Others have been saying this in the last couple of months, including at least another Kossack (Thereisnospoon), but if we want to beat the Republicans in the way this war is perceived publicly, we need to stop talking about how it should be framed, and actually start framing it properly.
Others have stated this more eloquently, but the conflict in Iraq is not a war. It is an occupation. Wars are won by armies outmaneuvering and outpowering other armies for control of territory. In an occupation, a dominant military force is charged with the nearly impossible task of quelling domestic insurrection.
As history has shown during the past century and a half, no matter how powerful a military presence is, insurrections cannot be quelled through force, unless it is willing to use borderline genocidal tactics. Dictators and the tactics only they are willing to use can inspire the needed level of fear to quell an insurrection (and sometimes not even then).
This is the lesson historians have learned from Afghanistan (British and Soviet), Algeria (French), VietNam (American) and scores of similar engagements. Americans as a country have no apetite for using the tactics we need to control the Iraqi populace -- collective punishment and indiscriminant murder (though sadly I perceive our efforts there drifting this way).
But the way Republicans have presented this engagement, as a war against those who would kill us in a heartbeat on US soil, any Democratic proposal to withdraw is inherently seen as weak.
National Democratic politicians have consistently disappointed the community here in their apporach to presenting alternative solutions, but that's not the focus of this diary.
Instead -- and forgive the presumptuousness of this first-time diarist -- we here (in the Kos community, the netroots, the new Democratic Crash-the-Gates movement) need to start framing this conflict exclusively as an occupation. We should refrain from ever uttering the phrase "The War in Iraq" and replace it with "the Iraqi Occupation." In every instance.
* Republicans want to continue the failed Iraqi Occupation. Democrats oppose continuing the Iraqi Occupation.
* President George W. Bush has refused to set a deadline for ending the Iraqi Occupation.
* Republicans have yet to offer an alternative to ending the Iraqi Occupation.
* Some Democrats want to begin withdrawing troops by the end of the year, and conclude the Iraqi Occupation within the next 30 months.
* Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman differ on their support for the Iraqi Occupation.
* The US's hand in dealing with the North Koreans and Iranians has been weakened by the Iraqi Occupation.
This isn't some pseudo-science, George Lakoff pop psychology trick (although I'm a Lakoff fan, and he did inspire this post). It's the best description of reality. From now on, we should look at every story, every slant and every proposal involving Iraq through this occupation prism.
In this sad age, we can't expect our leaders to lead us. We need to do it for them. And we do have a (subtle) effect on the greater national dialogue in the mainstream press. It won't happen overnight, but a concerted effort to speak of this conflict exclusively as an occupation, could help shape the public at large's perception of it.