Fish, I almost started a thread with this same title earlier today, but don't think it was me who used the phrase "losing the war at home". I have been using another browser window going through each thread posted over the last week, but I can't seem to find that term but I know we both saw it.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but must point out a couple of things that I disagree with. The first point is that American's can't tolerate a war that drags on. I would tend to rephase that along the lines of, given our fast paced - I want it now society, American's lose patience with anything that isn't completed quickly these days. Our society seems to want everything fast, so anything beyond two years seems like an eternity to many. I'm disregarding the fact that WWI and WWII last longer than the current conflict as that was a different America back then. Things were much slower paced and people understood patience back then.

The second thing I disagree with is in how the war was "sold" to the American people. I've read and re-read Bush's, Powell's, and Rice's speeches. Almost all of them give plenty of other reasons other than just WMD for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, the media seemed to key in on the WMD part. I'll agree that it was a big part of the reason for going in but am unwilling to disregard the rest of the reasons as not enough to unseat Hussein. We didn't find the WMD, but are we to blame for it not being there? If it were only our intelligence appartus that was convinced Iraq had WMD, I would say we screwed the pooch. It wasn't just us though, as every nation that was collecting intel against Iraq came to the same conclusions. The whole world believed Iraq had WMD, yet we found none. Instead, we learned that Hussein was only talking about possessing, creating or modernizing his WMD capabilities in order to up his street cred with other ME nations. The subsequent hearings held by Congress showed that no intelligence analysts felt pressured into reporting only intel that supported the administrations position. The intel was there, but in this case the intel was wrong. Not the first time that has happened to us, but it still sucs coming from an intel background only to see what happened here.

Those are about the only two items that I disagree with, but I'll add further comments as part of the debate.

As has been said here before, the war in Iraq should justly be split into two distinct timeframes (three if you include the build-up). The first phase was the actual assasult against the Iraqi army and the second being the "nation building" concept of ensuring Iraq had a stable government before we leave. The US military kicked the living shit out of the Iraqi army for the second time during the first phase. There can be little debate that the actual prosecution of the first phase went spectacularly. Unfortunately, the second phase has not been as successful. I'll key in on the second part for a while.

The second phase of this war has not been so great. What bothers me about it, though, is that parts of it - at least in the north - have been done quite well with little mention in the media. The media seems intent on only reporting things that have gone wrong and not much about things that have gone right. You all know that I feel the media has been less than honest in its reporting about Iraq, so I'll not revisit what I've said in the past.

What I really haven't touched on, at least not a lot, is the point you brought up about polls and the way the politicians flipped once the polls changed. What is it that drove the polls downward? Abu Grahb comes to mind as the starting point. We lost a lot of credibility due to the actions of a few morons and the media ate it up. Rather than reporting that the matter was already under investigation, a lot of media tried to play this up as a cover-up. Even when it was shown to have not been a cover-up, the damage to the credibility of the administration was already done and the military got a black-eye.

Another hit we took was in the handling of the Jessica Lynch capture and return. If you remember the threads back then, I stated that I couldn't believe the Army was giving her a bronze star for basically being captured. I still can't believe how that whole episode turned out. What started it though? Was it the military wanting to look good or a media outlet that misreported the truth? From what I have read, it started with one untrue report that mushroomed to the point that the military jumped on board whole hog. Bad mistake, as it only gave us another black-eye once the truth was known.

I've got a lot more to say, but it is getting quite late, so I'll stop for now. One further thing though, is that - for once - I think I can find a small redeeming factor in Hillary Clinton. Of all the pols who flip-flopped on their support, she has not. She isn't happy with how things have turned out, not by a long shot, but at least she hasn't done a flip-flop. I don't like her, will not vote for her and don't think she really cares about the military other than by how she can use it to further her political career, but at least she had the balls to not flip-flop.

Cinabre

Edit: Fixed a spelling error that changed the meaning of a sentence - used "past" instead of "paced" - brain had it right but hands didn't cooperate.

Boro, debate the merits of Fish's original post or STFU. Not going to see this derailed into a bashing of individual pols. Use your own words and tell us why you think a certain way rather than giving links to others who can better sum up your talking points.

/mini rant off

Cinabre

Cinabre you mentioned that the administration gave othe reasons besides WMD to going in an taken Saddam out.
Which were those? And were those stuff that breached the previous peace deal?

Okay, here goes;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

There are more which you can find here.

The first and second quotes show that Iraq violated the cease fire agreement from Gulf War - reason enough for us to invade them if we had wanted too. The third quote deals with them harboring known terrorists (Abu Nidal). The fourth shows Iraq's willingness to consistently disregard UN resolutions.

Cinabre

I guess that explains why he has BDS as well :)

Cinabre