Are we winning the Great War on Terrorism seems to be a big question on everyone's mind as we near the midterm elections. The answer to that question is, for many voters, a key decision on how they'll vote this November.

I clearly think the answer is no. In fact, I personally think we're losing the GWOT simply because we've been fighting it with the exact wrong tactics. But frankly, to even attempt to answer the question is totally missing the point and is of great benefit to the Republicans.

The real issue in a discussion of the GWOT would be, "who knows"? The GWOT has never been defined and therefore doesn't really exist. There have never been tangible outcomes sought or any kind of normal measures that would allow someone to conclude whether we are "winning" or "losing". Everytime the administration puts down any concrete goal, they screw it up and then redefine the goal in a whole new place. Evaluating Bush's goals is like trying to catch a greased pig. In short, the GWOT has by any real definition of "war" been a P.R. campaign and slogan that serves political purposes rather than an actual "war". Just because the nutbars call it a "war" don't make it so. It has been an effective propaganda campaign that has assured G.O.P. victories over the past six years. And the American public has fallen for it.

So, who really knows if we're winning or losing. Winning or losing what? The only conclusions I can reach, based on solid evidence, is that the world (i.e. Lebannon, Israel, Gaza, U.S., Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Africa) seem to be in more conflict, there seems to be a real deterioration in the standing and power of the United States worldwide, the Taliban has a defacto country where al Qaeda is welcome, and we have American soldiers being killed in no-win shooting wars in the midst of civil wars in two distinct geographic regions.

Those who claim we are "winning" can only point to the lack of a terror attack since 911. But anyone with a brain knows that the absence of something is not proof of the presence of something else, but rather speculation.

As long as the Bush administration can keep the argument over the question of winning the GWOT in that realm of speculation, they have a fighting chance of winning elections. It's with spin, smoke, mirrors and flag waving spectacles such as the 911 anniversary, that Bush can "make the case" for their governance. As long as voters fall for emotional sentimentality and indulgence in fear, and don't demand better accountability standards from their representatives, they'll get away with it. I can only hope that the tangible results, i.e. deficits, dead soldiers, and the lack of any coherent international diplomatic policy, is apparent enough for an informed vote.

We shall see.

UPDATE: Billmon has a very very interesting post up today wherein he discusses some of the above issues. He makes the case (and does a good job of it) for why the Dems need to lose the upcoming election. Excerpt:

As previously stated, I'm rooting (through gritted teeth) for the Rovians to win this match -- or, more accurately, not lose it -- because I think both the Cheney Administration's fake reality and the genuine article have even more unpleasant surprises in store for this country, and I don't think either the Democratic Party or the American people can handle them at this point. (The plurality/majority may have soured on internationalism, but I seriously doubt they're ready to accept the kind of social and economic changes an authentically anti-imperialist foreign policy would require.)

Personally, I tend to believe it will take a rather massive eruption of reality -- and probably a catastrophic one -- to produce fundamental political change in America, of the kind that might allow a progressive left-wing movement to smash the Rovian machine, break the political stranglehold of private wealth and bring the corporations, including the corporate media, back under some kind of check and balance.

Call me a wild-eyed radical, but I'm hoping for a 1932, or at least a 1980 in reverse, not a 1994 in reverse -- although we all could certainly do without a repeat of the Great Depression or the stagflationary '70s.

In any case, I'm reasonably sure that anything less than a 1932 or a 1980 (that is to say, a full-fledged political realigment) can and will be rolled back fairly quickly by the authoritarian powers that be. If the Carter and Clinton presidencies taught us nothing, they should have taught us that.

Wow.

That's mighty pessimissitc. But unfortunately it makes a whole lotta sense. And Digby echo's some of these sentiments.

I'm in a bad mood now ......