What if Iraq Really Is the War for Civilization Itself?

Daily Kos: What if Iraq Really Is the War for Civilization Itself?

This is a curious exploration of the context of the War on Overwhelming Fear, if one assumes the givens of the Neocon Administation.

"George Bush cannot win the War in Iraq, because he no longer has public support--not for himself or for the war. He is a deeply unpopular President. About sixty percent of Americans think that he's doing a bad job. Even more of them strongly disapprove of the way he's handling the Iraq War.

Indisputably, his leadership has failed. And if we're in a war for civilization itself in Iraq, then we need a President we don't fundamentally dislike. Mothers and fathers don't give up their sons and daughters to die for civilization if they think those lives will be ill spent by a leader they distrust.

Another reason George Bush cannot win this war, is that he has surrounded himself with the worst diplomats since no one living can remember. We are losing the War in Iraq on several fronts, but the Public Relations Front is where we're getting slaughtered. And when it's a war about civilization, that's one place you need to hold the line. "

Bascially, the idea is that if we are in a war for civilization itself, we need a leader who has some credibility.

IMHO, the war for civilization is between those who think political issues should be solved peacefully, and those who wish to use violence to resolve differences. I know this goes against the common framing of the Neocons (who are selling it as "U.S. vs. the World"), but I think this is a much more rational dichotomy in which to explore the battle for civilization. BTW, saying that 'torture' is o.k., is not terribly civilized.