the wining idea represents.

The beauty of the system is that a prevailing, powerful idea can win. And then it can be found to be the wrong way to go. And then a counter-idea can take root. Don’t like the Bush administration’s policies? Think they are extreme? Convince your fellow American’s and the neo-conservatives will be gone. Don’t really care? Then prepare to bitch about a Bush successor – maybe even brother Jeb – living in the White House for a decade.

In a democracy, there is no guarantee you get what you want. You get what the most people want – or at least what the most vocal or active people want. Or, in the case of the 2000 Presidential election, what the Electoral College voters want.

Often, those who claim to be so concerned about current events don't even bother to get out and vote. I'm no Bush Republican, but let's give them credit for mobilizing their voters and aggressively promoting their issues. Democrats, moderates of all stripes, independents, and others have no one to blame but themselves. Don’t whine because the other folks were elected. Get your candidates elected. Worried about education curriculum being affected by the Christian right? Take a page from their playbook and get you and your like-minded citizens on local school boards.

Everyone has the right to get pissed off about what's going on in the world. But if you don't do something, quit yapping.

What can you do?

• Talk politics with your friends. Sports, the kids, and the latest episode of Lost are easy and enjoyable to talk about, but how about actually trying to engage in a civilized debate about a pressing issue, like our possible troop commitment in Iraq through 2009?
  
  
• Support your candidates and your ideas. Send a check, go to a rally, read your party’s platform (and the opposing party’s agenda). Instead of thinking you know the issues, dig into the issues and understand both sides.
  
  
• Run for office. Some like to say our current President is an idiot. Well, that idiot got elected to the most powerful position on the planet. No matter what you think of his brain, he's done very, very well. He didn't just get handed the election by his daddy or the Christian right, no matter what Al Gore apologists think. He worked hard to be a two-term president.

One of my friends is a smart guy, but a fool for his political beliefs. But then again, he thinks my political views are idiotic. The beauty of our discussions is we can argue, yell, and gesticulate wildly until we are blue in the face. We try and bring facts to the table as often as possible. But the key is we talk about these important topics. We both want America to be strong and an example for the world. We are still miles apart, but at least I know his somewhat defective brain contemplates these things. Unfortunately, that's a lot more than you can say about most people. Most folks seem to be only parrots of their preferred media outlet. They don’t take the time to learn about the people and policies they oppose. They can’t discuss politics, religion, or other social issues because they have a light-weight opinion, but no real thinking or knowledge behind it. And they rarely, if ever, check their facts or go to the best source.

In the end, ignorance and apathy are much more dangerous to America's future than Bush or Kerry.