The Endless War
Did the latest air strike get Saddam? Or will he pop up in another video? Who knows? We've been through this bunker-busting battle over his fate before.
But while the war for Baghdad is obviously entering the mop-up phase, the ideological arguments it has spawned are still raging.
Iraq, in fact, has become the mother of all debates, not just because of the passions it arouses but because the war serves as an echo chamber for every partisan divide of the past 40 years. Got a gripe, you can find someone to argue with over Iraq.
Bush vs. Clinton vs. Bush: The pro-war crowd argues that the president is simply using his military muscle to enforce Clinton's empty threats against Saddam, which he never carried out other than lobbing some cruise missiles after Iraq kicked out the inspectors. The pro-Clintonites contends that the real problem was that Bush 41 didn't finish the job when he had the Republican Guard on the run.
Vietnam vs. Afghanistan: Those who don't like the way the U.S. folded its cards in Vietnam, without doing what it takes to win, much prefer Afghanistan as the model of military success. Iraq is the new Afghanistan, they say, burying the defeatist syndrome of Vietnam. Those who say we had no business intervening in a Vietnamese civil war say we may yet regret being sucked into the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq.
Multilateralists vs. Unilateralists: Critics who wanted the United Nations to bless the whole enterprise say that the Bushies badly botched the diplomacy and isolated America from its longtime allies by acting like cowboys. Those who see the United Nations as the ineffectual equivalent of Hans Blix say America needed to act on its own and shouldn't tie its fate to a collection of Third-World nations who resent us.
Republicans vs. Democrats: The GOPers want to paint the Dems as the party of Howard Dean, weak on national defense, compared to a Republican president who has now whipped two despotic regimes. The Democrats' liberal wing says Bushie, Rummy & Wolfy used the anger over 9/11 to demonize the Iraqi regime as part of a grand plan to take out Syria and Iran as well - and besides, the economy still stinks.
Military vs. Media: Those who think the coverage of the war has been way too negative say the Pentagon never should have allowed embedded reporters to tag along and that Peter Arnett symbolizes a press corps that remains deeply suspicious of the military. Media boosters say the coverage has been more than fair in depicting our fighting men and women and the Pentagon needs the embeds to show that Saddam is lying.
Rummy vs. Powell: Those who like the defense secretary's take-no-prisoners style - take that, Old Europe - say his big-stick approach is far better than the secretary of state's cautious hand-holding. Powell fans say Rummy is the bull in the global china shop and that their man is holding together what's left of the alliance, which we'll need to win the peace.
Active Generals vs. Retired Generals: Rumsfeld and Richard Myers are mighty steamed at the TV military analysts who dare to question their plan, telling them the other day to put a sock in it. Skeptics say that Barry McCaffrey and Wesley Clark have performed ably in pointing out real flaws in the war plan, and that most of the former four-stars are cheerleaders anyway.
Pro-French vs. Anti-French: Forget it. Nobody's pro-French these days. Even French's mustard had to put out a whiny press release explaining that it's an American company.