Written by: Goemagog

In a fit of frenchness, Bush says that the war probably can't be won.

Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

The problem here is that from the start the administration and most of it's critics have talked about terrorism and a war on terrorists. This is not about terrorism and never was. Declaring a war on "terrorism" would be akin to declaring WW2 to be a war against naval aviation. The terrorists are not random loonies acting on whim or on orders from their neighbors dog, they're mercenaries in the employ of foreign powers.

They hate us because we're not, as a society, submissive to their religious beliefs. This hatred would never extend past marches and protests without the mercenary organizations who hire fanatics for attacks. Those organizations are employed by nations. Two of those countries have been invaded and their government toppled, but a number remain untouched and unthreatened. How can we win a war against the mercenary organizations that use terrorism when we refuse to make war on most of their employers. The most well-known leader of a mercenary "terrorist" organization is Arafat, not bin Laden, but Arafat hides behind U.S. protection as he terrorizes his neighbors and tyrannizes his own people.

Lebanon, a puppet-state of Syria, is home to a great many camps used by mercenaries but remains free of even the threat of American military action. All of the other countries paying mercenaries to attack us know that we haven't the capability or national desire to strike at our enemies. They hope that by prolonging the fighting in Iraq, Michael Moore will make us give up attacking our enemies. They were suprised that we went after Afghanistan and Iraq and are hoping that our fury is spent so when we're attacked next, there will be a great public outcry to increase our security but not strike at our enemies.

They have the time to find holes in whatever security we devise, but there is nothing they can do to stop an infantry division. They would rather we hid in ours homes and talked about the futility of sending troops abroad, but if we don't want to cower in our homes waiting for them to come kill us then we HAVE to strike out at them. Afghanistan and Iraq were a start, but both our enemies and our current administration are hoping that it goes no further, that everybody just stays home. If we stay home then they will come and force us to submit or die, giving them the islamic-only planet that is their sole measure of victory. If we are to live free then we must hunt them down and kill them. Only then can we have peace. A lasting peace will not come from trying to befriend those who would slit our throats as we slept. As long as there are people, there will be bad people. If we wish to live in peace, free from their attacks, then no doubt must be left in their minds, or the minds of those they know, that any attack will result in their death, the deaths of their loved ones, the destruction of their homes, the burning of their crops, the poisoning of their wells, and the plowing of salt into their lands.

Peace through compromise is not peace, but a lull while both sides recoup and reorganize. This is the peace that Bush wants, a false peace where we sit around waiting for the war to re-ignite He doesn't believe the war can be won because he has no desire to win it.

It is depressing that we have a war-time election where two pacifists argue over who will fight hardest so that we can surrender to our enemies on better terms, both knowing that our enemies would never abide by those terms.


UPDATE: Bush now says that we can win, but not while he's president. He says that winning the war won't happen for a very long time, no matter who wins the election. I think they need to develop a new plan.


Goe, will not be voting for Bush or Kerry.