OK, Hoss, you got me there.

I don’t believe this is it and, because of the political moment, I believe it most assuredly is not it.

For you, when “it” comes, what will “it” look like?

I don’t think church and state have anything to do with this!

Oh, but it does, my friend, it most surely does. What, for example, do you think we’re fighting for over there, if not government of the people?

This largely comes down to your view being that we’ve reached “that point” — and you have me there, because I admit there must be a “some point.” But I don’t believe this is it and, because of the political moment, I believe it most assuredly is not it.

I don’t think church and state have anything to do with this!

Gosh, maybe we’ve scaled new heights in the “Alphonse & Gaston” routine…

Sometimes you can show it’s wrong on the back of an envelope; sometimes you have to…Sometimes…sometimes…

I get your point, but can you imagine why I think this sounds like so much navel-gazing?

between here and eternity I want to pull out when it makes tactical sense, not electoral sense.

In America, in our peculiar form of self-governance, where the military is governed by civilians, the voice and will of the people cannot be ignored. This is why I bristle when John Boehner says that General Petraeus should be left alone to call the shots on the ground in Iraq.

No. Just…no. No, no, no, no. That might have been feasible 4 years ago, or three years ago, or even two years ago. But not now. I’d suggest that a stronger leader than Bush might have been able to sway the populace for this long; or maybe that leader, too, would have been diminished by the wisdom of the crowd as they, we, collectively peered into the Iraq abyss and calculated the return on investment for the whole debacle. I don’t know — again, that’s one for the professors and historians.

All I know is we’ve passed the point where our leaders can count on our support. And without that support, the occupation must now end.

P.S. I didn’t exactly say that Iraq is a democracy; what I said was that “Iraq’s voters have ushered in a new age of democratic self-governance.” That’s not quite the same. For example, I don’t consider it “government of the people, etc” if their mullahs sit in final judgement of their constitution. That way lies chaos and madness — and I like to think you (who crossed that line in the sand at DW) would agree. I just hope they have the good sense to not go too much further down that road. Like Justice O’Connor said:

“At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. … Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly.”

No, I don’t propose “endless” occupation, but between here and eternity I want to pull out when it makes tactical sense, not electoral sense. If escalation is necessary to preserve what has already been gained at the cost of great wealth and blood, then some degree of escalation may be called for.

But we agree: Iraq is a democracy, and we get the credit. The sticky question of when that democracy can be left to defend itself against its own wolves — wolves unleashed in part because of our efforts — cannot be, “When we get tired of fighting.”

With all due respect Ron, I have no idea what it is you just said.

Is this one of those situations? And if it is, how do you know? (Note: Hope is not a plan.)

Fact is, all objective reality, all verifiable evidence points in the opposite direction.

Many have been made far worse by policies such as the ones urged by this Congress.

Look back all you want. But at some point you have to look ahead at what’s in front of you, too. Things are bad and getting worse. What’s your proposal for turning it around? Escalation and endless occupation?

It’s over Ron. Saddam is dead, there are no WMD and Iraq’s voters have ushered in a new age of democratic self-governance. If I were you, I’d declare victory and come home.

The question of war powers is a complex one, as you know. If the Congress authorizes the President to use troops, without limitation, may it peel back that authorization once they are engaged? That is a novel question. Can it ever be argued that it is good statecraft for them to do so? To me, not so novel. It is obvious… sadly… that it is a terrible idea.

“More of the same is not going to make it better” is not an argument. It is one of several possible propositions that may or may not be disproved either theoretically or empirically. Many bad situations have been made better by application of more of the same. Many have been made far worse by policies such as the ones urged by this Congress.

And in that regard there are fewer entitled to more blame than the granddaddy of them all in terms of Mideast dalliances — Ronald Reagan, who sent troops into harm’s way to aid in policymaking in Lebanon and then brought them home after they got harmed. This was followed up by Clinton in Mogadishu and in Aden. Both these presidents would not risk their political popularity — the “people’s will” — to effectuate policies they believed in. The result was the growth of Al Qaeda, built on the premise that Americans will not “finish up the job” if you inflict casualties for long enough, because their institutions do not have the will to do so.

Sadly, no.

The framers left it to Congress to be responsible for declaring war and additionally for allocating the funds to fight the war. The Commander in Chief is responsible for fighting the war. The framers (who rebelled against an absolute monarch) were smart — they set up a system of checks and balances so that absolute power could never again be gathered in the hands of one man. And like another Englishman once said, our system of government is bad — except for all the rest.

Who supports the troops, you ask? Certainly not the Congress, in voting to tell their enemies that they have won — this while those troops are still under fire.

Look around. Things are plenty bad now in Iraq and they’re only getting worse. Who’s fault is that? Who cares — let the historians sort that out. The fact remains: more of the same from us is not going to make it get better.

P.S. And, no, we don’t have a government by plebescite, thank goodness. But the other extreme is far worse: a man at the top who only answers to G-d.

No, I am not “blaming” the state of the world on Chuck Hagel. I am blaming Chuck Hagel’s vote on Chuck Hagel.

Who supports the troops, you ask? Certainly not the Congress, in voting to tell their enemies that they have won — this while those troops are still under fire.

Who supports the troops? Not the Congress that made continued funding of their mission conditional not only on surrender in the field but on the approval of billions in unrelated pork-barrel spending.

Now that is absurd!