To recap:

Maliki is a puppet goverment of the US, and is not the "will of the Iraqi people"

Iran just brokered the cease fire- and JAM is in control, whether we like it or not.

Nothing is going to change, no matter how many US soldiers die, no matter how much money or time, the way US citizens believe it should be.

WE have made that country much, much worse to live in compared to life under Saddam- and we are proud of that?

We have, as a nation, radicalized the entire world against the US, with only a few balkan states believing we are anything but the devil incarnate, bent on world domination and rape and pillage of thier country so we can have air conditioned malls and big SUVs.

So, specifically- what is the sacrifice for again? What concrete, measurable definition of success does anyone that "supports the war" have?

And BTW Moif- yes, I very much believe in executing those that "support this war and it is worth it" children. Specifically- those in charge- but I am no peacenick, and no pacifist. I want justice for those 4000 dead.

I woudl love to see GW with a dead child in his arms, and ask him "oh, now is it worth it?"- sound radical and angry? It is because I am- it is all too easy for GW to say "it is worth it" when he loses NOTHING. Let him see his children dead - do you think he will stand up and say "it is worth it"- this is a man that has NEVER known ANY kind of hardship and sacrifice- just like Net, and Ted and others here- while "supporting" the war.

Have those guys, oh, sold thier houses and donated all thier money to the "war effort"- nope, I bet not one penny extra to the feds was donated at tax time for the "war"- in fact, most of those same "supporters" cry about how much taxes they have to pay- why aren't they donating thier incomes to the "war effort"- too much of a sacrifice perhaps?

You can get into the military pretty easy these days- they are unretiring 80 year old dentists and dropping many of the enlistment barriers they used to have- and, on top of that- you can always go as a "private contractor"- why not wash clothes in the green zone for your "support" Net? Why- is that too big a "sacrifice" for you?

Yep, I am all cold towards the majority of those that "support" the war- by going to the mall.

I have no problem with them expressing thier opinions- that is what freedom of expression is all about- I just express my speech by calling those that "support" the war but sacrifice nothing as "cowards" and "wastes of oxygen"- because they are not willing to sacrifice thier lifestyle for war- just sacrifice some soldiers- heck, it is "only 4000" correct?

Good on Net- now he can sit at home and "support" the war via video games and Ted can "support" the war by whatever it is he does, as long as he doesn't have to "sacrifice" his lifestyle and personal economy to do it.

Ya, war supporters NOT in Iraq deserve scorn and disrespect, especially full grown men.

If you want someone that deserves a good spit in the face, it is chicken hawks that make excuses why they aren't in the sandbox but "support the war".

Doesn't this realization come as a day late and a dollar short? It is precisely this ham-handedness that has been pursued to varying degrees either overtly through propping up a weak kneed Maliki convertly through a banking walk-out blitz on Iran. I mean we can look back as far as the Carter Doctrine for evidence of interference. Bush hasn't been the first guy to monkey with geopolitics. Why stop the music now? This may offend some but American politics is the act of interference. Accept it. If you can it will blow a considerable hole into the "we're the good guys" mantra which some call exceptionalism.

I understand you see a need to step back and let the Iraqis muddle through some murky determination process where we can live with a leader that hopefully is a step up from his Tikritan counterpart. But this means a willingness to work with what you have and not what you desire. I can make a strong case that the exact opposite is true, that talking to your enemies hasn't been in vogue since Jimmy Carter. A withdrawl cannot happen until there is a hint of sincerity for parlance. The question is what are the odds of this happening if an independant party that bears any resemblance to Hamas comes to power? The issue quickly moves from what is best for the Iraqis to what is best for 'us'. While I sympathize with your worries can we agree that the likelyhood of further losses to human life will be distorted and politicized so that we move in the opposite direction?

Do you think McCain will accept a perceived loss of control? How about Hillary? What is the American public willing to live with? Veva la exceptionalism.

As TedN5 name-checked me as the impetus for this thread, I feel compelled to respond to it.

Iraq was neverour responsibility. Bush made it our responsibility. He never had an exit strategy and neither does John McCain. It's an open-ended commitment with no real goals, timetables or benchmarks for our departure. Why else would we be building permanent bases there?

Now that we're there, the supporters of the war want us to believe, "Well, we can't get out now. We owe it to the Iraqis to finish the job." Says who? Why can't we give the Iraqis all the weapons they need, write them a check and give them a cellphone with the White House switchboard number on speed-dial?

As long as its the U.S. soldiers doing the fighting and dying, why should the Iraqis be expected to step up and step into harm's way. As long as someone else is there to block a bullet, why should anyone expect the Iraqis to do the job? First law of nature is self-preservation and if the Americans are willing to die for their country, why should the Iraqis elbow them out of the way?

Being in Iraq hasn't slowed terrorism one little bit. It's just provided them 140,000 targets. Our presence there isn't stopping sectarian violence and the notion of creating peace and stability in the Middle East by outside nations is a mirage. It can't be done. Peace cannot be imposed upon the Iraqis and our staying there only delays it, not hastens it.

It's nice to have you drop by Titus, but you didn't bring a fresh perspective with you. We've heard all these arguments made by The Bush Administration and it sounds no more convincing or realistic coming from you either.




I'm sure the 4000+ American families whose sons came home in flag-draped coffins are equally impressed the nation has "only" suffered 4,000 deaths. That is one hell of an "accomplishment."

History is a favorite subject of mine as well, net2007, but let me tell you nobody who has lost someone in Iraq gives a damn about The Third Battle of Panipat in India. People who chose to sit out war and proclaim with pride how this one isn't so bad "body count wise" lack the moral authority they presume they possess.

What you don't get is it doesn't matter if the number of the fallen is 400 or 4000 or 40,000 if they all died in the wrong war fought in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.

By all means though, continue your research. When the body count his 4,500 and then 5,000, we can count on you to provide yet another spurious historical comparison to prove this war ain't so bad.

Nighttimer, thanks for the welcome back.

Now, believe it or not, I agree with some of what you've said.

I find it incredibly difficult to find a solution in my head because I am split between "cleaning up" and the idea that freedom has much more value when you bleed for it yourself.

Which a lot of Iraqi's are doing. I think we need to ensure that the Iraqi army and police forces can handle the burden of securing their own country. They're improving, as we saw in Basra recently, and as long as we can help them along we should stay.

Yet in the end, we can't control what they do. Self-determination was one of the very pillars upon which we stand, and whether they choose to be our allies or not, we must in the end let them choose themselves.

But that also means that they be given the most pressure-free chance to choose. When you have chaos and pressure from surrounding countries, (even ourselves) that can't happen.

To be honest, giving them weapons and the White House on speed dial sounds like a great idea, but we did that in the 80's. And that didn't work out that well.

Our reputation is already damaged and I feel that a sudden departure would further damage it.




And DTOM makes a great point. If not now, when? And it's one we should be asking. I'm not for an indefinate vacation stay in the Euphrates River Valley but we can't leave until we have a plan that ensures some kind of stability.

At some point we have to finish our aid in securing Iraq and allow Iraqi's to handle the redevelopment of Iraq's infrastructure. Maybe they can get other neighbors to help re-build Iraq, and hopefully that will deep the redevelopment from suffering horrific setbacks (read: constantly being blown up), far less anyway than while our presence is there.

I do admit we need a breaking point, but using casualties as a measuring post should be the last one we use. At some point, we do have to say to the Iraqi's that we've done all we can to try and rebuild your country and that we've trained your troops as best we can and that the next step is yours to make.

And before I finish....

BoF, I find it pretty sad that the meat of your argument against me is my use of the word "fulfilling".

I apologize if I don't wanna skip through the entire thread to see who may have had the same questions as me and who answered them.

After all, you could have answered me by copying your own post.

And I'm not lecturing anyone about fulfilling responsibility. My aim was to show what happens when you don't. I believe we do have one there and we must do the best we can to fulfill it. I believe not fulfilling it could result in further damage to our reputation and would in fact encourage future American administrations to engage in actions only half-way and then when things get tough, to get out as fast as you can say public opinion. I believe that over time, we may regret leaving, and that our nation may very well not like seeing the consequences.

By the way... the next time I use personal experiences to illustrate a point, try to have some class and not take said experience and throw it in my face. Any respect I had for you was obliterated when you posted that one-liner garbage.

Thanks again Nighttimer. You're all class.

I believe a cursory look at the facts will prove the opposite to be the case. Disregarding the Maliki-Bush spin for a moment, the Sadarist's would have taken complete control of the city of Basra were it not for US intervention and firepower. Baghdad, while not in the same danger due to the larger presence of US troops, also saw wide swaths of Sadr City and New Baghdad under the control of Sadr. Many IP's, NP's and Iraqi Army soldiers left their posts in the face of Jaysh Al-Mahdi, and many brought their weapons with them when they switched sides to where their true allegiance lay. With a word, Sadr's militia rose up and humiliated the Iraqi Security Forces. And with a word they backed off, coherent, controlled and confident. The events of the end of March show where the real power lies in Iraq. Americans should die to prop up a regime as weak as Maliki's?

"Mehdi army militias controlled all Shia and mixed parts of Baghdad in no time," a Baghdad police colonel, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "Iraqi army and police forces as well as Badr and Dawa militias suddenly disappeared from the streets, leaving their armoured vehicles for Mehdi militiamen to drive around in joyful convoys that toured many parts of Baghdad before taking them to their stronghold of Sadr City in the east of Baghdad."

"This failure takes Iraq to point zero and even worse," Brigadier-General Kathum Alwan of the Iraqi army told IPS in Baghdad. "We must admit that the formation of our forces was wrong, as we saw how our officers deserted their posts, leaving their vehicles for militias."
Link

Additionally, Maliki intended to prosecute Sadarist targets and reduce their grip in the southern provinces running up to provincial elections. Americans should die so one warlord can compete for power against another?

You of course are aware that the Iraq Body Count is very conservative. Several other studies show different results:

British ORB Polling Survey - September, 2007 - over 1,000,000

John Hopkins Study publish in the Lancet - through July, 20006 - 655,000

Iraqi government with WHO - January, 2008 - 151,000

I suppose it is a matter of individual evaluation of the source of the information and how it was gathered to determine the figure to use but it is certainly over 90,000. Whichever one is used, it is still carnage. Taken together with the wounded, malnourished, disruption of essential services, shock to the educational system, 5,000,000 displaced, and loss of the middle class; it represents the destruction of a society.

Let’s see Titus. You show up after being gone 2.5 months, enter a thread that’s a week old and has nearly 100 posts, and demand that I repost what I have already covered with scubatim.
Did you ever stop to think I might not want to repost stuff any more than you want go back and read the whole thread?

Let me make it convenient for you.

Here are the links to my previous posts. Happy hunting.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=241761
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=241812
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=241859
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=241866
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=241873
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=241902
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ost&p=24195

For people who dislike “liberal western values” the people of Iraq seem to have done a fine job while risking their lives and coming out in numbers not seen here to elect their government.

I believe the majority of Iraqis know that what they are seeing is non- democratic factional fighting and they are not happy with it. Do you really imagine that the “majority” of the Iraqi people are in the “militias”? Of course not. It’s a tiny fraction of thugs that want power back up by thugs in Iran – and they can only win if we run out and leave the majority to be terrorized by them.

God help us if we do.

The great elections of 2005 was more a Shia power seizure than an exercise in democracy, as evidenced by the Sunni boycott of the electoral process. If you think that the various miltia's [which are too numerous to mention here] are only a tiny minority in a sea of democracy minded citizens; then you must ask yourself who really holds the power in Iraq? [as evidenced by the Basra debacle] Who runs a majority of health care and civil aid organizations? If you say the GoI, you're dead wrong.

Don't let me get in the way of your opinion, but there's propaganda and there's fact. Don't forget that part of the tiny fraction is the GoI; comprised of the Iranian backed ISCI, the Iranian Militia command Badr, and the Iranian financed Dawa Party. But hey, as long as you're OK with Americans dying for this charade........

That news is quite disturbing, DTOM. The idea of Iraqi Army personell just abandoning their posts, for whatever reason, is disgusting. I think this shows how badly our presence, in a support capacity, is needed in Iraq. Outside of that, I don't know what else to say but that if soldiers can just up and leave in droves, the Iraqi government is in serious trouble.




BoF, I didn't demand anything. I was just responding to your snarkiness. I figured since you were so kind to point out the copy/paste fuction, I'd send a suggestion back.

I'm pretty much done with you. You've had absolutely nothin constructive to say to me from the get go and I'm just gonna let you enjoy your attitude by yourself.



Well, as far as 2005 was concerned, I think that the Sunnis shot themselves in the foot and it's their own fault. To think that there was gonna be no repercussion whatsoever for years of oppression was naive at best.

They should have sucked it up and taken what they could have gotten at the time and hoped to build off of that. Now they're really behind the eight ball.

Now we have, as you pointed out, numerous Shia militias who are all involved with power plays over and throughout Iraq.

The question that begs to be asked is will our sudden departure make it worse? The only thing worse is outright and overt civil war (which some believe isn't that far anyway) and if that takes place, then I think we should leave.

A bloody civil war is no place for us to be.

But until that happens, I think that supporting any freely elected Iraqi government, whether it be led by Maliki or not, is the right thing to do. We have to honestly be able to say that we've done all we can before we accept that any help involving physical presence there is useless.

How you post, Titus, and who you are through with is up to you.

There is plenty of substance in the seven posts I linked above. My point is that more it is more your responsibility to read the thread from beginning to end before jumping in, than it is for us to repost what we've already written. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Edited to add:

Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/30/p...-b_n_94153.html

It’s not exactly civil disobedience, but Bush was roundly booed when he threw out the first ball at the Washington National’s new stadium. This is long overdue. Bush has earned being booed at every public appearance.

I believe that the Sunnis will come out in force in the upcoming elections and this will make a big difference. You point to people in positions as if they are there for life – appointed by a dictator. When the Sunnis are fully represented in the government I believe extremists will be weeded out over time and the country will come together. The people in the street imo do not represent the majority of Shiites – and eventually the majority will take over from the thugs – esp. those holding up in Iran.

They are more or less appointed for life Ted- haven't you been reading what DTOM has said about tribal loyalties? They are loyal to thier tribal leaders- who, are born you know, into the tribe, and inheret those positions, and have them "for life".

Iran brokered the peace deal- did you catch that bit if info Ted?

Al-Maliki had to back off his plans and actions against Al-Sadr, and reversed his statements he made yesterday-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_...GUGlXgxTt1vaA8F

So- to recap- what has the 4000 dead soldiers bought us with thier blood and tears?

A shi-ite state that is closely allied with Iran, possibly with a Sunni minority, depends on how they will be treated- that will be interesting to guess, but I have a feeling that they will negotiate just fine with thier Shi-ite factions to keep any more bloodshed than we have now from happening.

This is exactly the type of mindless rhetoric Id expect from you at this point regarding politics. You would never catch me saying anything remotely close to that to a war critic, who doesn't protest the war actively by marching into Washington. Frankly personal matters such as that aren't yours to judge in the first place. You've probably been stuck in the mind set your in for so long, that your incapable of casting anything close to a fair Judgment on anyone who doesn't believe what you do! The problem with people like you is that you preach things like open mindedness, so long as your talking about something you support. Beyond that, you resort to some pretty childish tactics to get your points across.

Like for example............ ((this person deserves disrespect because he designs video games yet supports the war, yada yada.)) In a sense its humbling for me looking at people like you resorting to personal attacks simply because the thought of someone who doesn't share your view point makes you grind your teeth. So for me as a 25 year old to watch a 43 year old say the types of things you do, yea Id saw thats humbling. We all mature at different ages of course, ohh well.

Net- call it whatever you want- but you DO "support" the war how? Seriously- tangibly, how? You "believe" it is right for us to be there- as long as YOU don't have to make the sacrifice- very easy to support something when you don't have to do anything but wear a yellow ribbon or type something on the net?

It is the same with the chickenhawks in power now- they are all about it is "a good sacrifice"- coming from people that have NEVER sacrificed themselves or thier loved ones- in the case of this Admin- they have never even had to worry about a mortgage payment or gas bill either!

That is the disconnect you have, and the Teds as well- you have NEVER sacrificed-so the sacrifice is "worth it"- at some, what, academic level?

Now, if you were sitting next to DTOM and debating this, perhaps you would have some serious respect- you put your butt on the line.

When you leave the comfort of your home, and travel to Iraq- you will have some credibility on this issue- but you don't. Or, even someone I spar with continually, like Aquilla, well, darn, he at least served in Vietnam, and knows sacrifice, and has made it himself- we may disagree vehemently- but at least he knows what it is like to be there.

If the law said "when GW sends troops to battle, we kill his kids in front of him"- you think he would say " the sacrifice is worth it"?

Of course not- the sacrifice is worth it- as long as SOMEONE ELSE makes it.

You trivialize the "4000" dead, compare it to Vietnam- it disrespects those that will have NOT survived vietnam had they been injured there- instead, returning to the states with life altering injuries, that are already overwhelming our system.

yes, I can't take seriously your statements about "sacrifice" when you have never sacrificed net- who should anyway?

Call it a personal attack or whatever- who cares? If you support the war- you don't need to join the military- there are lots of civilian jobs, or volunteer with the red cross, they need help.

Kinda dangerous though- you think the sacrifice is worth it?

What I have seen, during my time in the service- is that our media, no matter if you think they are liberal or conservative, still presents an america-centric viewpoint, and NEVER paints us as the bad guys- when we clearly were the bad guys in places like Central America.

I think you would change your entire belief system, very, very fast the minute you are dropped into Iraq- 'cause, I don't think you are rich enough or powerful enough to get the McCain "green zone" treatment.

When you see what DTOM describes, you will run crying home to mama so fast you wouldn't even see the trail of snot and tears you would leave my man.

Places like Iraq have a funny way of changing entire belief structures in a man, right now quick!

You see, I too was an idealist that thought Reagan was gawd, that the US was a beacon of freedom, and that the "communists" were worth fighting, the ends justifies the means, etc.

Didn't take long to change my tune at all, when the truth of the situation hit me like rotting flesh in tropical heat.

And Net- I have absolutely NO problem changing my mindset at any time, if the fact warrant it- and they just don't in this case- in fact, looking thier your and DTOM posts- I would say that you simply can't adjust to the facts or the size or scope of the info DTOM is laying down Net.

The problem is this- all those folks that were "unamerican" in thier critisism of both Vietnam and Iraq- are completely right about everything- again.

And, as a man, I have no problem calling someone a "coward" for NOT stepping up and defending thier beliefs with THIER bodies, instead of demanding the sacrifice of others.

If it is agood cause- then man up, and do the right thing, and get out of your parents house and go to war.

I am pretty sure that you can find someplace there you could help out.

nighttimer




Nighttimer this assumes everyone thinks like you about this war, which they don't. That entire comment, saying that the low casualty rate is irrelevant because this war is pointless, assumes that this war is pointless. Thats an opinion, and your welcome to it. Ironically the soldiers fighting in this war, as well as their families, support this war in greater percentages than the general public, even by the toughest of polls.

Also its not that 4000 deaths isn't bad, but it could be much worse by now, and everyone knows it, and I'm convinced many people use these death toll numbers to sell their anti war message to America having lost no relatives in this war at all, in most cases failing to consider that all war leads to death yet with this one we are very fortunate not to have seen at least 40,000 Americans die in this war. I make these points because I think life is important, not because I don't, and I think considering history is always important. By the way Ive heard countless stories of parents losing a child in this war, yet continuing to support it because their child believed in what they were doing.

But YOU have lost nothing net- that is the character piece of the pie.

Before you lean on that theory too hard, you also have too realize that many soldiers and many families will attempt to rationalize their service, their sacrifice or their loss. Just as with many civilians, it's at times too much pressure on the human psyche to truly confront the cold truth. Some soldiers don't want their wasted time, or wasted limbs to have been in vain, and some families will cling to their loved ones service as a symbol to help them keep a strong facade.

Propaganda is easier to digest than truth in many cases, especially when one is emotionally vulnerable.

Dontreadonme



I make Judgments based on your post directly, you have conjured up things on the other hand that would take a psychic to know, supposing anything you guessed was accurate that is. Your welcome to pull up any quote of me taking about you, and I will do you the favor of pointing out what you said specifically that lead me to launch a criticism. Hows that?
Iraq and Iran are not allies, Iran is interested in Iraq right now because they want us out of the middle east and they don't want to see a stabilized democratic Iraq. Its not in their best interest, thats part of what this whole mission is about.



Be serious, thats common sense. Ive been talking to you for months, and you've never told me you were a General. All that had to be true for my comment to be fair is you not being the soldier who has seen more death and action than 150,000 other soldiers in Iraq. So there was a 1 in 150,000 chance I was wrong.



Propaganda? Lol. You never showed me a darn thing that showed that things hadn't improved significantly in Iraq, not a thing. In fact I found enough inconsistencies in your writings from post to post that believing you would have been the leap of faith, rather than the 100's of news reports and articles, you call Propaganda.

Uh, improved as compared to what net? Pre-invasion or 2003 or something?

Allies probably isn't the proper term, incestuous relationship would be more apt. Unless of course you care to try and debunk the IRGC - Dawa/Badr/ISCI connections? How is [as the debate questions asks] this carnage justified by supporting the 'legitimate' government who is wedded through military and political ties to our supposed 'enemy', as opposed to JAM and OMS who are nationalist in nature and simply want us out of THEIR country?



And where or when had I said that I was? And as such why would you make your statements unless it were a shallow pretense of discrediting my observations and assessments?



I've most certainly highlighted the fact that NONE of the underlying issues in Iraq have been solved. I've laid out the Iran-Iraq connection, which is deeply disgusting that we prop up Maliki while condemning Iran. I've highlighted the FACT that while violence WAS down [prior to the Sadr Surge], it was only down to 2005 levels. And if things were so vastly improved, why will we have more troops in Iraq after the surge than before? You're barometer for success may work for you, but you're not affected by the metrics that count.

Yep, things are returning to normal, dear leader says so.......

Here- I will use this guy named Cheney- in 1994, to debate our points:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

You, as expected, missed my point. The “government” is not “appointed for life” – They are elected and cannot therefore ignore 40% of the population – get it. And the Shiites are fractured sooooo in reality as time goes on the Sunni “block” could have much more influence because they are more united.

The point your missing Ted, is that after decades of dictatorial rule by a sectarian Sunni Ba'athist, the Shia population is going to keep Shia in power for the foreseeable future. That's if any sembalance of a central government even endures. Fractured or not, the Shia have and will retain power, either in the form of a government or the militia's.

The United Iraqi Alliance, and the ISCI will be the power brokers for some time, as they have the monopoly on educated and politically savvy Shia. But both the ISCI and UIA use Badr as their muscle, and are financed, supplied and influenced heavily by Iran or parties in Iran.

Do you know how P{arlimentary government works DTOM? Its about power sharing and 40% of the population will have their say. And maliki will bar Sarde people if they don’t disband – how about that. Sadr is done as a force with guns. He can work in the political process or lose it all – and I think he knows it. That’s why he is seriously considering disbanding his militia.

And I heard Maliki never sent anyone to Iran as you said he did. Want to show me pictures?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

If that were the case, we could go into Sadr City and Shulla and simply clean house. Again tough, macho words with nothing but air behind them.



I'm not the poster who introduced accounts of the Iranian intermediary. Please keep up.

If one starts with the assumption that we Americans are the fathers of the Iraqi people, whose support and guidance is indispensible to their taking proper governance of their own country, then of course, we should stay on until these brown-skinned, childlike people eventually prove capable of doing this. But this point of view, particularly in context of our evident pursuit of peculiarly American commercial and geopolitical interests through our occupation of Iraq, smacks strongly of the White Man's Burden, the Mission Civisiatrice and the other specious justifications of 19th-Century imperialism.

If one instead starts with the assumption that only the Iraqis are capapable of governing their country, and that whatever differences exist among the various Iraqi ethnic groups and political factions there are theirs and theirs alone to work out, whether violently or by peaceful means, one reaches a different conclusion about the desirability of our continued occupation there. It may simply be that some level of intra-Iraqi strife will eventually be necessary, no matter how long U.S. forces remain there.

A substantial grant of funds to whatever government manages to prevail in such a struggle may be a better way of recognizing our moral responisibilities than our staying there and pursuing, by continued force of arms and most likely without much success, an outcome entirely satisfactory to U.S. interests. By way of historical analogy, there was serious violence between Muslims and Hindis, and grave dislocation of many of them, when the British finally gave up their rule of India. But very few would dispute that the end of the Raj was a good thing.

Concerning the 4,000th U.S. death I am not particularly concerned, given that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused on the order of twenty times that many Iraqi casualties, as well as the wholesale elimination of vast portions of the infrastructure of that nation. I am only concerned that this expensive and futile exercise of our national arrogance, superiority, stubborn ignorance, and exhaltation of military power so extreme that it borders on fascism -- qualities richly exhibited here by several posters -- has any chance of continuing.