This is an utterly specious argument, and here is why:

If the problem is that there are too few troops, then the solution, as any idiot could see, is to send more troops. But UB, and the rest of the left, is actually using this argument as a reason to REDUCE troop levels.

Long ago, Senator Biden made essentially the same assertions UB is making, that Rumsfeld vastly underestimated what would be required to stabilize Iraq, that he should have listened to the generals, etc. etc. I remember listening to Biden and thinking, “Finally, a Democrat who is serious about this war and wants to win it, who’s even willing to think seriously about the sacrifices it might take to win it.”

Obviously, I couldn’t have been more wrong about Biden, because when Rumsfeld was finally ousted and a troop increase came about, Biden did not support it!

So it is clear to me now, as I’m sure it was clear to many on this board before now, that listening to Democrats talk about troop levels, timetables, “hearts and minds”, total war, etc, is like listening to used car salesmen. They’re just trying to advance their own agenda and hiding it under a pile of bullshit.

And the agenda seems to be a re-creation of Vietnam in its entirety. If our troop pull-out leaves us at the end evacuating people from the embassy roof by helicopter, I’m sure Democrats will feel nothing but grim satisfaction.

To get back to the point of the article, BRD made an excellent post at the beginning of the comments section stating that (if I have this right) total war is less about the lethality of the weapons or the discrimination with which they are used, than it is about the nation’s commitment to that war. A nation that is in a total war, then, would be one in which virtually the entire economy was involved in the war effort. Where every man, woman and child the in country was actively involved in efforts to win the war, not just by fighting but by supporting and supplying the troops, keeping a wary eye out for the enemy, taking care not to give information to the enemy, etc.

There may be very sound strategic reasons, even in a total war (by this definition,) to limit the amount of lethal force used against the enemy. But, obviously, no reason whatsoever to cut funding to the troops.

By this definition it’s easy to see that we are fighting an excruciatingly limited war, indeed, with at least one hand tied behind our backs. The one hand extended is that of the troops fighting on the ground (even though we might be short a few fingers), but the other hand — the hand of our economic, political, and indeed intellectual/informational might — is tightly tied. This is the hand I would like to see released. This is the hand that can only be released when this nation agrees a) that we are actually in a war, not againts Iraqis but against Islamofascists, and b) that we actually want to win this war.

Oh, they’re easy enough to find, UB, thanks — the point, though, is to understand what they mean. You still need to think for yourself, I’m afraid. In this case, for example, it’s important to understand that the tacked on section relating to “limited purposes” is just a little ass-covering codicil with no practical meaning — the “plan” of Reid et al is actually better laid out in the one-sentence AP summary than in the language of this self-contradictory bill. Realizing that no-one but the dangerously naive would be fooled by it is why it was defeated with bi-partisan support.

Lee wrote:

And the “could” caveat was “if the commanders on the ground asked for it”, which Petraeus has.

Wrong again, Lee. Petraeus did not ask for it, he took command *after* the surge strategy was developed.

Bush’s surge actually went *against* the advice of his Joint Chiefs.