If you think generals don't care about the individual troops under their command, I would direct you to the transcript of General David Petraeus' interview with Chris Wallace yesterday. Reading from that transcript.......



Now you believe him or not, but that's what he says.



The President can't veto a bill that never reaches his desk. If congress doesn't want to send him a bill to appropriate funds to extend our military operations in Iraq, then there's nothing the President can do about it. Has nothing to do with a veto.


Aquilla

(Please do not misunderstand me; I see a difference between "acceptable losses" and not caring. So I'm not saying that General Petraeus doesn't care. I'm just saying I'd make a lousy general; I know that from playing book case strategy games years ago...)

A bill DID reach the President's desk with a timetable and he VETOED it, at the risk of not getting funding for the troops if another bill had not been sent to his desk without a timetable. I hold BUSH responsible for that, not the Democrats. Bush's stubbornness is extraordinary. If ever there was a "my way or the highway" presidency, it is his. So in this regard the Democrats did act on the mandate given by the election in 2006.

The Democrats have a bare majority in both houses of Congress. This gives them far more power than they had for the previous four years, but not enough sometimes.

They do not want to be seen as the people who lost the war when it is now painfully evident that this war is Bush's baby and has been from the get-go. More cautious Democrats, unlike Dennis Kucinich, do not want to commit what they see as political suicide by cutting off funding. I would like to see them throw caution to the wind if it means getting the troops out of Iraq and stopping the deaths and life-altering injuries they are sustaining daily. But I can certainly understand their reluctance to risk what they worked so hard to achieve--a say in what our government is doing.

Unlike George W. Bush, who unless he is exposed to be a mass murderer or child molester or something equally repugnant will serve out his term, the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are still actually answerable to the people for what they do. Though, in some cases, not answerable enough...

The Iraqis, by and large, have demonstrated that they do not want American occupiers, regardless of what our troops are doing for them. They are going to have to figure out what their country is going to be after those troops are gone anyway. I fail to see what our continuing presence is going to do to protect our own people, regardless of what the rhetoric or "politically correct" thinking suggests. So why don't we just get out of the way and fight bad guys somewhere else?

Not one military strategist on either side has said it is a good idea to pull all troops from Iraq quickly – yet Democrats have pushed to do just that and you seem to agree.

There will be a political solution and the “surge” will help make it possible. Our ceaseless and unchecked addition to oil has made this region one we cannot just “leave” as we did Vietnam.

For the Dems its all about the election – they are trying hard to “say” whatever they think will win the WH and I don’t blame them – I just take it as “politics” and not necessarily good foreign policy.

We will draw down from Iraq but the “run” crowd I hope will not prevail.

You see from the last sentence what I am talking about--the invective that is meant to shame the other side. I could just as easily say to you, Ted, that the GOP crowd that won before the Democrats did was a "hypocrite" crowd and that yes, indeed, for the Republicans it was also "all about the election". Not that that would be the pot calling the kettle black...

What is it about you guys who say that saving the lives of OUR OWN PEOPLE is all about "running"? Staying and dying probably doesn't seem all that attractive to our troops, either...

And do you really think that Bush has in anyone's imagination been practicing "good foreign policy"?

Shame has nothing to do with it – only the reality of our dependence on the ME oil, and the necessity to complete the task without leaving the country in chaos and – YES that will cost American lives. And please remember the “war” was not started by the “GOP” if you recall.

As I said no military strategist thinks its smart to pull out quickly – I agree. Some say the “surge” is not working but read from Dontredonme who is “over there” right now.


“The trouble with grading the surge, is as I said before, any results won’t be realized until the clearing operations have been completed. As it stands right now, we are still incurring a high number of casualties. But that was expected, as we force many insurgents to stand and fight, and we set up shop on places where they once had free reign. We’re finding and clearing more IED’s than are being detonated against us. We are capturing more High Value Targets during this time than in any other. Shops and markets are opening and power and water treatment plants are opening or being revitalized at a pretty good rate.
Are we having a positive influence or just playing whack-a-mole? I’m over here and I can’t tell yet, how can a media pundit who sits in the comfort of a DC area Starbucks?”

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...3960&st=340

And how long does Petraeus believe it will take to achieve this stable, democratic government?

He suggests that it might take 9-10 years to achieve a stable, democratic government. I heard this number a while ago from Rummy, but that was a couple of years ago. At what point will that number decrease and actually indicate some progress? Or will we hear this "years to come" statement for years to come?

cruisingram




Those in support of this war have done plenty to define a victory in Iraq, if you dont agree with what is said that is your buisness. Many of us understand that a win means an Iraq that is a powerfull ally to the U.S. rather than a sponsor for terrorism. Having a strong self sustained Iraq would do a great deal to help us in the future given its proximity to Iran, Ahfganistan, Syria, and Israel. That and hitting Al Qaeda so hard they wont want to attack us anymore is our objective, and the definition of a win. Just because you disagre with the defintion doesnt mean it hasnt been given. You want to talk about tactics? Much of the failure in Iraq is a result of not having enough troops on the ground my last response to Vermillion explains that in detail with some supporting evedence showing why things could have been different.

Now on to the blaming, most conservatives blame this administration every bit as much as they do liberals and democrats so I dont know where your going with that. Personaly I blame Bush for a number of reasons, but I'll admit I blame liberals and democrats as well. I think they will stick a fork in a war that is going badly under poor leadership. Ive seen enough to know they have no intentions on winning here, and many of them at one time supported the war so what does that tell us about the fight against Al Qaeda????? Will they support that only if it supports them in the polls and if we have to be their for longer than they think and their popularity takes a hit for it that they will treat the entire War On Terror like they did the War in Iraq?? Quite possible, so I dont trust them, but my blameing is far from one sided, and that is true of most who support the war. I want to see a bold leader who is willing to take a hit with the American public to take care of our national interest and if their was a democrat up there that looked good and was willing to take this war head on instead of using it to further boost their campaighn then you know what???? Id vote for them, and while ive been fair at looking at all candidates closely, Ive yet to see any candidate on the left take this war seriously.

That's the definition of a "win?" How is that accomplished? That is a pipe dream. The Mideast has been unstable for centuries. Iraq is an artificially defined nation, made up of at least three very disparate factions. The only time the US has had powerful allies in such regions is when the government has been harsh, totalitarian dictatorships, and even then the alliance has been artificial, as the people of any such nation only see the US as sponsoring the puppet regime that opresses them. In fact, that is the absolute worst thing you can possibly hope for; a Pro-US Iraqi government. You can not get the people of Iraq to be pro-US. It simply doesn't work that way.



It is easy to say that with more troops on the ground you could "win" Iraq. But the idea of "hitting Al Qaeda so hard they won't want to attack us anymore" is absurd. The more desperate their position, the more likely they are to attack! That's like hitting TNT with a hammer to get it to stop exploding. The only way Al Qaeda will stop attacking is if they are all dead, we are all dead, or, and this is a big one, if they had less power. Invading Iraq gave them power. Banging drums against Syria, Lebanon, Iran, or any other Middle Eastern nation will give them even more. As long as a majority of people see the US as an oppressor, there will be thousands of ordinary people willing to become Jihad Warriors, willing to blow themselves up to defeat us, or at least hurt us.




Well, you have every reason to blame Bush, since the entire war was planned and executed by his people, on his watch. You have no reason to blame liberals. Liberals have not been in power at any time during this futile invasion/occupation. Democrats took over Congress only a few months ago, and their grip on power there is tenous, with not nearly enough majority to accomplish much of anything. You have no tangible way to blame a single liberal for this mess, and going back to the "they preach defeat" mantra is not going to cut it. Al Qaeda preaches the defeat of the US, and always have. Are you saying that as long as anyone says we can't win, that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? Seriously, are you saying that? That's a question.



The fight against Al Qaeda is a concept you will never sell me. Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is a loose network of criminals, with no real leadership of any kind. "Al Qaeda" is the same thing as "murderers and rapists." You don't fight murderers and rapists. Until they commit a crime, you can't prove they are criminals. An Al Qaeda terrorist is not a terrorist until he plans or executes a terrorist attack. They are in every nation of the world, and two of those nations, where they are strongest, are supposedly our allies; Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I do not see where you are looking for any kind of strategy to defeat Al Qaeda in those nations, and so I doubt the sincerity of those who claim we are "fighting Al Qaeda." We are fighting Al Qaeda only in a manner which is convenient to certain goals. For example, controlling Iraq, and posturing tough against Iran. It is the worst-run war, and worst-run foreign policy I have seen in my lifetime, or can find throughout history. It is disastrous folly of the worst kind, and will never lead to anything good. All roads simply lead to more death, until a leader is smart enough to change strategies, and ally with the remainder of the civilized world in a forward-thinking, innovative fashion.

The cold war is over. Fighting terrorists with old tactics is wasteful, and invites mass destruction.

The citizens of the world are not going to continue to take this insanity.

Here's where I have to draw the line PE....

Iraqis by and large don't want the Americans there? Did you take a poll? Did you walk down the streets with a questionnaire?
Seriously. I hear what you're saying, but what reliable sources do you have??

Iraq is the most segmented nation, arguably in the world, but surely in the Middle East. Our occupation is found differently depending sincerely upon who you're speaking to. Some people feel far more safe since we landed, some people loathe us being there, and some never want us to leave. I personally know more than one soldier who has had positive experiences, and more than one on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Let's be frank. Iraqi stability and an assemblance of even a partial Pro-American population is in our best interest and arguably Western Society. Look at where Palistine is headed. The middle east is full of less than reasonable factions.

In my opinion, the full weight and might of the US military should be allowed to get the job done to the best of its ability. This would include a large assemblance of security and often times will require congress to get out of the "fight". Then we should instill industry upon the Iraqi people, whether that be petroleum based or manufacturing I don't know, but so that prosperity returns to the Iraqi people, who largely have been poverty stricken their whole lives. When they have Fords, color tv, and microwaves, they're probably going to feel less zealot and revolutionary (Maslow's hierarchy of needs type notion).

The US can't win any war where Congress has its grubby mits in the middle of the operational effectiveness. We will NEVER be able to get any job done (i.e. Vietnam) where the generals don't have the levity to make their own decisions unfettered.

Gulf War number 1 was the best example of what can happen when the US Military might is allowed to go in and do the job on their own. Iraq now is the best example of the opposite...

fbwc




Yes that is the definition of a win, and most agree you do that by first securing bahgdad, followed by any other areas that are being over run with violence from various terrorist groups. To do that you need more boots on the ground, this is a lot simpler than the anti war portion of this country would like to think. The truth is we have always been understaffed in Iraq, its as simple as that. Most recommended we go into Iraq with 400,000+ troops, look at the wiki link I posted on the last page. Rumsfeild and bush went in with 130,000 troops and found out the hard way that it just wasn't enough. Now we have over 200,000 in Iraq with plans to increase our overall forces by 100,000 to add troops when necessary. This was obviously a mistake that they are trying to undo, but the damage has been done to bushes credibility and not many are willing to back him at this point, therefore not many liberals in particular are willing to support a war that an unpopular republican president supports.





We gave them a chance to retaliate by going into Iraq and spreading our recourses too thin yes, the mistake was not going into Iraq however. It was going into Iraq at the time we did with the number of troops we were willing to commit. My belief is that you can send a message to any major threat that crushes there moral and prevents future attacks in the near and even distant future. Did we have to completely destroy Japan or Germany in WW2 to send a message that the consequences of their actions will be felt hard if they didn't pull back from there aggressions?? Japan actually attacked us on our land, Germany on the other hand was responsible for the mass murdering of countless Jews. I'm no WW2 expert but I know enough about both that war and particularly this war to know that we have not sent that same message to Al Qaeda, in fact we are becoming a joke to them. Now it is true that Al Qaeda is more willing to sacrifice themselves to achieve their goals because they do not represent a county they have to maintain. However this does not mean they can not be put in their place, but would that mean we would never see an attack from them again? Perhaps not, but the idea is to have the decent people of the middle east overcome the oppression of the Islamic Fascist that pervert the very religion that they preach while spreading terror to all who oppose them, if we give the countless decent Iraqis for example, the upper hand then the tide turns against terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, and our presence their will not be as necessary, and thats the key.

To have the terrorist on defense from those who occupy the same land is what we want and this makes perfect sense, I always find it amusing that those against this war say that OMG there is no clear definition of a win, and there is no way to achieve it, id rather you just disagreed with what has been proposed than to say things that insult the intelligence of those who understand why this war needs to be won. Iraq is just part of the challenge, Afghanistan is another big part of this war on terror, as well as Iran. We have said what a win is, and many have explained why we have seen failure in the last couple of years, and what can be done differently. Like I said a big part of it has to do with the number of boots on the ground. I really don't care if you don't agree that it can be done, but lets not hear that nothing has been proposed to define a win, when in fact the truth is you just don't agree with whats been proposed. That argument is getting old.





I have every reason to blame bush, as I have, but no reason to blame liberals or Democrats? Hmm, well as I said my blaming is far from one sided unlike many with a political agenda. Let me ask you something, do you think its coincidence that most who oppose this war are liberal or democrat??? Polls show that the remaining support for this war is primarily held by the right, but why is that?? Can this really have nothing to do with the distaste for a president of the opposing political party?? If he says up, you say down?? If he says green, you say blue?? I wonder, I really do. I don't believe in chance, or luck, if for example 10% of the democrats support this war while 60% of the republicans support the same war those numbers mean something, believe me. I'll admit that I don't even like George Bush that much, nor do I agree with the way this war has been fought, but I read between the lines. So what blame could possibly fall on the left for this war going badly??? Two words Pardisonship, and Bias, The new democratic congress elected by the left has no intention of wining the war in Iraq, they have given up and given in to the political party in which they represent. So what do they do? Try and pass bills that have the best chance of making things difficult for this administration while jepordising our men over seas and there are few exceptions, because they don't want us in Iraq and everyone in this room knows it, and if next year we elect a Democratic president who ends the war in Iraq, in the state its in now you had better believe I'll blame the left at that point every bit as much as Bush, if not more. At this point the blame is primarily on our enemy and yes our president for the way he has handled this war, but I can see the left sticking a fork in this one if they manage to use this war to creep their way into the presidency. Sorry to be so blunt, but you asked.





Well doing nothing is a concept you will never sell to me. This line was interesting...............

"Al Qaeda" is the same thing as "murderers and rapists." You don't fight murderers and rapists. Until they commit a crime, you can't prove they are criminals.

????? How many times can you type a question mark before its considered spamming? I was thinking of filling the page with them, I think a few hundred would have done that remark justice. We cant prove Al Qaeda is a criminal network responsible for the deaths of thousands and the oppression of thousands more?? Phew, man thats out their! So in other words I can personally bomb a few buildings, and kill thousands, release a couple dozen video tapes admitting how proud I am for what I did, then run home and have my men guard my house with AK-47's and your telling me that nobody would have the right to take me or my men shooting at them, out ???? Since you want to compare them to criminals, which they are, Its unfortunate you don't know why they are guilty, they have admitted their crimes with smiles on their face, and send their men out to die for their cause. If you raid a drug house to try them for their crimes and they open fire you take them out, and this is no different. Unbelievable, I'm at a loss for words.

I think Patraeus' reference to the situation in Korea is pretty relevant to the situation in which we may find ourselves in Iraq. South Korea has had a stable, democratic government now for quite some time yet we still have 38,000 American troops stationed there. Quite frankly, that's not a combat level force given that North Korea has an army of around a MILLION. Our soldiers are good, but 38,000 of them wouldn't be able to hold up alone against the army of the North for very long. So, why are they there? Deterence. Even ole crazy jammie man in the North knows if he were to attack American forces in South Korea all hell would break loose cause those 38,000 American soldiers have a whole lotta friends that would be there in a New York second. So, the American presence in South Korea, just the fact that we're there acts as a deterent to the North and that brings up an interesting side note. remember a few years ago when there were some polls in South Korea that claimed they wanted the US out of there? I'd have to go back and find the references, but I recall there were pretty strong polling numbers saying the US should leave. Well, then a while later Rumsfeld floated the idea of re-deploying troops out of South Korea and there was panic in Seoul over that! "We want you to leave, sometime, but not now" was kind of the word on the street.

I could see a similar situation in Iraq where if they are successful at building a stable democratic government there would still be the need for some sort of an American military presence in the region. Certainly not one at the levels we have now and not really as a combat force so much as a deterent to countries like Iran and Syria who would love nothing more than to de-stabilize an Iraqi democratic government. Now whether those troops are in Iraq itself, or in another country in the region, I do think the US is going to have some kind of military presence in the Middle East for the forseeable future. I think it's important to the overal stability of the region.


Aquilla

You know, I'm reading a lot of "politicians should do this", "need more troops on the ground", blah blah blah, but none of that is the reality. Politicians suck and will always suck. Escalating troop forces to the kind of numbers required is not an option. We can't get help from other nations because the world that stood side by side with us on September 12, 2001 hate us now. This is the reality.

I don't know anyone that doesn't want a "win" no matter what side of the aisle they are on. But if you are not going to try to win and simply re-arrange deck chairs, get out. It's fairly simple. 5 years later, we still have no strategic or exit strategy. Whack-a-mole and hope are not military strategies. Either defeat the enemy with overwhelming force, or don't fight.

For you that believe the stakes are so high, that we must pony up our finest and bravest into a meat grinder, can I ask a simple question? Why would you trust a president that has been 100% wrong about every facet of this invasion and has proven himself to be a complete incompetent boob on almost every issue he's had a hand in? I mean, seriously - this is like putting Paris Hilton in charge of the Pentagon. She might look good doing it, but she's an idiot. If I believed in these fantasies many of you think about what's going on in Iraq, I'd be demanding this entire administration step down and put someone in place who can do the job. But the war-supporters are not doing that because they are phonies. The stakes are only high enough that warrant keeping Bush in power.

My point is, that to truly believe your own rhetoric, you would have to be demanding someone that can actually get results. Karl Rove's political machine is not results. This surge is not working and has no chance of working. The weak-minded call these observations hindsight. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence had this foresight.

That briefs well and all........however, you have once again woefully oversimplified the issue, while blaming the opposition of the same. So President net2007 sends more troops into Iraq (we'll leave out the 'from where' aspect as this ground has been trod upon before). Where do you put them? Where will they do the most good? How do more troops solve the Shia militia influence in the IP and NP?
While the people of Baghdad continue to be led by the nose, by the Imams, nothing short of turning Baghdad into an armed camp, will completely secure it. And to do that, one might as well ship over the entire Department of Defense and administer Iraq as a colony. Do we need to discuss the oath service members take when they enlist or are commissioned again?


I don't see the relation at all. South Korea was never in danger of being balkanized by religious zealots. Koreans were interested in pursuing a democratic way of life. Iraqi's, by and large do not.

As I was mulling over our short history in Iraq, I came upon a realization that a form of anti-political correctness is what got us into the predicament we are currently in. We started our 'invited' stay in Iraq by taking over the palaces, which should have gone to the Iraqi people. We tried to give them a new flag......that went over well.... We drive with impunity; for our own protection to be sure, but it doesn't win us any friends.


Very true....but by this time tomorrow...I'll be on R&R leave!!!!! Woo-Hoo!!!

Can a politically correct military prevail in future engagements?
I guess that depends, are you referring to an approach akin to that of Gabriel's preference in Swordfish?

I'm guessing the answer to that is no.

The challenge with this question is the framing. One could easily argue that we prevailed in 2003 when the government of Iraq was toppled. Saddam was no longer a "threat" . What we're doing in Iraq isn't really a war, its an occupation. Only the occupants and some ten of thousands of their foreign friends aren't playing nice, to us or to the citizens of Iraq. There are multiple fronts to defend and attack in this country, making it darn near impossible to attack, much less declare something resembling "victory". Asymmetric warfare against non-state actors by its very nature makes victory an impossible equation. You have to attack the source of problem, and it may shock people to know that the people planting the IEDs and chucking mortars aren't the source of problem, they are a symptom. People aren't born wanting to blow people up. It takes years of the human spirit being depraved and depressed to reach such a horrific conclusion.

The military side of this equation is untenable, and ultimately unwinnable by itself. You have at least three factions in Iraq(Shia, Sunni and Kurd) that aren't very interested in cooperating with each other. Nor are they really incented to at the moment.

What this question begs, and I have yet to see answered (though I'll admit I haven't digested every single post in this long dialogue), is how do we help the military become successful in warfare in the 21st century? It will shock some to find out that the answer isn't a military one. It is a political, economic, and diplomatic answer. Fighting in Iraq is out of control because we ripped the governor of control (Saddam) off of three sects of people that hate each other. The same people that don't have electricity, running water, schools, jobs, or the infrastructure to deliver said services. Those are the seeds of despair that keep the flames of this insurgency fanned for many decades to come.

If the US were properly working with a stable, functional government in Iraq to get these services running, the insurgency will wither due to lack of oxygen. The military can then be reduced to a role of support, and eventually leave (which some would likely declare victory, I believe that is how Aquilla characterized it). Whether we can achieve this by leaving and containing Iraq or staying there indefinitely I won't address here, mainly due to the fact that this is not the question being asked.

I'll admit that this solution can't be captured in a few paragraphs, books have been dedicated to it. But I felt a need to express the idea akin to Einstein's that using the same thinking to resolve a situation that got us into it likely would deliver similar results. The solution lay in several fronts, and ironically in this situation the military likely has a small role to play in its execution. I say that not to diminish the importance of our military, only to reflect that the answer to the question for debate comes from outside of its scope.

Who is "most?" Who made that recommendation? I don't see where any of what you're saying is backed by anything at all. If "most" were Bush's advisors, he didn't listen. If "most" weren't Bush's advisors, then he had some pretty bad advisors, and everyone needs fired, including him.



What's getting old is a badly planned occupation costing American and Iraq lives. What's getting old is the giant sucking sound on our treasury of this misadventure. What's getting old is being fed lies by the administration, and then being asked by American Citizens to continue backing these fools, and believing their next "this will work for sure" scenario. I, like most Americans, do not believe that there is anything our occupation can do to turn the tide against Al Qaeda; in fact, I do not feel that Al Qaeda is a big part of what is going wrong. I think Al Qaeda is capitalizing on one of the most poorly planned missions in history, and so are any other extremists who hate the USA.





OK, hold it right there. Democrats or liberals, up until now, have had nothing to do with the planning and execution of this war. If you would like to give me specific examples of something you can blame them for, please do, but that's going to be difficult. I am one of those people who supported Bush's plans to fight terrorism, back when they made sense. He talked about getting together with allies and doing bold new steps, such as cutting funding, isolating terrorist cells, and working with all the governments of the world to make it difficult for terrorists to operate in each nation. When did he actually do any of that? What he did instead was invade two nations, without having a plan for how to manage the occupation. That was incompetent, and foolhardy. Please debate those points before you try and just get me to accept it on your word that this is somehow Democrats or liberals' faults.




There is no need for you to apologize for being blunt. I have no issue with that. But you are just speaking in generalities, and broad, sweeping statements. The American people do not want our troops in Iraq. They do not see how it is doing any good, and they do not like our brave young men and women being butchered for nothing. When Bush has some measure of success in Iraq, which he has never had, "Mission Accomplished" posturing aside, only then can the blame be shifted to someone else. Sending in hundreds of thousands of American Troops would be the single most horrific act any administration ever committed, and it better not happen.




I didn't say you can't prove Al Qaeda is a criminal network. I literally said Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is a loose network of criminals, with no real leadership of any kind. "Al Qaeda" is the same thing as "murderers and rapists." You don't fight murderers and rapists. Until they commit a crime, you can't prove they are criminals.

What that means is that you can't prove each person in the organization is Al Qaeda. How do you prove who is Al Qaeda, and who isn't? I mean sure, you have a list of some obvious ones, like Osama Bin Laden, who thumbs his nose at us from his obviously safe location within the borders of Pakistan or whatever nation has let him hide there, but the Soldier for Al Qaeda isn't a terrorist until you can connect him. It's such a loose organization that your neighborhood grocer could be one, for all you know. We can't just turn into a nation of paranoics, and just arrest everyone, in the hopes of getting the few criminals! Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is an assocation, and a very loose one. Some cells aren't even Al Qaeda until they say they are. "Al Qaeda" doesn't really mean anything. It is a generic term, that could be applied to anyone at any time. Right now, your "drug house" is Pakistan. Are you going to open fire on Pakistan? No. They have nuclear weapons. This is not a military problem, and there is no military solution.

Did you miss the fact we were far from alone in Gulf I? And did you also miss that we were not allowed (by UN mandate) to take out Saddam and free the country. You cannot compare the two.

What we can compare is the first parts of each war and Gulf II was far better – in fact it was the fastest advance to capture an enemy capital in military history.

If you remember we did not capture Baghdad in Gulf I.

The war was messed up later when idiot Bremer disbanded the Iraqi Army. Worst military mistake in decades.

They don't? Then I wonder why, despite the inherent danger in voting on the last election 58% of the people voted. From CNN.....



Sure sounds to me like quite a few Iraqis are interested in "pursuing a democratic way of life".





I don't know what "drive with impunity" means, but as far as the palaces are concerned, I'm unclear about what giving them to the Iraqi people would entail? How in the world would we do that? What does that even mean? Each Iraqi gets to spend 30 minutes inside or something? How do you give a palace "to the people"?


Aquilla

Things that belong "to the people."

The Grand Canyon
Yosemite
Rocky Mountain National Park
The Lincoln Memorial
The White House
The Statue of Liberty
Alcatraz

Dontreadonme




I think if we were to use most of this 100,000 troops for this war that you would put at least half, if not more in Afghanistan to go after the source of the problem that concerns America in particular. 20,000 or 30,000 troops could relieve pressure in Iraq, I'm not a general but its easy to see why we are losing and that this has much to do with the unusually low amount of troops on the ground. I mean the thing about this war from the beginning even before we went into Iraq is that it has only claimed 3.5 thousand Americans. The 3rd lowest casualty rate of any war fought by America since the dawn of this county!!!!! Thats impressive considering the length of this war but
Let me assure you on the other hand that Al Qaeda is a big part of our problems and needs to be taken out.



Up until a few moths ago your right Democrats had little to do with our failure over seas, but I want a bold leader to stand up and say they are willing to help us reach victory in Iraq, the democrats want us out, they want a surrender, and this is obvious. On top of this you agree, and don't deny it. You are fed up and you want a Democrat to pull us out, its as simple as that. I don't give in so easy, we have seen this war fail under the leadership of one man, and one man alone, and I say give this a chance to work under a strong leader, we all know that George Bush is not the Ronald Regan of Republicans, so I will continue my stance, I want what is best for this country, not what is best for my political party, period!!! You, you I don't know about.




And who represents the American people?? You??? Hillery Clinton?? I call that a load of crap!! You barely won the congress and senate, remember that!!! You do not represent the American Public, nor does Hillery Clinton. Yea every now and then the democrats control both the congress and the presidency but how often has this actually been?? Check you history. Will you win the presidency? To tell you the truth, I don't know but if you do it will be by using this controversial war to creep your way to the top, that I know. I have nothing against Democrats, JFK was a great leader but today I see a generation of quitters amongst the democrats, a generation that says no we cant accomplish this, and no we cant accomplish that. I will fight and I will see this thing to the end because you know what? I love this country, and I believe in its intension's. I do not believe our country was wrong for going to war with Iraq or Afghanistan and I will continue to fight for what I as a man believe in, and thats all there is to it.