While the war itself may have been longer, our involvement in WWII didn't start until after Pearl Harbor.

And it only becomes an "occupation" when the fighting more or less stops. The fighting in Iraq has not stopped.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

Obama didn't say "this has lasted longer than THE US PARTICIPATION in World War II", he said it lasted longer than the war itself.

And, this is most definitely an occupation. Fighting went on in Somalia, Ruwanda, Serbia, etc. well before and after US action, and we didn't call it a "war." The war ended when the regime was finished and the general opposition army was disbanded.

The occupation started the day we moved from worrying about ending that regime to finding ways to build functioning institutions, serving as de facto police, moderating the legal system, shepherding the economic infrastructure...none of which occurs during war.

Unless, of course, you're trying to say that Iraq is an important part of the War On Terror, and so long as anyone, anywhere is actively fighting with the US, we are at war...then it sounds like the republicans can count on you as an active supporter this year. (Note, not even _I_ like the foregoing idea. I'm for radical military de-engagement with the wide wacky world. Let them buy our crap and host our tourists. Sustained experience with capitalism will dampen problems more completely than tanks. However, fuck with us inside our borders, and there should be hell to pay.)

*tag*

Unless Saddam popped out of his rabbit hole and signed a document surrendering the remaining Iraqi forces there will be no end to the War. Of course, I wasn't involved with the negotiations at that point, but we may find that Hilliary was. And I do not recall what the exact rhetoric was pertaining to the war at that point. I would imagine that surrender was given as an option to Saddam at that time. His acceptance of that would have acknowledged the premise of the war in the first place, which went against his chosen defense. For me, that explains why there was no official surrender. Also of note is the fact that Bush made it perfectly clear that the US forces are not an occupying force. That was part of the hearts and minds effort.

But unless the 125-150,000 troops are floating on the USS Lincoln, they're an occupying force. So, yeah, I am with Savage on that one. The war will not end when the US forces make a significant withdrawal. The Iraqi military, in what ever state of readyness, will still be engaging the same insurgent forces. Unless the insurgents start waving a sovereign flag, it's technically a police action.

I'm not suggesting that semantics would have fixed anything. But it does shed some light on the mindset of the commanders in the early stages of the occupation. Post-war Germany lived in martial law for nearly four years. However, there was resistance to a heavy-handed stance by the US forces in an effort to soften the appearance of the war, both at home and abroad. That lead to the power vacuum which was ultimately filled with insurgent forces. If the surge is providing better security now, then there's no reason to think that a heavy stance from the beginning would not have made things quieter.

As for radical de-engagement, I'm not sure if that means a complete withdrawal or just a decent reduction in force. I don't see a bug-out of that nature regardless of who is in the Oval office in 2009. If it's McCain we know he won't do it. If it's the man from fantasy island or Billiary there will be a come-to-jesus moment. It will go something like this: either of the dynamic duo will ask the commanders to draw up plans for a withdrawal, detailing timelines and logistics. With that will come contingency estimates - if we do this, that could happen. Most of those will have us turning the aircraft carriers around when the shit hits the fan. I don't think either of them are that negligent. They'll draw the forces down significantly, with much applause, while still keeping enough on the ground to provide security for certain areas.

There may not be large support for a prolonged US presence in Iraq now. But, if security can be sustained long enough for political progress, then there can be the economic incentives for dealing with the shinny planes and tanks. Then you get McD's and ignorant assholes in flip-flops.

Back to the topic: between the soft reporting and a candidate's galactic misuse of terminology which is worse?

Todays' political process stands in stark contrast to that of earlier era's. As point of fact, Lincoln openly stated in his 1860 campaign that he would not speak further on any item of policy. His positions could be determined from the reading of all his speeches and debates. He didn't wish to be taken out of context, nor did he wish to make statements that we unmeasured. [Aside: Obama's statement cited in this post might be unmeasured. But it's hard to tell whether the seasoned attorney misspoke, or the politician was historically unaware.] Hold that next to the current 24-hour news cycle. Of course, that position wouldn't fly today.

That leads me to think that the soft politicians of today are a product of their surroundings. Current news articles are slapped together, some from previous articles and posted to the web to produce half-assed journalism. Unless you're reading op-ed pieces, most of it is piss-poor. I may be making an excuse for lazy journalism here. I don't see the guy writing this article asking Obama about the length of each War cited. The author could be non-confrontational, the editor could be lazy. Whatever. The end product is a cake-walk for the candidates. That why Billiary can make statements that go along the lines of being integral to the peace negotiation in Ireland. That is bullshit of the highest order. But is passes, along with other soft-lies: Hiliary stating that all her documents will be released, while Bubba discloses that it will be void of policy, security and substance.

So I'm in the camp of the the reporting being worse than the candidates. Granted, as history goes, the guys with real brass tacks - guys like Hamilton and Seward - never made it to the Oval Office. The founding fathers all got the seat in order of hierarchy and attrition. After Monroe all bets were off. The reporting has the ability to call bullshit on the light-weights. The candidates drop down to their level. People could take issue with the media. For the most part, people have more important things to do than fact-check every piece of information that they come into contact with and write their favorite editors when things don't add up. Even if one were to only focus on big tickets, it's quite a task to handle the in's and out's of something like healthcare. You make the best decisions with the information at hand. That information, sadly, has been reduced to baby-sized bites spooned in single serving installments.