Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
War Without End
WASHINGTON - Surprise, surprise. Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, wants to put a halt to any more troop withdrawals for the foreseeable future.
The highly politicized Petraeus seemed to be dutifully following his White House marching orders when he testified before congressional committees earlier this week.
Under his scenario, there will be no drawdown of U.S. forces in that strife-ridden country until President Bush leaves office.
That's fine with Bush, who obviously has no intention of ending this futile war on his watch. Apparently feeling no responsibility for starting the war, Bush is planning to pass the Iraqi debacle on to his successor.
You can forget accountability for the yet-to-be defined U.S. military mission which has taken more than 4,000 American lives, possibly a million Iraqi lives and destroyed a country.
Think of President Harry Truman and President Lyndon B. Johnson, who both understood that war was too important to be left to the generals in the field.
Truman fired the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur because he disobeyed orders in the Korean War. Johnson knew that he had reached the endgame in Vietnam when Gen. William Westmoreland, the top commander in Vietnam, requested 240,000 more troops in 1968 for the prolonged war that also could not be won.
Those two presidents finally drummed up enough courage to just say "no."
Petraeus is too smart to be pinned down on when the U.S. can pull out more troops, especially when there's been a new flare-up of sectarian violence in Iraq. Let's say he is careful and self-protective, trying to hold on.
When Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., told him: "What you have given to your chain of command is a plan which has no end to it."
The general replied: "Withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year."
Congress should wake up before it's too late and listen to retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency.
NSA is the nation's largest intelligence agency which monitors messages from all over the world.
Odom testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week and urged an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. He claimed the troop surge (escalation) has prolonged instability in Iraq and that the only "sensible strategy" is "rapid withdrawal."
In a separate speech last week, the outspoken general said, "We are certainly to blame for the chaos in Iraq" but "we do not have the physical means to prevent it."
Odom said the military situation in Iraq is worsened by "the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses."
"We are witnessing ... the road to Balkanization of Iraq, that is political fragmentation," Odom said
War makes strange bedfellows.
The Sunnis are now on our side -- if we continue to pay them enough, of course. They would be happy to see the U.S. attack Shiite-dominated Iran. Odom said those new-found friends threaten to defect unless their fees are increased.
"The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al-Qaida if we withdraw is utter nonsense, " Odom said. "The Sunnis will destroy al-Qaida if we leave Iraq," he added. "The Kurds will not allow them in their region and the Shiites "detest" al-Qaida, he said.
Although the U.S. economic recession is expected to dominate the presidential election race, Iraq won't be on the back burner if the Petraeus hearings are any guide.
The three presidential hopefuls -- Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. and Barack Obama, D-Ill. -- showed up at the high-profile hearings where Petraeus testified.
As expected, staunch-war supporter McCain said any promise to withdraw U.S. forces "would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."
In their disappointing comments, the Democratic rivals were as cautious as Petraeus.
Clinton said "it's time to begin an orderly withdrawal of our troops."
Obama told Petraeus that while he wants U.S. troops out of Iraq, he "would not initiate a precipitous withdrawal."
Ohio's GOP Sen. George Voinovich seemed to express the frustration best when he told Petraeus: "The American people have had it up to here."
56 Comments so far
Show AllIt is always a pleasure to read Helen's work. It is war forever, there is a lot of undone business to be taken care of and not much time left to get it started. The neocons have not yet left the building.
The business of the US is war.
And right now, for a small vicious elite, business...is...VERY...good.
Lincoln and FDR understood what it meant to be commander in chief. Sadly Bush does not. His hiding behind General Petraeus is a shameful abdication of presidential leadership.
The title of this article - "War Without End" - reminds me that Michael Klare wrote a book of the same title, published in 1972 (paperback) by Vintage Books (Random House). In it Klare describes the so-called "brushfire" wars that the US would be involved in for the next several decades, all to consolidate American power and resources around the world. And sure enough - he was right. Thank you Helen, for picking up on this theme. Like they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same -
"The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al-Qaida if we withdraw is utter nonsense, " Odom said. "The Sunnis will destroy al-Qaida if we leave Iraq," he added. "The Kurds will not allow them in their region and the Shiites "detest" al-Qaida, he said.
While we wouldn't want to see General Odom's prediction evaporate in the ineptness of un-unified Iraqis (always a risk if they're left to their own devices), if he's right, there is little better the world could observe than the spectacle of some miscellaneous Muslims banding together and kicking the al-Qaida butt in ways that America could not and did not accomplish.
1984 began with Reagan in 1981.
That's right: whether we have McCain, Clinton or Obama, it's war without end.
The empire must be shut down. Close the 800 military bases; bring the troops home and put them to work.
You're right, ezeflyer.
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to announced that I've
just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever.
We begin bombing in five minutes."
It's almost as if they think it's funny.
Heck of a cowboy George, 4342 dead COWs so far in just Iraq.
the interesting aspect of this administrations thinking is how thoroughly corporatist they are to the complete failure of their initial strategy to impose a government on the Iraqis...trying to make deals, split the opposition, and when that fails (which it will) to just abandon the place the way corporations do when there is no more profit to stay and leave the taxpayer to cleanup the pollution/unemployment/loss of tax base/ftragmentation in their search for more profit.
The war machine will not work unless we enable it to work. Do not serve. Do not work for a war corporation. Do not support or socialize with those who do. End unnecessary consumption. Live and work for peace.
"Those two presidents finally drummed up enough courage to just say "no.""
Only because it turned out that reports of oil reserves in Vietnam and Korea turned out to be just another CIA mistake.
November, 2001: $17.45/barrel.
April, 2008: $113/barrel and climbing.
Let's stop playing with ourselves already.
Thanks for the reminder ezeflyer.
My father who was a lifelong Republican FBI agent resigned from the GOP when Reagan was nominated. He saw who his advisers were and they were those who had corrupted (and were under federal investigation for various fraudulent schemes perpetrated on taxpayers)the State of CA while their mouthpiece Reagan was governor.
Couldn't Petraeus at least have worn a circa 1942 German Field Marshal's uniform during these Congressional hearings? Or pehaps a court jester's outfit? And couldn't both he and Crocker have strings running upward from their bodies as they spoke? Can't we have more entertaining theatrics added to this theater of the absurd considering what it's costing us?
A Politicized Military? - harpers.com 9-1-07
[...] In theory military officers should refrain from overt displays of political involvement; specifically, wearing a uniform to a political function is prohibited[...]. However, with the arrival of the Bush Administration, a double standard has emerged: military personnel are welcomed to participate, in uniform, at Republican functions; at Democratic functions, this is prohibited.[...]
The Department of Defense has limited access of military personnel to certain websites. In general, in the area of political commentary and reporting, the DOD view is that websites tightly aligned with the Republican Party or firmly committed to support the administration are fine. Websites associated with the Democratic Party or critical of the Administration are off limits.[...]
But it wouldn't be right to say simply that blogs on the right are permitted without blocks. They are actually boosted, and this appears to be a Dorrance Smith policy initiative. Several of these blogs—Michelle Malkin's being a good example—regularly get information sourced from political appointees inside the DOD which is not made available to ordinary reporters. They have become preferred means of disseminating certain types of information—especially attacks on mainstream media outlets.[...]
When Democrats visit Iraq, they find, unless their name is Joe Lieberman, that they get markedly different treatment from their Republican counterparts.[...]
So when Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) asked a soldier last weekend just what he was holding, the congressman was taken aback to find out.
In the soldier's hand was a thumbnail biography, distributed before each of the congressmen's meetings in Baghdad, which let meeting participants such as that soldier know where each of the lawmakers stands on the war. "Moran on Iraq policy," read one section, going on to cite some the congressman's most incendiary statements, such as, "This has been the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history."[...]
The American model has been of a consciously depoliticized military that focuses on its core functions. The tradition has been that soldiers shed politics and political affiliations when they put on their uniform. When they take it off, soldiers are free to pick and support the political party that appeals most to them, with no pressure from the Defense Department. The importance of this tradition can't be overstated.
In totalitarian societies, the party's control of the military is a standard feature, implemented through formal requirements of political loyalty. The most effective and arguably the most repulsive model is the one that Leon Trotsky developed for the Red Army in the autumn of 1918.[...]
Today, it seems, there are Republican policymakers who look rather enviously at Comrade Trotsky's plans.[...]
Permanent war is the perfect business plan for the crony war profiteers and Military Media Industrial Complex.
Permanent war is the perfect fear factory for swinging votes to the Republicans.
Permanent war is the perfect pretense for their war on civil liberties.
Permanent war is the perfect scenario for Johnny (Bomb Bomb Iran) McCain's march to glory.
Permanent war is what we will have when the media succeeds in marginalizing Obama and Clinton, in order to facilitate the selection of their favorite "straight talking maverick war hero".
Permanent war is what a sufficient number of brainwashed Americans will accept when they vote for Johnny Bomb Bomb; not necessarily a majority, but enough to make the election close enough for the Reich to steal again.
Does anyone here believe anything is going to change?
Kem,
things are going to change one way or the other.
Peace,
Ken
Yeah I know it, I was referring to the situation in Iraq and our foreign policies.
I don't expect any good changes any time soon. ___ I wish Helen was our president. She could scare Congress to death just by looking at them. I think Bush is scared of her for sure.
She's got more sense in her pinkie than the entire congress combined and they know it.
oh, by the way, the iraqis want us out too.
Most opinion polls show McCain within easy winning distance against either Clinton or Obama in November. Assuming the polls are even roughly accurate, this means that, as of today despite all the proven disasters brough about by Bush's GOP and go-along Democrats in congress in the past 8 yrs, half of US voters would still vote for a presidential candidate who openly guarantees more of the same policies for the next four years.
But the rest of the story is even worse: Those other, roughly 50%, of voters who claim to see the need for change, seem to be satisfied with superficial policy shift promises, but still can't demand of either Clinton or Obama any specific, fundamental measures that would change how and by whom the country is governed.
Nor are Clinton or Obama developing such deep-System reform campaign positions in any distinction to McCain.
So here is what we have: Half the country is rigidly irrational, either out of mindless fear, fascistic patriotism, greed, or admixtures of same. While the other half that claims it wants 'change,' is satisfied to demand of its feel-good 'change' candidates, no more than promises of superficial policy shifts and totally meaningless generalities about fundamental reforms.
It is a pickle we are in. It is a poisoned pickle; not to be eaten.
Some many war crimes and traitorous acts have been committed by Bushco that the stakes for them to ensure perpetual war are literally life and death.Hundreds if not thousands of them are at risk and they are liable to do almost anything to avoid rigorous investigations and ultimately trials.
Perhaps some decades ahead we'll learn why impeachment is off the table.Couldn't have been quietly threatened extraordinary renditions-or other black ops?
We are at such a dangerous crossroads now that if at least a dimunition in these abuses doesn't happen with a new administration-there will no avoiding total fascism.
klever April 13th, 2008 1:13 am
"Perhaps some decades ahead we'll learn why impeachment is off the table."
The reason is already well known. Nancy Pelosi has known about the spying on American citizens since 2002 and neither said or did anything about it. If Bush were to be impeached for it Ms. Pelosi could find herself impeached or in peril of other legal actions on the same charges.
Lobo Gris
War is Peace, as McCain and Pelosi both know. Bush will have his third term and Pelosi will be looking for work. The "election" is over, folks. Most Americans are fully satisfied with the current state of affairs and will happily vote to continue it. Read the polls.
Rtdrury (April 12th, 2008 8:27 pm), yes, and I keep wondering why no one ever questions why Michael Hayden, head of the civilian CIA, wears his USAF uniform to work. Stansfield Turner and other past intel chiefs never did this.
KEM PATRICK (April 12th, 2008 10:03 pm):
"Does anyone here believe anything is going to change?"
Kem, I think things are going to change, but not in a way any of us can predict at the present time. Example: Six months ago, Clinton was the inevitable Dem and Romney was likely the GOP candidate for president. McCain was down on the list, bottom-feeding with Tommy Thompson. Who knows, things may turn out much better than any of us expects.
Favonian2 (April 13th, 2008 1:01 am), I would never trust the polls. Gallup, for one, is owned by a Christopublican, and what a poll says depends greatly on what the poll questions are and how they are asked and who's paying for it. Without knowing those details, polls showing McCain doing so well are meaningless. Also, phone polls are conducted on landline phones, meaning they reach a lot of seniors with nothing better to do that gab with a pollster. Younger people use cell phones, so that group isn't properly represented. Polls are also weighted toward those who voted in previous elections, which gives a skewed view of the electorate. Many people are voting for the first time, or haven't voted in a long time, in this election. After all, 'polls' supposedly said that New Coke would be a raging success.
Lobo Gris (April 13th, 2008 4:38 am), I think you're right, and I also think many Dems are intimidated by what the Bush Regime did to Valerie Plame, etc. Junior's Gang has shown they are willing to go after your family to get what they want, just like the Mafia.
Hey! The mafia does not hit the family!
Fav:
Sorry don't trust polls since 2000. 3 elections stolen, why not, the powers that be have won the power change in the US and next stop the world can't stop now.
KEM:
Agree, have been saying the same since about 2004. OB or HC if by small chance they get in will be put in their place before they make the acceptance speech. These people who are wishing for change will be the first to be eaten.
"Does anyone here believe anything is going to change?"
Kind of depends on whether or not the Chinese decide to call in their markers. If they do, our dancing chimp will dance no longer.
RSJ: Love your 7:53 posting! (Just as I added to a thread a few days ago, in the future kids will all be fighting for "Dick Cheney" Halloween costumes, guaranteed to fear and terrorize beholders!)
Good Posts: RT DRURY (I love Harper's!) and DAVE DUBYA.
FAVOVIAN: One subtle problem with polls is that the PRESUMPTION someone is winning can influence fence-sitters and sheep who don't really have an opinion. What IS an opinion these days, when the majority are getting their "news" from propagandistic sources? It's like asking people who are poisoned what they want for dinner.
RSJ April 13th, 2008 7:36 am
"Lobo Gris (April 13th, 2008 4:38 am), I think you're right, and I also think many Dems are intimidated by what the Bush Regime did to Valerie Plame, etc. Junior's Gang has shown they are willing to go after your family to get what they want, just like the Mafia."
Good point and you may well be right about it too.
Lobo Gris
He never was a president..He was hand picked because he was failer in life, but still had the name.They knew he didn't understand the world and cared less.He was perfect!
He would simply bask in the illusion of glory and do what he was told.
That is, his legacy.
"BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government has dismissed about 1,300 soldiers and policemen..."
Progress, great gobs of our tax money was spent to train and equip these men only to be delivered to al-Sadr. Now Bush's catpaws, Ambassador Crackpot and General Mayhem, can borrow and spend America farther into bankrupcy by training and equiping yet another bunch of Iraqis. What a country, I'm sure glad I put my savings in Euros! I hope that the Red State Republican Jungos and Evilgelicals have enough saved up or they will need to sell their children into slavery to pay for their catastrophy.
Just in:
Massive explosion in Shiraz, Iran has leveled a mosque there. Multiple fatalities. Iranian gov't is saying at this time the explosion does not appear to be deliberate.
But one wonders...
BTW, anyone hear if the US military 'black ops' teams have LEFT Iran yet?
It is not an endless war. It will end and bin Laden will win it when our military and our economy are destroyed, when we become a third world country. That will happen sooner than most people believe because Bush will attack Iran to make sure McCain gets elected.
The only way to stop this insanity is to force Congress toimpeach Bush and Cheney NOW and vote for Congressional candidates who demand change.
Doggone- please share your recreational meds with the rest of us.
The US congress will no more impeach the Bushco junta than a stone will fall spontaneously up.
The Republicans and Democrats are the two arms of the MONEY PARTY! As long as they can generate profit, no matter what the means, THEY WILL DO IT.
As a progressive political poster many years ago in my old hometown of Edmonton, Alberta,Canada said: 'No matter who you vote for, the government gets in'.
The insanity of the current socio-political structure of the US will only end with it's utter collapse.
Unfortunately, that collapse will cost many, perhaps millions more lives of innocent men, women, and children. Iraqi, Iranian and very probably American...
So many articulate and even eloquent comments above. Its a shame that only 1% of us are awake, that being the 1% of the population that reads sites like Common Dreams. At least this site gives me lots of verbal ammo for use against those still asleep or still in denial.
If you like the oil wars, you're going to love the water wars.
kent shaw
Most that brag about being a veteran Are not combat veterans - the ones who are really don't want to talk about it - sure some of the braggarts were in the military, combat, no. You have to look a long ways to find any who think war is glorious. Then there is that "little" thing about how many vets are damaged goods mentally and physically - any one of the vets since WWII claiming they fought for freedom are incapable of independent thought - it's all just programing
EZEFLYER, how true! I lived in California when Reagan was elected and my uncle knew him very well and even though he is deceased now, that is exactly what he would say about Reagan.
Dear Helen:
"Bush is planning to pass the Iraqi debacle on to his successor."
To the oil companies and the defense contractors Iraq has been anything but a "debacle":
frank1569 April 12th, 2008 4:14 pm
"November, 2001: $17.45/barrel.
April, 2008: $113/barrel and climbing.
Let's stop playing with ourselves already."
Helen, when you had the "gall" to ask Dana Perino (sp?) about civilian deaths in Iraq, and she answered by threatening your position in the press room and enticed the other reporters to be threats too...wasn't it time to take the gloves off, isn't it time for bare knuckles?
I'm with Frank1569 "Let's stop playing with ourselves already." Yes! Let's pick up OUR Constitution, turn to Article II Section 4, clench with a white knuckle grasp and not let go until America is closer to the Spirit of it's ideals than it's ever been.
Impeachment: what other star light is there illuminating Hope, Justice and the path back to the pursuit of Happiness.
Helen, please help remove this sadistic (Justin A. Frank MD diagnosis) strain from the White House by further assisting the culturing of the call to impeach Bush/Cheney.
Thank you for all you do and all you can do.
(oh, and about your title War Without End. While scaring the hell out of some of us and getting us to act, do not phrases like this mostly feed the defeatest attitude of "there's nothing I can do" and thus comply with Senator McCain's satisfaction with the Iraq situation and 100 more years of it?)
Old "Mission Accomplished" has us quagmired into a hopelessly complicated civil war of tribal warfare and sectarian conflict. Only the most diehard country club Republicans refuse to see Iraq is the most politically driven war in U.S. history. Rove created the "crisis" of Saddam's bogus weapons of mass destruction aimed at recreating Bush, a pathetic third-rate hack, as a courageous and self-anointed "war president" when his polls began dropping following 9/11 and his 'rally-around-the-president-in-times-of-crisis' phenomenon waned. The Liar-in-Chief had to face the reality that his presidency was in serious danger of sinking into fiscal chaos and the ignominy of being another one-term Bush.
Oh, I only hope Bush goes away without attacking Iran. That's the only thing I am concerned about as we endure the never ending presidential campaign among people only marginally qualified to lead anything of consequence as we mover further into the 'aughts.
"WAR WITHOUT END" is a good subject. Except there is no war. Where are the Iraqi air force? Its navy, and army?
What we have here is a terrorist attack, invasion, and an illegal occupation by the USA.
Some of us remember the "war" on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on crime from the 60s. Did we win it? Or, are we still fighting them?
"Wars" on terror are not fought by militaries. It's just an empty slogan.
Early on, there was much said about Bush not having an "EXIT" strategy. Some of us knew at that time why there was no exit strategy. Because this admin. had no intention of ever leaving Iraq. Occupation with end indeed.
RE: Remoran
"Oh, I only hope Bush goes away without attacking Iran. That's the only thing I am concerned about as we endure the never ending presidential campaign among people only marginally qualified to lead anything of consequence as we mover further into the 'aughts."
Whether Bush attacks Iran or, create another 9/11, there might not be an election. He has claimed everything else under the "war powers act," so he could suspend the election and declare "MARTIAL LAW."
lizard (April 13th, 2008 7:51 am): "Hey! The mafia does not hit the family!"
The old Mafia didn't; the new Mafia does. (Maybe they learned from the BFEE.)
Siouxrose (April 13th, 2008 9:06 am) thanks and you're right. Sometimes people just say they're going to vote for whatever name is in the news, even though they haven't made up their mind yet.
Rick (April 13th, 2008 10:12 am): In Texas, Junior was known as the 'Dr. Pepper' governor -- in at 10 to play video games and eat lunch, photo ops at 2, and home by 4. He is the perfect vessel for the neocons; an incurious dimbulb blank slate who didn't care much about anything except outdoing his father.
whatfools (April 13th, 2008 10:15 am), Gen. Betrayus was in charge of training the Iraqi troops to 'stand up' for a couple of years before his present post. Worked out well, didn't it?
doggone (April 13th, 2008 10:34 am), I think eventually the Mahdi Army and their allies will just overwhelm the Green Zone, possibly with Sunni help. That's it, game's over, just like Saigon. Then the real civil war starts over there, between the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, and it will be a bloodbath that can be laid at BushCo's doorstep.
Shiva (April 13th, 2008 11:53 am), what you wrote is absolutely true -- those who have been through it don't want to talk about it. Only a Champaign Squadron goofball like Little George could think combat is 'romantic' or 'exciting.' I can imagine the grunts groaning when they heard him bubble: "I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger."
remoran (April 13th, 2008 1:14 pm) if they think Iraq is a problem now, wait until they start carpet bombing Iran. Bush and Cheney may be too far gone to understand this, but I think our commanders over there realize our exhausted and under-equipped troops would be in a pincher with Syria to the west and Iran to the east, and they'd be the target. In military exercises conducted years ago based on the US attacking Iraq, the US commander who was heading up the 'Iraq' forces embarrassingly won over the US fleet and ground forces, inflicting massive damage and casualties until the US side was forced to withdraw.
Tsunami (April 13th, 2008 4:52 pm) it's unlikely most of the military would support Bush if he declared martial law. Without the military behind him, martial law would never work.
The Germans had lost WW2 long before the USA decided to join the winning side, the British 8th Army had thrown the desert rat out of North Africa and the Russians were driving the german invaders out of the east. The fact is that the enormous number of American troops in the UK had to be fed and they were at our expense, we practically starved. The American contribution should have been food and other essentials. The second front was already established in Italy it was just a matter of continuing that campaign. The real reason the second front was begun was to take as much of Europe before Russia did, nothing to do with defeating Germany. The American incompetence which allowed the Germans to advance through American lines and resulted in the battle of the bulge nearly cost us that 3rd front, British troops were rushed in to man the crossing points before the germans got established.
The same incompetence showed it's ugly head in Vietnam, Mogadishu, Iran hostage, Beirut and now Iraq.
That is why this policy of permanent hostilties is ludicrous, the USA just looks bloody stupid. The USS Cole tied up alongside in harbour and the Captain and crew allow somebody to blow a hole in the ship. What happened to the guards, what happened to normal military procedure of protecting the Ship, Barracks etc.
What concerns me most is a nation as incompetent as the USA could well end up blowing up most of Europe and North America.
General Petraeus is a FRAUD....the illegal war in Iraq is..........LOST.
ManCowBoy Bush and his second rate Generals haven't a clue how to turn this military disaster around.
IMPEACH both BUSH and CHENEY..................NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This reminds my or Orson Welles "Things to Come" where endless war reduces us to stone-age barbarians. Unfortunately it looks as if little will change even if the vetted Dims assume Emperorship. It will take economic collapse to stop this crime but that too may happen.
pistonbroke (April 13th, 2008 7:48 pm) wrote: "The Germans had lost WW2 long before the USA decided to join the winning side, the British 8th Army had thrown the desert rat out of North Africa and the Russians were driving the german invaders out of the east."
That's an interesting take on the German Army's defeat in North Africa, since most historians credit the Second Battle of El Alamein in Nov. 1942 as the first real defeat for Rommel's Afrika Corps, and the Germans didn't surrender in Africa until May 1943, both events taking place well after the US had entered the war.
As far as Russia is concerned, most historians agree that the tide turned against Hitler when the Red Army won the Battle of Stalingrad in Feb. 1943. US forces in the Pacific helped keep Germany's Axis ally Japan from concentrating forces in the East against Russia; such a pincer move would have undoubtedly led to Russia losing to Germany,as the Japanese would have had free access to attack on the ground and bomb Russia's production lines from the air.
The second front in Italy was partly secured by the US invasion of Anzio, you might have mentioned.
Also, while British troops had some involvement in saving Bastogne from the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge, the bulk of the relief came from Patton's Third Army and the US 101st Airborne Division.
You're entitled to your estimation of the competence of the US forces, but I don't see how, without America joining the fight, the British and the Russians could have defeated Hitler on their own.
I agree with you though on this point -- I hope the current crop of Bush incompetents don't end up getting us all in a nuclear war.
BTW, Jaded Prole, I think you meant H.G. Wells and 'Things to Come,' although Orson Welles and his 'War of the Worlds' radio hoax would fit in, too -- half the time I think BushCo just has to be kidding.
Helen is an America treasure. She penetrates the propaganda and maintains progressive standards with her clear sense of right and wrong. I loved her reference to "cautious" (rather than bold and courageous) Democrats Clinton and Obama.
Jaded Prole: it was -H.G. Wells- who wrote 'Things to come'.