This is a very interesting article.

Link

There's a lot here, but this really got my attention:



(Bold added for emphasis)

If this is an accurate analysis of the situation, it's a sobering thought for all sides to consider.

To be debated:

1. Is it likely that success in Iraq would require several years of effort by American military forces?

2. If so, what implications does this have for "timelines" in Iraq? Does it suggest that a quicker withdrawal would be best, in order to cut losses, or does it suggest that American forces should be prepared to stay as long as necessary?

3. Is it politically possible for American forces to remain in Iraq for "five to ten years"?

Is it likely that success in Iraq would require several years of effort by American military forces?

Of course it would. Even if the current 'surge' is successful (and this seems to indicate that it is), it would take a prolonged similar effort throughout the whole country to achieve 'success'. That would take at least a couple of years, given past recent history. The only thing that could shorten that time frame considerably would be a dramatic increase in the ability/effectiveness of Iraqi security forces. This is not likely, although it is certainly possible, as the creation of a national security force would be marked by a considerable ramp-up time followed by a rapid improvement in effectiveness.

If so, what implications does this have for "timelines" in Iraq? Does it suggest that a quicker withdrawal would be best, in order to cut losses, or does it suggest that American forces should be prepared to stay as long as necessary?

I think it depends on the success of the current change in policy. If that indicates a fairly high liklihood of eventual success throughout the country, then American forces should be prepared to stay as long as necessary. If, however, it doesn't show much success, then there isn't much justification for staying longer, and plenty of justification for cutting losses. It is the 'cutting losses' part that must be carefully considered. For their will almost certainly be additional losses sustained in the future if we leave unsuccessfully.

Is it politically possible for American forces to remain in Iraq for "five to ten years"?

Not without a fairly dramatic change in events indicating a much higher liklihood of success. 'Stay the course' has run its course...tangible success would have to be shown.

Is it likely that success in Iraq would require several years of effort by American military forces?

I don't know. There is an underlying problem not addressed in the article. Although the surge seems to be making a positive difference, a significant percentage of the forces necessary for that surge are soldiers whose tours were extended to serve it. In other words, tours of duty for many of the soldiers sitting in Baghdad right now "for the surge" were supposed to end in February and were extended for four months. What happens then? Do we keep extending their tours until battle fatigue overwhelms them? The situation is pretty dire. We simply do not have the forces to keep up this level of commitment for the next ten years.

Basic training is now reminiscent of the way things were during the Vietnam war..."Feel fatigued? Just wave this card and take a rest" "Can't get over that six foot high wall? Don't worry, it's not that important..." It's a problem.

Is it politically possible for American forces to remain in Iraq for "five to ten years"?

I don't think so, because it is an unpopular occupation and the cost is so great on every level. Think of what we have spent on this war. We could have cars running on cold fusion by now, or some other sort of fuel alternative that would cut off the funding for the terrorism disease at its source rather than attempting random ineffective "quarantines".

I'll give a small topic-related for instance...the logistical nightmare of funding this surge. There are so many forces and supplies in Baghdad now that there was no place to put them. Call Brown and Root to quickly build places to put all those tanks and personnel, at extra cost because it had to be done yesterday....

Here's an idea: Let's combat the insurgency with an insurgency. Start a rumor in country Y (with a heavily indoctrinated population spoiling for a fight) that insurgents X in Iraq said that Allah wears women's undergarments.

To be debated:

1. Is it likely that success in Iraq would require several years of effort by American military forces?

Several years or maybe a 100 years, who knows? Other than early military success when has this administration predicted anything right?

2. If so, what implications does this have for "timelines" in Iraq? Does it suggest that a quicker withdrawal would be best, in order to cut losses, or does it suggest that American forces should be prepared to stay as long as necessary?

We are in an open ended situation, attempting to "save" a population, the majority of whom say in polls that they support the insurgency against the US. We should set a time table and progressively leave, doing everything we can in the interim to support a peaceful transition and consulting and cooperating with all the interested parties including Iran and Syria.

3. Is it politically possible for American forces to remain in Iraq for "five to ten years"?


Other than for possibly training and distributing resources, I certainly hope not.

1. Is it likely that success in Iraq would require several years of effort by American military forces?

I’ve said since day one of the invasion success can only be measured once we leave, what will Iraq look like 1/5/10 years after our troops are withdrawn? Chances are likely the invasion will be a futile effort at best. We’ve gone through the litany of excuses made by the administration of exactly why we’re there, democracy being the latest and the least likely. So I don’t see “success” by any measure regardless if we leave or stay until only “X” people are killing each other.

From your link:

Now, whose opinion should we believe? A senator who was paraded around the green zone with a military posse and an agenda, or someone who by all appearances has their ear a little closer to the ground?

2. If so, what implications does this have for "timelines" in Iraq? Does it suggest that a quicker withdrawal would be best, in order to cut losses, or does it suggest that American forces should be prepared to stay as long as necessary?

I’ll continue to argue that regardless of how long we stay, it will all be for nothing. The misguided intent of this administration can’t overcome thousands of years of sectarian violence.

3. Is it politically possible for American forces to remain in Iraq for "five to ten years"?

What about the political will of the Iraqi’s? Today witnessed another huge demonstration with a clear message they want us out. How can we provide political guard rails when they aren’t willing to ride on our road?

The political will of Americans spoke last fall.

The key domestic politics being played out now is the chess game by the GOP. They know they can’t win by any measure, but they’ll stick to their guns, come up with “Operation X” when surge fails and continue to blame the democrats and dissenters. Finally when the last troops are withdrawn and chaos engulfs the Middle East they’ll sit and blame those who opposed them and pushed for early withdrawal.

Carl Rove Textbook.

From the article:



This indicates to me that the military vote in 2008 will be different than in 2004, should the present administration not get this thing settled by then.

1. Is it likely that success in Iraq would require several years of effort by American military forces?

When we say 5-10 years, is that on top of the 4 years already spent? That's the way I'm interpreting the statement.

No, I don't think it's likely unless we get the money and militaries of surrounding countries involved. The insurgancey has become a regional problem, so the region ought to put the greatest part into the effort. The US can help out with training police forces, but the Iraqi government has to somehow make it worth the surrounding countries' efforts. I have no idea how this can be done, being that my impression is that there are a lot of crazy mofos out thataway.

It was good to read about the tribal leaders turning against the extremists. Seems to be a glimmer of sanity, being that if the population keeps blowing itself up, there won't be many Iraqis left in a few years.

The meek then inherit what was the known world back when Proverbs was written?

2. If so, what implications does this have for "timelines" in Iraq? Does it suggest that a quicker withdrawal would be best, in order to cut losses, or does it suggest that American forces should be prepared to stay as long as necessary?

Referring back to the first quote I used, the implication is that the military vote will be different in 2008 than 2004. That change will likely be on the side of getting out ASAP. It's not only the soldiers going on second, third, forth tours of duty but the families too. The payback for all this risk and sacrifice is looking very puny, if it exists at all. I'm pretty sure that the fear factor of terrorism doesn't play any longer.

Ergo, timelines have a chance for attracting support. I like the idea of keeping the pullout date secret and the joke about the Iraqis looking around and saying, "Where'd all the Americans go? They were here just a minute ago. Now what are we supposed to do with all these IEDs, and who's going to clean up this mess?"

3. Is it politically possible for American forces to remain in Iraq for "five to ten years"?

Nope. That notion is DOA, politically, to the American voters. There might be a small contingent of advisors that hangs on, and possibly contractors to build infrastructure, but I have my doubts about that. The bombings and murders have to stop, and relatively soon, or I see a swell of attitude on the horizon, attitude that has been sucked in for years.

It's popular to say that the 2006 vote was against the Iraq project, but no, that was about our own local issues. The vote in 2008 will be largely about the Iraq project -- and health care -- but that's another debate topic.

Overall, I don't see significant US presence in Iraq by 2010. Three years more, max. It might be only half that time, depending on how strongly the GOP wants to keep the Executive. Five to ten more years isn't going to happen.

Perhaps the political message that's getting through to the Iraqi leadership at the local level is that these extremist types are out to kill everyone, America knows it, and we're rapidly not caring enough to send our troops over there.

Relevant to the success of the "surge" is this, which I also posted on the "surge" thread:

Today's (April 9th's) NY Times, front page: "There is little sign that the security push in Baghdad is accomplishing its main purpose: creating an island of stability for Iraqis."

The full text is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

Leaving that aside, the discussion on this thread is largely mistaken in its notion of why the U.S. went to war and what, therefore, would constitute "success." Since the official rationales have shifted as the truth in Iraq has emerged, I don't know why anyone would take seriously that this was a war to democratize Iraq and make it a beacon of western bourgeois ideology -- pardon me, of "freedom," -- in the Middle East.

Among most critics of the invasion of Iraq throughout the world and many in this country, it is accepted that the U.S. went to war to win effective control (I did not say "legal ownership") of Iraq's oil and to obtain a military lodgement in the heart of the Middle East, with expected collateral gains due to Iraq's enlistment as a U.S. client state (a state conducts its trade and investment policies on very favorable terms with its "parent" state). In contrast to the almost laughable notion of going to war to remove a dictator, or the entirely fanciful threat supposedly posed by Iraq, that would've been a rationale that made sense to the people in power, and which would've attracted their support. Most of these well-connected people would not, I believe, have been foolish enough to accept the official rhetoric -- especially considering that a very great many Americans less connected to the power elite, about 30% of the electorate in all, also were not that foolish. Most of the power structure did, of course, pay lip service.

I don't believe for a second that most U.S. Senators were deceived by the Administration. On the contrary, most of them accepted the real reasons for the war, and those who didn't were cornered by the administration's successful whipping up of nationwide war sentiment. Also I do not believe that Dick Cheney and his many fatcat brethren at any time were concerned with the supposed evil of Saddam Hussein or with the plight of the people of Iraq or with their prospects for eventual democracy, still less with WMD. I admit that it is entirely possible that the power elite's idiot front man, Bush, actually believed the official stupidities, but that's immaterial. As Reagan demonstrated, it doesn't take a brain to be president.

At any rate, it seems clear by now that these and indeed any conceivable set of U.S. war aims have been defeated. After four years of fighting, the situation has not only not improved; it has gotten notably worse. It is infeasible for the U.S. to deploy the resources necessary to control the ground in Iraq. Only the people in the White House and a diminishing band of die-hard war dead-enders on the Right have failed to accept that. Actually I believe that some people in the White House have accepted it, but are desperately hoping that they won't have to admit it before they leave their offices. The important thing is that American people know it, and that makes irrelevant any consideration of how many years it would take to win.

But I cannot resist, before I conclude, wondering how "five to ten years" was arrived at. You could put any number of years from 5 to 5000 on a big Jeopardy wheel, spin it, and come up with as valid an estimate. How many years will it be until cats write poetry or 2+2=5?

To be debated:

1. Is it likely that success in Iraq would require several years of effort by American military forces?

Yes. It’s a war not a basketball game.
2. If so, what implications does this have for "timelines" in Iraq? Does it suggest that a quicker withdrawal would be best, in order to cut losses, or does it suggest that American forces should be prepared to stay as long as necessary?

Fixed timelines will not work. If we are not willing to stay we will certainly be back.
3. Is it politically possible for American forces to remain in Iraq for "five to ten years"?

Not likely with Democrats in control. Republicans are sick of the war as well. If we come home too soon we need to prepare for a bigger return within 3 years to deal with the disaster we left behind.

Well on the net I read a post by a Mr.X or Ms.X or maybe a Mrs.X that said Iraq is a horrible mess and we need to leave.

Ok, bad point.

Sure, because of x we need to do y, and we will ignore the rest of the alphabet and other Greek or Arabic or other figures used to represent logic or understanding of something.

What would be really the difference if the person said, four years, 2 and one half, or 500 really. I don’t buy into any of it. Currently we have a surge to win possible one city in Iraq, which is producing in large high casualties, and I don’t know how long we will keep that tempo up, more so if the idea of providing a window for groups in conflict in Iraq to resolve to allow for a peaceful civil atmosphere, to bad Iraq’s economy is in shambles.

I will just repeat my common theme, our next president will get us out of Iraq.

Maybe if he/she is a Dem – Republican will not run in Iraq. But if a Dem does get in and pull out his/her predecessor will surely have the job of fixing the mess there.

The current Dem rhetoric is all politics with little thought of the consequences.

Really? I didn't realise the Republicans were so anti-Democratic. Surely the will of the people is pretty clear on this issue? Besides, more and more republicans are dising with the Democrats on this issue, the need for a timetable for withdrawal. It is also something the majority of Americans want, the majority of US troops in Iraq want, the majority of Iraqis want. In fact the Iraqi government may topple unless it demands a pullout date set by the Americans. Everybody wants out of Iraq Ted, everybody but Bush jr and his shrinking group of hawk republicans, and, apparently, you. Everybody else is tired of dead and wounded Americans, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, and only retrograde progress in Iraq, all the while losing the deprioritised war on terror. Only a few are left who seem to be willing to sacrifice as many Americans (other Americans, that is) as it takes to continue accomplishing nothing.



Firstly, unless the Democrats have invented time travel, I assume you mean sucessor. Secondly, that may be true, it may not. But either way what is completely undeniable is that it is entirely Bush jr's mess.



Ted ad nausium.

But not everyone want to RUN. Not everyone wants to lose – in fact the American people do not want to lose. So if the Dems are dead set on defeat – its easy – cut off funds – troops come home – war lost. Piece of cake.

The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.
By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.
By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788167/posts

No, nobody wants to lose. Nobody is asserting anybody wants to lose except you Ted, who keep pretending that democrats secretly WANT a US defeat in Iraq, that they are doing everything they can to SECURE a US defeat in Iraq, an accusation which is as pointlessly insulting as it is absurd. That is YOUR rhetoric Ted, yours and a few other demagogues on the far right, but that does not mean it bears any semblance whatsoever to reality. The debate would be a lot easier if you did not insist on taking up Lordhelmet's mantle of opposition and Democrats = defeatists and traitors. It is simply inane.



Ted, ted, ted... we've HAD this discussion before. If you are going to try and post polls to support your assertions, please do not post polls from POS, an openly biased Republican polling firm. Even THEY make no bones about their political and ideological leanings. There are SO MANY uniased polling agencies out there, why not cite one of them? gallup is universally respected on both sides as being unimpeachable.

Even if we did not know the firm was blatantly biased, the incredibly one-sided questions they asked would show you the same thing: "Do you support finishing the job in Iraq?" I mean come on, could that be any more leading? Who is going to answer supporting NOT finishing the job?


So instead of POS and TEDland, lets take a trip into reality.

A March 2007 Gallup poll showed that 59% of Americans felt it was a mistake to ever send troops into Iraq. When asked about the winnability of Iraq now, 46% thought the war was unwinnable, and an additional 20% thought the war WAS winnable, but the US would not wn it.

When faced with plans for dealing with Iraq, 58 percent demanded US troop withdrawal within the next 12 months. 60% were in favour of Congress Setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year.


Nobody WANTS the US to lose in Iraq Ted, but the majority of the country has realised that because of the staggering blunders and mihandling of the war by the Bush administration, the war has been rendered unwinnable by current methodology, and all that is being accomplished is filling US bodybags and casualty wards. People are tired of Americans dying for four years with NO FORWARD PROGRESS (in fact, significant retrograde progress). Why aren't you?

The US lost in Iraq the day Bush stood there and told the World the war was over and then promptly dismissed all the Iraqi military and police units leaving the fate of all Iraqis in the hands of coalition forces. At that point in the eyes of Iraqis the US became an occupying force and the US tipped the Iraqi military and police out onto the streets with no source of income or means of obtaining an honest one.

It soon became clear that the US and its partners had never thought about post war Iraq and had no idea as to how they would do so. It was also soon very clear the US had no idea about how Iraqi society, religious diversity or clan and tribal make up and as a result we have turned a vast number of Iraqis against the US and UK with the numbers growing daily.

The Brits seem to have realized that UK military presence in and around Basra is now serving no useful medium or long term purpose and I guess that if it had been any other PM apart from Blair we would have had a withdrawal timetable in place by now. As it is circumstances have forced a UK draw down in order to bolster the UK presence in Afghanistan and as that conflict escalates more troops and hardware will have to come out of Iraq.

The US is now in a similar position, you are over stretched, but the Republicans dare not admit to this or show any signs reassigning US units from Iraq to Afghanistan it would send the wrong signals to the Iraqis. insurgents and the folks back home. Thinking US politicians and citizens know that the US can not prevent civil war in Iraq or prevent the removal of the present Iraqi administration and are now looking for a way to get US forces out of Iraq with some degree of dignity. The other question being asked is that does the price in lives lost and the financial price justify the ends and they see the answer as no.

Western Democracy will never come to Iraq or Iran for that matter, it is contrary to Islam so the US will have to find other ways of securing its access to Iraqi oil that does not involve heavy US presence on the ground or in Iraqi internal affairs.

Ya Riiiiiigt V just me and a “few on the right”.. Tell me how when the general the DEMS unanimously approved says we need the surge to WIN we are going to do same without it. Has Petraeus said we can win with any of the various 19 Dem plans??? No way in hell.

So yes me and few others including the commander of forces in Iraq disagree with you and the Dems. I will put my money with the commander ther on the ground and not you and the left wing of the Dem party. And if they wanted to WIN you would think they would listen to the man they PUT THER to do that!!!!!!


Just a thought.

Firstly, Ted I have to tell you it gets annoying when you routinely cut-and-run from the majority of everyone's posts, answering snippets here and there thus avoiding ever having to respond to direct questions, answer calls to substantiate your assertions, or justify factsoids you made up.

case in point, I have FOUR TIMES in seperate threads asked you, again and again, to justify this silly '19 democrat plans' point you keep repeating. I have asked you to source it, explain it, justify it or drop it. Every time you cut-and-run. Yet here it appears again, like a bad habit...



Oh, you mean the General put into place to replace the previous General, who was forced out because he felt the plan had no chance of sucess? Or do you mean the 23 (current and retired) US military colonels and Generals who sent an open letter to Bush jr saying yet another troops surge could not work? Or are you referring to the top strategists and planners in the US military who were consulted by the ISG on the way to their report that a 'troop surge' could not work?



Unsurprising twaddle. As usual, I have to remind you that opposition is not the left of the democratic party, but the entire democratic party and half of the republican party, as well as a strong majority of American people, as well as a strong majority of US troops on the ground in Iraq, as well as a huge majority of Iraqis.

I remind you of this all the time (and you always cut-and-run) so please stop pretending otherwise.

Yes Petereus had confidence, and since then the violence in Iraq has increased, sectarian attacks have increased, US casualties have increased, the Iraqi government is on the verge of collapse...

...and everyone seems to be aware of this except you, and only because you flee everytime it is brought up.

No I mean the man put in place because the last general failed to get the job done. I mean the man who wrote the book on counter insurgency and who came in with a plan to turn it around. The MAN the Dems unanimously approved. So if the idiots wanted some other plan you would think they would have not approved this man in favor of another wouldn't you. Or weer they twaddleing like you?

That man. And I say we give him at least the time to get the men there before people like you declare defeat.

Ted, even for you that doesn't make any sense. The Democrats approved a ranking General with the appropriate expertise for the job because he was the best mad to lead. Had they WANTED the US to lose as you continuously and slanderously assert, they would have rejected him. The fact that they approved a military appointment has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Bush's escalation nor the progressive failure to date thereof. Perhaps if you would be so kind as to actually address some of the points people made as opposed to cuting-and-running, we might be able to discuss the actual point... Just a thought.

I note you also didn't mention that the man you are ranting about, during his confirmation hearings, openly stated that the leadership had made huge mistakes in the running of the war, as a result of which the situation was Dire; he commented on the lack of progress. He also stated in his written counter-insurency articles texts BEFORE the appointment, that any surge would require a minimum of 120,000 troops. he was called on this at the confirmation hearing, to which the General had no answer.




I have NO idea what that means, but I assume it was you making an ad hominum attack to cover the fact that, once again, you cut-and-ran from most of the post and all the questions directed to you. Unsurprising.



Funny, the slight drop in violence for a week certainly had you declaring victory, you even started a new thread to crow over it. So this comment seems a touch hypocritical.

It is also, of course, completely incorrect: just you making things up again. In fact I quite clearly said above (several times) that it is too early to declare victory or defeat, but we can look at the progress so far and note that it is going quite badly. We can also look back at the last four years of Hawk-Republican controlled war effort, and note the complete failure of that as well, while we are at it.



So, and please be honest Ted: would there be any point in me asking you to justify your '19 plans' comment for a FIFTH time, or would you just ignore it yet again?

Last time I respond to you. They approved a man and they knew why he was brought in. Big surprise the expert on “anti-insurgency” wants to fight anti-insurgency. Wow I guess they never could have guessed.
No they approved the man and the tactic in so doing and the outgoing general approves of the strategy and has said so. End of story. I am willing to give this man a chjance as opposed to any one of the 19 Dem plans. I know your position.

directed to you. Unsurprising




Yes you are almost right. This is in response to your an ad hominum attack on me which I should have reported. Do you even read what you write??? Apparently not. Try to be civil for a change.

I'm still waiting for you to properly respond to me the FIRST time.



Yes, so what? I already addressed this in detail Ted. Please make the effort of responding to what people say. As far as I can tell, you are trying to turn the approval of a military appointment into the Democrats all approving of Bush, the Iraq war, the troop surge and the failures that have gone with it. That is a vast stretch even for you.

They approved him, after an exhaustive interview in which he openly declared the erors of the REPUBLICAN leadership of the war, and had no answer to his OWN analysis that the troop surge would require a minimum of 120,000 more men. I stated all this last post Ted, why did you cut-and-run again?




Unbelievable. This will be the SIXTH time in a row, in different threads I have asked, nay begged you to justify this complete invention of your Ted. What 19 plans? Source that, explain it, justify it... do something in response to repeated requests to prove you didn't just make this up. WHY is this so difficult? I have phrased all my requests politely, made them clear and straightforward, yet you repeat the blind assertion again and again, and cut-and-run every time you are asked to justify it.



Again Ted, I have no idea what that means. If I may be so bold, could you be a little clearer? The first one was obviously an ad hominum attack on me of some kind, this one I have really no idea.



Please, report me. If you feel slighted, then report me to the Moderators, that is the rule of the board. Of course that would be hard as I have not attacked you, just asked you AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN to stop cutting-and-running from evidence, points to you and direct questions, to PLEASE justify your assertions, especially when asked to do so half a dozen times. These are your tactics, I am simply asking you to take a stand behind them.

Yet once again, you did not: ignoring almost everything posted and answering with personal attacks. The worst thing I have said about you personally Ted is that all of this, while dissapointing, is unsurprising considering your track record. If you consider that 'uncivil', well then I apologise, but it doesn't make my comment any less true. Yes Ted, I read what I write. Do you? If you DO read what I write, why is it so impossible for you to respond to any of it?

Personally, I want to debate the issue, but you make that next to impossible. Yet hope spings eternal...



So, and please be honest Ted: would there be any point in me asking you to justify your '19 plans' comment for a SEVENTH time, or would you just ignore it yet again?

1) It will take how long it takes--we did not detemine to stop WWII and come home if it ran over 4 years, did we?

2) If it is important, we stay; if this is the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, we come home. However, if we come home, all of those Iraqis who cooperated with us will be annihilated in a blood bath, and that blood will be on our hands; e.g. the Algerians who were slaughtered after the French pulled out of a war they had won on the streets but lost in the halls of Parliament and in the court of public opinion.

I personally feel we have created this problem by destabilizing Iraq and we are morally committed--both to them and to our own national self interest--to do whatever it takes to have a Western style republic there, strong enough to stare down Iran, and strong enough to begin showcasing a real alternative to the Muslim theocracies or near-theocracies in the region, as well as a real alternative to al Qadea and its dream of a new caliphate.

3) Probably not. This is a shame, as militarily, we have won everything there is to win. A Marine just back from Iraq with whom I met last week in D.C. tells me the news media just out and out lies about what is going on there, and, just like in Vietnam, we are on the verge of "losing" a war in which we never lost a battle on the battlefield. The French had the same thing happen in Algeria--just when the back of the insurgency was broken using tactics much like those Petraeus is using now, the communist/socialist left persuaded the govt to "come home and let the Algerians work our their own peace". Sound familiar?

I was not in favor of this war, but now that we are in it, I do not think we should just shove off because it is not as smooth and easy as we would like.

Well, if you think that France made a serious mistake by leaving Algeria, it's hardly surprising that you approve of our own colonial project in Iraq. Mission civisiatrice, etc. I suppose that Britain made a serious mistake by leaving India? Too bad the Japanese aren't still in Manchuria, for that matter?

Something on that flagrantly imperialist order would certainly be the basis for our taking upon ourselves responsibility for the future welfare of Iraq. Personally I feel no such obligation, though I can understand why those who supported the invasion might be experiencing some pangs of guilt on this point. Fortunately however, cash exists, and sending it is the customary method of making up for the damages caused by one's irresponsibility.

The question is not what is right according to the principle of White Man's Burden, but what is in our national interest.

A nation should always do what is in its self-interest. Period. That is the right answer.

A western style democracy in place in Iraq, now there is some one who understands the Muslim Middle East and what Islam is about, talk about the impossible dream.

Islam and democracy do not equate, Islam is about "God's Law on Earth" not democracy and national laws, do you see the US changing this thru the barrel of the US gun?