Dean on Iraq and Godwin's law

Well, it sure has stirred quite a flap, hasn't it? Howard Dean came out the other day and proclaimed very boldly that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

It's a tough spot to be in for Democrats. And while Dean is the chairman of the DNC, he is not the voice of all Democrats. Different Democrats believe different things when it comes to Iraq, abortion, etc. It's a big tent party. Everyone's allowed in.

I can only speculate that Dean meant that, in it's current incarnation, we aren't going to win in Iraq. That, and some in the military echo this, we cannot win on the ground in Iraq militarily. I think that's the point that Dean was trying to make. Much like the war on drugs or the war on crime, the war on terror will go on forever. And since Iraq is a central front, according to Bush, we will never be able to leave.

But I wasn't sure what to make of this in light of Godwin's Law. RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said the following:

"It's fairly extraordinary. I can't remember any time in history where the leader of a national party . . . predicted America would lose a war we were engaged in."

Mehlman told the same San Antonio radio station, "Imagine if we had said to Hitler in 1942 that in two years we're going to pull out of Europe . . . Hitler would not have surrendered."

Aside from the historical inaccuracies, here's Ken Mehlman suggesting that Democrats, the party that led the country to success in WWII, would have surrendered to Adolf Hitler. It also suggests that Republicans feel that the current situation in Iraq mirrors a dictator who took over most of Europe while attempting to wipe out a large segment of the population. And those two things don't look so similar up close.

It was clear in WWII who the enemy was and what would be a victory - the surrender of Germany, Italy, and Japan. And by invading those countries, those goals could be achieved.

In Iraq, there is no such clear end goal. There will be no one surrendering. There is no clear "victory" to be had. And the question I don't see how to answer is, how can you "win" something when there is no way to measure victory?

Sure there are excuses to stay in Iraq. We need to fight them there so they do hit us here. That hasn't worked for the Brits, the Spainiards, the Saudis, etc. They still get hit as the War in Iraq continues. And eventually, we will leave Iraq and turn over control to the Iraqis. And when our presence isn't there, won't the terrorists and insurgents just seek us out in other places?

Getting back to Dean, it seems to me he has always felt that we needed to get out of Iraq. And no one should be surprised for him to echo those remarks again. I give him credit for stating what he believes.

People need to remember that Dean's not running for anything. He's not going to be running for anything, either. As John Murtha pointed out in a recent press conference, the Democratic Party is not in power. There is nothing they can do to change the way the war is going other than add to the debate.

Oh, and calling for the hanging of an American citizen because you disagree with him? Bad taste.

And finally, let's not forget these words from the mouth of the leader, George W. Bush on the prospects of winning the war on terror:

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world - let's put it that way."

*UPDATE* Just as I post, I read the new Quinnipac poll:

"Americans want to fight terror, but they don't think Iraq is the place to do it. Forty percent say 'get out now,' and another 19 percent favor a phased withdrawal," said Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Not only is the President pushing an unpopular war, Americans think he lied to get us into it.