Honestly, I think you post these questions just to pull me out of my cacoon.
<<Democrats Declare Defeat
The bit was so short that I could not recall the Democratic Congressman that said:
"The War in Iraq is Lost">>
I'd have to agree. I certainly can't go with George's claim to victory!
<<While I was not in favor of selecting Iraq as a target for total conquest and rebuilding, at our expense, one wonders exactly what out alternatives will be in situations deemed more essential to US and World Security. >>
I guess the real question was (and is) whether or not Iraq was an issue of world security. Personally, I don't think so as the evidence showed post-invasion.
<<Is it therefore wise to make a declaration of this nature? >>
It was George who "declared" war in the first place. He hasn't listened to Congress, his generals, or the American people. Are we afraid to hear it again that we lost this battle? If your going to be the big boy on the block, be prepared to hear the tough news!
<<Should our strategic nuclear forces target nuclear and missile facilities in certain countires like Iran and Korea (assuming the latter regime cares)? >>
Why do we have to use our strategic nuclear forces to target others. If we really think Iran and North Korea are global threats, then by all means deal with the issue. Does it mean we have to invade and occupy? I don't think so. Make the point and go home.
<<Where actually do we go from here in the war on terror after this terrible blow to the morale of the folks in the field? >>
That's just company rhetoric. Turn on the news and you can hear stories from soldiers over there or from those who returned who have done their duty and would do it again, but don't believe the issue is the right one to be fighting for. Where is the measurement for morale? How does one quantify that? George's spin, that's all.
<<Should a declaration of war be pursued? Should we just wait for the next 9/11 before support for such a declaration could be made. Further, if a declaration of war is not feasible, if only for the reason that the system was never intended to cover situations where a specific enemy cannot be identified, what is our course of action? >>
Why? We haven't declared war officially on anyone since 1941. Why start now? What difference would it make? And thinking this would have a bearing on whether there would be another 911 attack is ludicrous. The extremists have already proven that they will go to every length to do what they want. They have no concern about how many die in the process. There will always be a country out there willing to sponsor them with safe haven, guns, money, etc. What makes anyone think it's never going to happen again somewhere? Fighting the enemy you can't see or identify is a war of attrition which we will never win. Might as well nuke them all!
<<Should the Nation be made in other ways to realize it should be on a War footing? >>
Dont' know where you're going with this statement. Want to clarify?
<<Can a Nation perceived as at war with itself really continue to be considered the world's last superpower? >>
Ahhh, the drawbacks of a democratic society. Are you asking should the people have a say in matters of great importance, such as this, or should we follow our elected head of state blindly into mess after mess and assume he's doing it for all the right reasons and that it'll be good for us? We are a superpower for no other reason than our economic and military might. We still have that no matter what people are debating over. When some other nation wants to step up to the plate and take that position over, then I say, go for it. Good Luck!
Now back to our regularly scheduled program....