Michael O'Hanlon's "testosterone-laden tough guys"

But one thing is clear: in American culture, there has long been a group of men (typified by Williiam Kristol and Michael O'Hanlon) who equate toughness and masculinity with fighting wars, yet who also know that they lack the courage of their own convictions, and thus confine themselves to cheerleading for wars from a...far and sending others off to fight but never fighting those wars themselves (Digby wrote the seminal post on that sorry faction back in 2005). It seems that individuals plagued by that affliction are eager to avoid having it rubbed in their faces that there are large numbers of homosexual warriors who possess the courage (the "testosterone-laden tough-guyness") which the O'Hanlons and Kristols, deep down, know they lack.

By Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, 02 04 10

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates today will unveil the administration's plan for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, beginning with a ban on discharging gay service members who are "outed" by third parties. More than 13,500 gay service members have been discharged since the Clinton-era enactment of that policy, which continued unabated even as America's military has been stretched horribly thin by multiple wars and endless tours of duty. Ironically, the highest number of discharges came in 2001, when more than 1,000 people were discharged for being gay. For some strange reason, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution was on CNN to opine about all of this today, and this is what he said (h/t Michelangelo Signorile):

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute said the real test will be in the barracks, with the rank-and-file members of the military.

"We can talk about this delicately or we can just be fairly direct," O'Hanlon said. "There are a lot of 18-year-old, old-fashioned, testosterone-laden men in the military who are tough guys. They're often politically old-fashioned or conservative; they are not necessarily at the vanguard, in many cases, of accepting alternative forms of lifestyle."

First of all, O'Hanlon sounds like he just stepped out of a 1981 Moral Majority documentary. Who still talks about sexual orientation being an "alternative form of lifestyle"? That was always a dishonest and propagandistic phrase -- as though gay people intrinsically lead a different "lifestyle" -- and it's rare these days to hear anyone outside of Jim Dobson and Maggie Gallagher use it. And the apparent belief of O'Hanlon that there's an inverse relationship between masculinity and acceptance of gay people ("testosterone-laden men who are tough guys") is ludicrous, though, almost certainly, his saying this unintentionally reveals some disturbing psychosexual undercurrents that are driving O'Hanlon himself.

Second, O'Hanlon's views on the repeal of DADT were the same ones cited to oppose racial integration and an expanding role for women in the military (it's not me, but those primitive enlisted men, who will cause problems). It's also unbelievably disrespectful of the military itself and its rank-and-file, since it assumes that those who join the military are consumed with such uncontrollable bigotry and are incapable of adhering to its policies and dictates. That, too, seems to say much more about O'Hanlon than the "rank-and-file" members of the military whom he's disparaging.

Finally, what does Michael O'Hanlon know about the military, and why is he -- of all people -- being held out as some sort of expert on these matters? He's never been anywhere near the military. He specializes in establishing himself as a "testosterone-laden tough guy" by cheerleading for wars and urging that we send other people off to fight them -- all from the safety and comfort of his Brookings office. Several months ago, over 100 retired Generals and Admirals -- people who, unlike O'Hanlon, actually understand the military first-hand -- called for a repeal of DADT so that gay people can serve openly. Why would anyone believe that someone like Mike O'Hanlon, who relentlessly waves his pom-poms for war while ensuring he never fights them, has anything worthwhile to say on the topic of the military's ability to successfully integrate openly gay service members?

UPDATE: I'd also like to know whether those who (a) cheerlead for our various wars, (b) oppose the repeal of DADT and (c) are of prime fighting age -- such as GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah -- intend to enlist in order to replace the highly qualified, well-performing gay service members who are discharged under the policy they favor?

UPDATE II: Andrew Sullivan notes that Michael O'Hanlon's brother-in-arms for the testosterone-laden team of war-cheerleaders -- Bill Kristol -- echoed the same arguments today, even going further than O'Hanlon by insisting that homosexuality is inherently incompatible with the superior performance of military duties.

It should go without saying that debates over homosexuality, the military, warriors, masculinity and the like are suffuse with all sorts of complex psychological influences. But one thing is clear: in American culture, there has long been a group of men (typified by Kristol and O'Hanlon) who equate toughness and masculinity with fighting wars, yet who also know that they lack the courage of their own convictions, and thus confine themselves to cheerleading for wars from afar and sending others off to fight but never fighting those wars themselves (Digby wrote the seminal post on that sorry faction back in 2005). It seems that individuals plagued by that affliction are eager to avoid having it rubbed in their faces that there are large numbers of homosexual warriors who possess the courage (the "testosterone-laden tough-guyness") which the O'Hanlons and Kristols, deep down, know they lack. Banning gay people from serving openly in the military as warriors is an excellent way of being able to deny that reality to themselves.

UPDATE III: Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified today that "it is his 'personal and professional belief that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do'." On Twitter, he added (yes, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on Twitter):

Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the right thing to do. Comes down to integrity.

I believe he knows more about the military than Mike O'Hanlon and Bill Kristol. As for O'Hanlon's projection (in both senses of the word) that young, conservative enlisted men will backlash against openly gay service members, the most recent poll shows that 69% of all Americans -- along with 58% of both self-identified "Republicans" and "conservatives" and 60% of people who attend Church at least once a week -- favor "allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military."

Pulsating diversity of views on the Post Op-Ed page

One of the leaders of The Liberal Media is a leading outlet for right-wing advocacy.
By Glenn Greenwald, salon.com, November 9, 2009

"I know many readers, particularly liberals, feel we have too many conservative voices on the page. On the other hand, I hear from a lot of conservative readers who think we have too many people they consider too liberal (Dionne, Robinson, Meyerson, Marcus, et al.). We try to provide a range of views--no matter who is in power" - Fred Hiatt, Washington Post Editorial Page Editor, October 14, 2009.

The Washington Post published a total of 8 Op-Eds and opinion columns today, from these individuals:

* Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey (bashing Obama for wanting to try 9/11 defendants in an actual court)

* Neocon Charles Krauthammer (heralding the resurgent GOP fueled by "Obama's hubristic expansion of government, taxation, spending and debt")

* Newt Gingrich and GOP Texas Gov. Rick Perry (Obama's health care plan would destroy America)

* Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson (Obama has lost the American center and his health care plan will destroy Democrats)

* Conservative economist Martin Feldstein, former chief economic adviser to Reagan ("Obamacare" will raise premiums and increase the number of uninsured)

* Honduran coup defender Edward Schumacher-Matos (blaming Honduras' democratically elected President for "instigating mob rule" and criticizing both the American Right and Left for "extremism," while defending the administration-backed compromise)

* CEO of BP (British Petroluem) Tony Hayward (dismissing efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption as "simplistic" and advocating changes to cap-and-trade bill that would benefit BP)

* Liberal Eugene Robinson (warning of the takeover of the GOP by the intolerant, ideological Right)

So, to re-cap: The Post today has two former Bush officials, one former Reagan official, two right-wing politicians, a Fox News neocon, the CEO of America's largest oil and gas producer, a defender of the right-wing Honduran military coup leaders, and one liberal columnist. That overwhelming right-wing presence on the Post Op-Ed page is anything but unusual (the day after it fired Dan Froomkin, The Post published Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Hayden, Charles Krauthammer and an Iran-hawkish screed from David Ignatnius, preceded by Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Ramesh Ponnuru). And that's to say nothing of the always-pro-war Editorial Page itself, which typically advocates for those same positions.

The Post is obviously free to publish whatever it wants, but, wth some very rare exceptions, its Op-Ed page under Fred Hiatt now really is the leading outlet for neoconservatve and related right-wing advocacy. It is one of those outlets typically counted as part of the "Liberal Media" by right-wing self-victimizers and their media amplifiers, yet The Post's claimed devotion to airing a "wide range of views" is scarcely more credible than Fox News' "fair and balanced" slogan.

Newsmax removes column that called for military coup to resolve the ‘Obama problem.’

I don't know.. I thought promoting a military takeover from an elected U.S. President was actually treason, and goes a bit further than "freedom of speech". Funny thing, that Constitution. I'd say it approaches scary.. but it goes WAY past scary. It's treasonous.

From ThinkProgress, Sept. 30th, 2009

In a column published on the right-wing site Newsmax yesterday, John L. Perry writes that a military coup against President Obama is possible. Newsmax appears to have taken down the column from its website this morning. Media Matters has archived it, however:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic. [...]

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In his Washington Post column, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson acknowledges that “military leaders seem impressed” with President Obama’s decision-making process. “Obama’s engaged, deliberate style has fans in the military,” he writes.

Update Media Matters notes that Perry’s rhetoric is simply a continuation of “a trend of increasingly violent and revolutionary rhetoric advanced by conservative media figures.”

Update A spokeswoman for Newsmax sent a statement to TPM admitting that the magazine removed the column after several reader complaints:

Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions

Newsmax explains decision to take down coup column

Alex Koppelman, Salon.com

The conservative magazine Newsmax has sent over a statement explaining why it took down a column published on its Web site that appeared to suggest a military coup against President Obama.

The statement, which appears in full below, tries a couple of dodges to get Newsmax off the hook, and they don't quite succeed.

For one thing, the statement says that the column's author, John L. Perry, "clearly stated that he was not advocating [a coup] scenario but simply describing one." That's technically true -- Perry did write, "America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it." But in the context of the full column, that appears to be just an attempt to provide some sort of deniability. Later in the piece, Perry strayed towards advocating a coup, writing:

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

The statement also tries to distance Newsmax from Perry, saying, "He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger." That doesn't appear to be true -- his writings for the Web site are clearly in column and not blog form, and he's been contributing them for years. Plus, the author bio at the end of his articles describes him as "a regular columnist for Newsmax.com," and his official biography on the site says he "contributes a regular column to NewsMax.com."

By e-mail, Salon asked a spokeswoman for Newsmax how the description of Perry's relationship with the magazine fit with the information available on its site, and whether Newsmax would continue publishing his work. As of this post, she had not responded.

The full statement:

In a blog posting to Newsmax John Perry wrote about a coup scenario involving the U.S. military. He clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one.

After several reader complaints, Newsmax wanted to insure that this article was not misinterpreted. It was removed after a short period after being posted.

Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.

Mr. Perry served as a political appointee in the Carter administration in HUD and FEMA. He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger.

― Alex Koppelman

Frank Zappa on Crossfire

Tell me the links between this video and the next posting about the student held for 2 hours for studying Arabic along with his physics studies.

Dave Davies: Student air passenger handcuffed to echoes of 9/11 fears

Let me know if Zappa predicted this in his interview above...

By Dave Davies
Philadelphia Daily News

EIGHT YEARS after 9/11, we're used to changes in our routines. We show ID to get into office buildings, and take off our shoes at airports.

But should a college student flying back to school be handcuffed and held for five hours because he has Arabic flash cards in his backpack?

That's the way Nick George, a senior at Pomona College, in California, sees what happened to him at the Philadelphia airport two Saturdays ago.

George, of Wyncote, Montgomery County, was about to catch a Southwest flight back to school when stereo speakers in his backpack caught the eye of screeners at the metal detector.

When they looked though his bag, George said, they found his Arabic/English flash cards, and escorted him to a side screening area.

He figures it didn't help that his passport had stamps from Jordan, where he'd studied a semester, and Egypt and Sudan, where he'd gone backpacking.

And among his 200 flash cards were words like "terrorist" and "explosion." He was learning to translate the Arabic-language news network Al Jazeera.

"I understand I might warrant a second look," George told me. "They should have taken me aside, seen I had a legitimate explanation and a student ID and that I was carrying nothing illegal, and waved me on."

They didn't.

George said that Transportation Security Administration officers kept him in the screening area for what seemed like 45 minutes. Eventually a woman from the TSA arrived and began asking more questions, like how he felt about 9/11.

"Do you know who did 9/11?" he said that the woman asked.

George said that he told her that it was Osama bin Laden, and that she responded smugly, "Do you know what language Osama bin Laden spoke?"

Soon after that a Philadelphia police officer arrived and told George to put his hands behind his back. Without explanation, he slapped handcuffs on him and led him away.

George was taken to the airport police station, where he was locked in a holding cell with the cuffs still on. I guess that's what you do with a high-value physics major.

George said that he tried to be a model prisoner, and after about two hours a police supervisor removed the handcuffs. After a couple of more hours two FBI agents appeared and took him to another room for questioning.

They were polite, George said, and asked why he studied Arabic, why he'd been in the Middle East, whether anyone had ever asked him to join a terrorist group, whether he was "Islamic," whether he'd joined any Islamic or Communist (yes, Communist) groups on campus.

"They told me their job is more an art than a science," George said. "They come in and decide whether there's a legitimate threat, and in my case, they decided I was not a threat."

So, many hours after his backpack entered the metal detector, George was released with a ticket to fly the next day, but without an apology or explanation.

If there's one thing we know that the government needs in the post-9/11 era, it's more college students interested in learning Arabic.

George feels that he was treated like a criminal because somebody didn't like the flash cards. He wasn't injured or psychologically scarred, just ticked off.

"I didn't have a weapon or anything seditious, just words on paper," George said. "As an American citizen, I think I'm allowed to learn a foreign language and have flash cards."

TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis tracked down a report on George's encounter, and said that it wasn't the flash cards that got him flagged.

Davis said that George had been selected for screening before he even reached the metal detector by TSA behavioral-detection officers, personnel trained to screen passengers for "involuntary physical and physiological reactions that people exhibit in response to a fear of being discovered."

Davis said that the report indicates that in the screening area, George's "behavior escalated to a point where our officers deemed it necessary to contact the Philadelphia Police Department."

Davis couldn't say what behavior had caught the officers' eye or what escalating behavior he exhibited. She said the report did note that George had Arabic flash cards, but "that's not why we would call law enforcement."

The police story is a little different.

Lt. Louis Liberati said, just as Davis did, that TSA personnel initially selected George because of something in his behavior.

But Liberati said that it was the stuff that the TSA found in George's backpack and wallet that really aroused their suspicion: the Arabic flash cards with troubling words, a card that had George's name and Arabic script, and the longer hair in George's driver's license and passport photos than his current clean-cut appearance.

That's "an indicator sometimes that somebody may have gone through a radicalization," Liberati explained.

Liberati said nothing about "escalating behavior." Liberati said police checked with the FBI, and the feds decided that they wanted to come and interview George.

I reached George, now back in school, and told him the authorities' version of the events.

He said that it's "crazy" to think that he was acting suspiciously in line or that he had exhibited "escalating behavior" while being questioned.

He insists that he patiently explained everything, including the card with Arabic writing - his student ID from Jordan - which he keeps as a souvenir.

"I never raised my voice," George said, "but I did ask once or twice how much longer this was going to take because my flight was about to leave."

Liberati also said that he's certain that George had not been left handcuffed in his cell.

George is equally certain that he was. His wallet was taken, and he remembers an officer coming into his cell to give him the $30 they'd found inside. The officer stuffed the money in his pocket, George said, and left with the cuffs still locked tight.

Our lives have changed since 9/11, and mistakes will happen. But when government personnel put an innocent person through something like this, it would be nice if someone offered an explanation, or showed just a touch of humanity.

Until then, check your flash cards with your luggage.

Clinton Donors Warn on Superdelegate Fight

Note from Greetings: This type of politics disgusts me. It is no different than the campaigns run by the Bush team. And with Hillary now appearing regularly on Fox, and her recent meeting for endorsement with the most right wing newspaper (and owner) in the country, The Pittsburgh Tribune Review (just before the PA primary), whose owner personally sponsored the legal funds to keep the heat on Bill Clinton, I have to wonder how much of an about face Senator Clinton has had - and if she is now beholden to the ultra-right wing media of Rupert Murdoch and Dick Scaife. This sounds like "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.", as the song goes. Her nod and wink to the Canadian government on NAFTA, while simultaneously blaming Obama, makes me think so.

March 27, 2008 By JEFF ZELENY, NY Times

WASHINGTON — Leading contributors to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton intensified their effort to keep the Democratic presidential contest alive on Wednesday and urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stay out of the superdelegate fight, admonishing her for suggesting that the candidate ahead in pledged delegates — now Senator Barack Obama — should become the nominee.

“This dynamic primary season is not at an end,” said a letter to Ms. Pelosi, which was signed by 21 top Democratic fund-raisers. “Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.”

The letter, which carried threatening overtones in noting that many signatories were major Democratic donors, highlighted the deepening rift inside the party among supporters for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. While Ms. Pelosi has declared her neutrality in the race, she has said that she believes that the party’s superdelegates should not overrule the will of the voters and should back the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

As former President Bill Clinton warned voters in West Virginia to “saddle up” for a heated duel between the candidates, the Clinton supporters asked Ms. Pelosi to “reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates” at the convention. In a statement Wednesday evening, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said the speaker believed that the fight should be resolved before the convention.

“The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters,” said Brendan Daly, the spokesman. “This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”

In her remarks on the matter, Ms. Pelosi said earlier this month on the ABC News program “This Week,” “If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party.”

In their letter, the Clinton donors reminded Ms. Pelosi that they had contributed to House Democrats and urged her to be “responsive” to their argument on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf.

The letter was signed by some of Mrs. Clinton’s largest fund-raisers, including Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, and Maureen White and Steven Rattner, longtime friends of the Clintons. They called the position of Ms. Pelosi and a growing number of uncommitted superdelegates “untenable,” and warned against any effort to cut short the race.

Mr. Obama is almost certain to maintain his lead in pledged delegates after the remaining 10 contests are finished on June 3. Mrs. Clinton is working hard to close the gap, making the case to superdelegates that she is the more electable Democratic candidate in the general election.

The letter was the first public indication, in the party’s prolonged nominating fight, that hard feelings in the presidential race could spill over into other Democratic campaigns.

As he campaigned in Parkersburg, W.Va., on Wednesday, Mr. Clinton dismissed concerns that the increasingly bitter nominating fight could wound the party. He said the race should not end until all voters — and superdelegates — had a chance to weigh in.

“I think your vote should be counted, don’t you?” Mr. Clinton said, speaking to voters who are scheduled to cast their ballots May 13. “I know Hillary’s gaining on them when they say, ‘Oh, let’s shut this down now; we don’t want to be divided.’ ”

Mr. Obama’s campaign released a statement calling the letter “inappropriate.”

Aboard his campaign plane Wednesday evening, Mr. Obama called the proposal by Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee for resolving the nominating contest in June “a good one” — though Mr. Obama seemed to be endorsing a June conclusion more than Mr. Bredesen’s idea of convening a meeting of superdelegates to settle the nomination.

“I think giving whoever the nominee is two or three months to pivot into the general election would be extremely helpful, instead of having this drag up to the convention,” Mr. Obama told reporters as he flew to New York.

Patrick Healy contributed reporting from Greensboro, N.C.

Define Victory

The American people are told that "we" are close to victory. Just allow the escalation to take effect. Why reporters have readily accepted the term "surge", I am not clear. But it does show a pattern of journalistic acquiescence - or at least a lack of curiosity. Give them something to write, and they will write it.

What would be journalistic would be to begin to ask questions, rather, to be a journalist and not a stenographer. The first question that has never been asked of the administration by the press is, "Define victory."

We've been given many reasons why we should stay in Iraq, and many more why we needed to go in the first place. We are well past the possibility of actual journalistic investigations into the over half a dozen reasons that the administration gave to U.S. citizens as to why it, and we, went to war with Iraq. Each reason was duly noted by the press as a reason. The public did what it was used to doing and accepted each "reported" reason.

Since the press was asleep for the first round of questions, perhaps they can begin to ask the next round. What does the administration consider victory?

We have been told 1) that we needed to quell the insurgency; 2) that elections needed to be held; 3) that "we would stand down when they stand up"; and most recently 4) so that Iraq would not become a haven for terrorists.

We found out that the insurgency was a civil war. Elections were held, and a government was elected that has closer relations with Iran. The Iraqi civilians now appear afraid of their own police. And Afghanistan remains the central war with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda; a war we are losing due to the lack of troops in that region. Bin Laden has found a safe haven in Pakistan, and remains there. And from Pakistan, he is launching a move to try to regain a foothold in Afghanistan. Afghanistanis are tired of being left in the lurch and the U.S. appears to be losing the hearts and minds of that nation.

The escalation is said to be working. However, the same people who questioned Cheney on his assertion that "we would be greeted as liberators" have noted some similarities between the escalation and the start of the invasion of Iraq. Insurgents, which reads either Iraqi Sunnis or Iraqi Shiites, have left Baghdad as more American troops move in, much as they did at the start of the war in 2003. Much like in 2003, they have moved into two surrounding provinces, where violence has apparently increased as violence in Baghdad has decreased. Ali called this his "rope-a-dope". I'd like to think we are smarter than George Foreman, although experience at least provided him with The George Foreman Grille and success in his later years.

Again, I come back to one question I would like the press to ask Bush and Cheney - repeatedly. "Define victory." In World War II, the definition of victory was clear. The defeat of Germany and Japan, at whatever cost it took from our citizenry and whatever it cost those countries in terms of civilian lives, as well. The fire bombing of Tokyo devastated Japan. Dresden Hiroshima, Nagasaki,- were all calculated to defeat not only the armed forces of those countries, but the wills of their citizens. After all, they had invaded us. And complete victory was our only option. Whatever it took to defeat those countries and their allies. Is that something we really want to do to the Iraqi people?

In Vietnam, victory was not well defined, and it was not achieved. We wanted to stabilize Vietnam so that other countries would not tumble as Communist dominoes. What was stabilization? What was victory? We wanted "to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people", which we finally found were one against us. We now do most of our manufacturing in Vietnam, but we did not win that war, and we did not "define victory" in that war. China did not follow us home.

We were, and are, told that Iraq was involved in 9/11 - it was not. It was tied in with Bin Laden - it was not. And that it had weapons of mass destruction - it did not. And finally, that we would be welcomed as liberators. Many citizens and knowledgeable people questioned those facts, but many in the press and government did not. They wrote them down and passed them on to the public.

When we reached Baghdad, President Bush stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier and declared victory. Apparently not. So again... "Define victory."

For, while fighting terrorism has a more vague definition of victory, defeating a country does not. But are we prepared to do what it takes to defeat a country like Iraq and "define victory" as the defeat of that country, much as we did with Germany and Japan in World War II? In those cases it was much easier to install a government that we thought would be one that would act honorably in later years. And the governments of those countries have done just that. They have become allies, at least under previous administrations.

It becomes more clear that invading Iraq was meant by Bush and his neo-cons as a way to show our strength. They had premised the invasion of Iraq before Bush even took office in their documents under People for the New American Century. They felt it would be an easy win for Bush to unite the country behind him and the Republican Party. Pursuing Bin Laden and fighting terrorism is more difficult and more subtle.

So did invading Iraq get us closer to finding and defeating Bin Laden and the Taliban? It appears they are regrouping as I write this. Again, "Define Victory" - at least in Iraq. And journalists, please regain your wits and ask that question.

Then we can get on to pursuing the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, before they grow stronger. We can describe to the American public how we intend to fight and defeat terrorism, so that Americans again trust our leaders and unite behind them to fight the terrorists.Then we will know where to send our soldiers and why - or if we should send them or prescribe a different course of action. Then we can quit making our soldiers sit in a shooting gallery with no apparent goal in mind, other than "to fight there so 'they' don't follow us here'." We can stop saying that being in Iraq is the definition of victory.

Then we will know not when, but HOW our brave men and women in Iraq who have fought so valiantly can come home. Without a definition of victory, how can we win?