The fifth anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is fast approaching, and the phrase unwinnable war seems to increase in salience daily, as peace and justice activists worldwide gear up for another long week of demonstrations. While support in the US for the continued troop presence in Iraq is at an all-time low, a shift in the make-up of the US Congress seems to have borne few, if any, tangible changes in the prosecution of the war in Iraq and the broader "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism." All of this against the backdrop of a renewed insurgency in southern Afghanistan, where Dutch-led ISAF forces are contending with suicide bombers, a security crackdown in "sectarian-violence" plagued Baghdad, and a tentative UN Security Council agreement on sanctions against Iran for its allegedly militaristic uranium enrichment program.

Conservative politicians are decrying the Democratic Party's attempts to "micromanage" the mission of the war, by attempting to place a 2008 withdrawal date, and have only recently permitted debate on the war to go through. Lacking from this criticism is any acknowledgement that the "mission" has been constantly in flux and nebulous at best, with the main missions of regime change and disarming Iraq, though obviously questionable in their justifications, nevertheless "accomplished."

Also lacking is an acknowledgement that Congress can rightfully use the "power of the purse" to restrict illegal or disastrous military actions, and that presidential veto threats are irrelevant in this scenario in which no spending bills are passed at all. It is clear that on the surface, Democrats fear being painted as not in support of the troops even though a drop-off of funding would not leave troops stranded in the deserts and cities of Iraq, although ulterior motives for resisting calls for impeachment proceedings and a cut-off of funding may indeed be the driving factor. At the least, the days of out-right rubberstamping of Administration policies appear to be over.

Enter the contentious spending bill:
In a 36-28 vote, the House Appropriations Committee approved a $124.1 billion emergency spending bill, including $95.5 billion to continue fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. Stripped from language in the bill to garner support among "moderate" and "conservative" Democrats was a requirement that Bush seek authorization before launching any assault or invasion on Iran. One notable senator, Barack Obama, has openly supported "surgical strikes" on Iran without consideration of the wide-scale escalation of war in the Middle East that would ensue.

Funding was even added to Bush's initial $100 billion supplemental request supposedly in order to adequately train and equip soldiers being sent to the battlefield. In the Senate, a resolution proposing a March 2008 withdrawal failed to garner the 60 votes needed to pass, but a separate symbolic resolution "supporting the troops" passed overwhelmingly, much as a response to reports of negligent care of wounded and traumatized veterans upon returning from or redeployment to the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres.

But the mission has evolved, one might say, to reflect limitless American interests in the region. So "flip-flopper"-inaugurate Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stated in a recent interview in which she also cited Israel's interests as a subset of US national interests. Recall that recently she stated if this presidency does not end the war in Iraq, her presidency would end it in 2009. Her new stance is quite peculiar as she simultaneously says her presidency would see a continuing occupation that would not address the civil war, and would stand by if ethnic cleansing increased.

Also notably lacking from the major presidential candidates war rhetoric is any alternative to the prosecution of the war on Terror in order to "win it," save calls to increase troop presence in Afghanistan. Support seems unchanged on war crimes tribunals, secret detentions, and Guantanamo Bay, where currently 14 suspects, included self-professed Al-Qaeda operational leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed, are being tried as to whether they can be considered enemy combatants. Hundreds more in Guantanamo don't have the luxury of having seen any form of international justice. Currently there are also over 15,000 detainees held in Iraq, in indefinite detention and without access to Geneva Conventions on rights of prisoners of war. What would happen with these illegal detention centers in a Clinton, McCain, Giuliani, or Obama presidency?

In lieu of the Congressional deadlock and broad support for a status quo of indefinite military presence in the Middle East, options for the global pacifist movement are dwindling, but not entirely lost. More needs to be done to assist younger people who want to participate in and strengthen networks of resistance, and more needs to be done to communicate the possibilities on both sides of the conflict for forcing reconciliation and compromise, which include a settlement to the Israeli-Palestine conflict that settles the sticking point of Jerusalem and right of return, and a potential mass strike or boycott that could weaken the spending and recruiting power of the two sides. The last, worst option, is abandonment of these societies in conflict to a region away from the battlefields, and allowing the global civil war to run its course to the bitter end. Due to the globalization of the world and the diffusement of insurgent networks, however, it is clear that spaces immune to the global civil war may be hard to find.

In my view, Iraqi and Afghani people deserve to make their own decisions on the duration of foreign occupations, whether misguided or not, but that whatever outcome is preferred should involve increasing foreign aid for development of essential services and infrastructure that does not involve structural readjustments, and the bulk of this aid should be made in the form of reparations from primarily the US government.