The unspoken question is, can anything of value be salvaged in Iraq? What it looks like right now is that the most plausible best case scenario is a Shia oligarchy that will be forced to run a police state. The United States is currently building a new prison in Iraq. Now think about that: the current rulers of Iraq have exhausted the prison capacity that was adequate to the needs of Saddam Hussein. So Iraq will become a free and democratic country? It isn’t likely, and an admission that this is so immediately raises the question, why are young Americans dying to establish a relacement dictatorship in Iraq?

See? That’s where discussion of the problems of Iraq inevitably leads. That is why discussion is so muted.

So who cares if it is a war or not? It is definitely a conflict, and the long droughts in discussion of it are troubling in themselves.

The point is that he left it out in THAT PARTICULAR SPEECH because it was the anniversary, and he wanted to paint a pretty picture on the anniversary by not using the word “war.” I don’t give a crap what he said on DIFFERENT DAY in a NEWS CONFERENCE. Again, you are arguing something that is completely off topic, just like your references to other random presidents/leaders that didn’t use the word “war” in a speech. Who cares?

Transcript of Bush news conference, Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy, not just the war plan we executed in Iraq but the war plans that have been executed throughout the history of warfare. In other words, the enemy changes tactics, and we’ve got to change tactics too.

And so this is a war in which we changed tactics. It’s a war in which we’ve adjusted and learned lessons in the process of the war.

I think during these difficult times — and they are difficult when we are at war — the American people expect there to be an honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that’s how I view it.

War creates trauma, particularly when you’re fighting an enemy that doesn’t fight soldier to soldier. They fight by using IEDs to kill innocent people. That’s what they use. That’s the tool they use.

We have a plan for victory, and it’s important we achieve that plan … First of all, this is a global war on terror, and Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

But I’m also realistic. I fully understand the consequences of this war. I understand people’s lives are being lost.

And we’ve dealt with a lot, we’ve dealt with a lot. We’ve dealt with war. We’ve dealt with recession. We’ve dealt with scandal. We’ve dealt with Katrina.

But the way I look at the situation is that the Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to civil war.

I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist — that I didn’t want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect.

No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it’s just simply not true.

I think the first step is to make sure a civil war doesn’t break out.

I’m telling you what’s on my mind. And what’s on my mind is winning the war on terror.

And I understand war creates concerns. Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of uncertainty in the country. You know, the person you talked to in Cleveland is uncertain about our ability to go forward.

Now, I left out a few for the sake of brevity. Care to play again?

I think your points are bad. They have nothing to do with anything. The point of pointing out that he didn’t say “war,” is that the man has been saying the word “war” constantly for the past 3 years now, and all of a sudden the word is taboo? It’s a silly thing for you to be defending.

We need to learn how to win such fights � whatever we call them is less important than how we get control of them.

That’s very true. But words do matter as you, of course, well know. Calling what we’re in now a “war” creates certain expectations of victory and defeat. But neither traditional victory nor traditional defeat will happen in Iraq. In fact, very little of what we’re doing would fall under the heading of traditional warfare.

I’m not sure a lot of people have a really solid understanding of what kind of war/conflict this actually is–which is why I think so many are ready for us to get out. The conflict seems unwinable because we have a poor understanding of what a win would be. A complete defeat of the enemy is essentially impossible. A self-governing Iraq capable of securing itself is still a possibility and worth staying for.

We may not need a better name, but we need a better understanding of what “war” in the current context (and, as you point out, quite likely in most future contexts) means.

I should warn you, though, I got chewed out here once before for suggesting that the defeat of Saddam’s military and the overthrow of his regime was “the war,” and it was victorious, and that the indurgency that has followed that war is a separate chapter in history perhaps deserving of a different name. I don’t know exactly why that was so offensive; perhaps because it allowed some legitimacy to the thought behind the infamous “mission accomplished” banner. And we sure can’t have that.

On the other hand, until the next military superpower arises on the world’s stage, this is likely to be the war that greets America whenever it steps in to any spot in the world, for whatever purpose. The tactics that our enemies in Iraq choose to use against us — right down to always surrounding themselves with children and old people so as to guarantee “collateral damage” — are chosen because they work. And our media and our own moral revulsion at causing the deaths of innocents, are part of what our enemies take into consideration.

That is not to say “the media must be shut down” or “we should stop being so squeamish.” But it’s unwise, at best, to ignore these knotty problems.

We need to learn how to win such fights — whatever we call them is less important than how we get control of them.

This may be off-topic, but we really aren’t at war in Iraq. I don’t mean to minimize the conflict in any way, but it’s not war. It’s something else. Something just as fatiguing for this nation to experience but something that should have another name. What do you call it when you must regularly engage loosely affiliated combatants with no ties to a specific nation, no uniforms, no codes of military conduct, no armored vehicles, no troop positions and no bases save those cobbled from the streetscapes of cities?

The invasion was the war. This is a highly unstable post war. Calling it a war just confuses the matter. Of course, I call it a war all the time because I lack a better word.