Of the many seminal ideas and axioms about war itself that we've taken from the Vietnam era, possibly the most imperative is the Country Joe and the Fish chant of "What are we fighting for?"

For the first time in our history more people questioned the war than merely played the patriotic roles they normally assign to themselves. Its not that all of the sudden people became smarter or stronger. This was the result of a natural cultural evolution.

A combination of advancements in technology (television, communications) and a government's lack of foresight for the emotions and questions that communication would stir caused our first true national debate-for better and for worse- on a war.

The term "debate" is important here. Debate means many things. Debate implies the right to question, but it also implies that its participants- in this case, the people- have a vested personal and emotional attachment to winning that debate.

The key concept during the Vietnam era was the questions and the questioning. Or, more apt, the process the questioning was a part of. The questioning was, for the most part, sincere in its motives: the answers, if they were there, could have moved public opinion for or against the war. The lack of answers, as it turns out, was what established the anti-war movement.

Fast forwarding past Vietnam, a variety of minor conflicts in the 1980's, Desert Storm, and the assortment of ready-for-Hollywood conflicts in the 1990's, we're now in a position in Iraq that is both familiar and new.

However, there is one distinction between Iraq and all other wars before it: we've skipped the questions, and gone straight to the answers.

Pro-war and Anti-war movements were established before the war began. The principles and justifications of each of these movements have been attached to nearly every sociological belief and agenda, other than the actual outcome of the war.

This, unfortunately, is the New Debate.

We're living in a Western culture where politics and political debate stretches far beyond the reasoning, rationale, and outcome of individual issues. Sitting on either the pro or con side of any issue is now a badge which represents a host of worldviews practically irrelevant to the process from decision to outcome that you'd think should define the debate on a political issue.

But we're still in a war. And we're still living in a democracy. And those running the war still need to play through the democratic process. So now, because of this New Debate, those in charge, in an effort to sway public opinion, must embark on two types of campaigns:

1. To appeal to these ulterior beliefs attached to any issue
2. To package decisions in a quick-and-easy-to-digest manner

Iraq is the first major endeavor to be packaged- marketed, if you will- using such a methodology. We've certainly packaged and marketed wars before. But before Iraq, it was the goings-on and results of the actual war- truthful and untruthful alike- which made up the bulk of this package.