how long?

I don't know.

But I'm sure of one thing : I would call myself 'cocky' if I dared to give any realistic figure!

It will end when it is darn good and ready to end. Iraq rebuilding, that is. I can't wait to see the shining cities, the verdant countryside, the happy smiling faces! And then, the transformation of all the ME into a progressive group of democracies! Oh, it will be wonderful.

After twelve years of enforcing the no fly zones and camping out in Saudi, I can't imagine how long this one will take. I would guess we'll never leave entirely, but set up a base there, as we have in Turkey, and perhaps send the troops to that one rather than Saudi for their remote tours of duty.

Mrs. P,

Yep. It's an old story, no?

And that's why I'm voting a straight Republican ticket in 2004. I want those who started down this path to lead us to its end. No shirking responsibilities!

BTW, Lydia is really ticked off at me for going this way. Oh well. I'm tired of fighting and being un-American.

Make Iraq work! That's the only way. Doesn't matter how many of our troops die as long as we keep on funding the, um, er, whatever this has become. Doesn't matter.

Four more years!

NOTE: Whole post edited because i read wrong

I think that the war in Iraq will end when we can finally get a President elected in Iraq and a healthy army built so they can handle their own territory so we can start pulling our troops out in large numbers.

Since the majority of the 30+ million Iraqs believe their lives WILL be much better 5 years if the coalition were to stay and get things under control, I would hope it were to be more like 2-3 years.

As far a an american base being stationed in Iraq indefinitely, yes.

i can assure you we will some of our army stationed in that region for a very long time, but as for the when will it end, meaning most of our troops and everyone else go home, i voted unsure on that one.

What about Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party? Did they not have reason and excuse to hunt down Osama in 1998 after he bombed the embassies in Africa? Did he not only fire a few cruise missiles into some empty tents in the desert? Blaming the war on terror on one party is an incorrect characterization. At least look back farther than the current administration when making accusations like this. Perhaps if the 90’s had not been marked by a shirking from tough problems around the world, we would not be in our current situation. (See: Osama’s embassy bombings, the first World Trade Center Bombing, Somalia, Rwanda, etc.)

I mean, come on; if you oppose the current administration, at least have an educated opinion about it.

camp -

My take on AM's post was that Bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq and for the purposes stated he would like to see Bush take it to the end.

My sentiments also. Not sure about voting straight ticket Repub but Bush is (for now) getting my vote until one of the other candidates positively states they will not cut and run.

I don't think you recognized sarcasm. I expect us to be taking the brunt of the action for 1 to 3 years. I expect some significant development toward Iraqi soveriegnty before November 2004.

I used to feel exactly like you Socal. I blindly supported Bushs approach to the war because I felt that I would rather go in now suspecting WMDs, then send my kids in expecting WMDs later. But when the evidence became questionable and the no bid contract to Cheney's old buddies at kbr I saw a different spin on the war. I think propaganda prior to the war put too much emphasis on the WMD's and not enough on the just freeing the people of Iraq. I still think the war was a good idea, but now question the administrations other motives. As for me I think I'm going for Dean.

LOL

AM got me then! ok, I retract my take on his post. should have read more of his prior posts to see where he stood. my mistake.


rev-

it's not about "blindly" following anyone. it's about what you preceive as right and what I preceive as right. My goodness imagine if we all thought the same? how boring!

anywhich, if you want to concider that "damage as being done" then I just prefer the "damage" not become worse by any possible flip-flopping.

I'll take issue with this assessment:

Given the steady rise in the number of Iraqis providing security (they are second only the the US troops in terms of number and are expected to pass the US relatively soon) and the steady progress towards a democratic Iraqi government I believe we won't be taking the "brunt of the action" for more than an additional year, tops. By this time (one year) Iraqis should already have there sovereignty. I give a year and a half tops on this one.

The terrorists cannot stops the collective will of the Iraqis from taking control. They can kill a strategically insignificant number of coalition troops, but the progress will continue despite their efforts. They simply don't have to power to stall it...

There's an Airforce times article (November 10th issue) that states the current projection by leading military analysts. According to them, troop strength should be able to draw down to 60 or 70,000 by this time next year. Now, there are about 130,000 troops in Iraq so it is projected to be half-strength by next November.

The way I see it, our main goal right now is just to put the new government firmly in place. I'm going to estimate a year. Then, due to all the controversy over WMD's, Haliburton, the 80+ billion dollars spent, and the constant pressure from the public, we'll withdraw.

I'm curious Turnea. By a "strategically insignificant" number of coalition troops killed in Iraq, do you mean only those coalition troops that aren't friends of yours or someone you know personally?

There are probably some mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and kids that might take issue with your blithe dismissal of the "strategically insignificant." For them it's very strategically significant.

I wonder would it be so "strategically insignificant" if it were George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the CEO of Haliburton over there in Iraq bring all this wonderful progress and risking their sorry butts instead of some other mother's son?

But then, we all know the answer to that question, don't we? The casual way in which some people treat the lives of American soldiers is truly troubling.

Indeed it is.

For example, from another thread here.....



It seems to me that anyone who wants to make book on the number of American soldiers who will be killed by the later part of next week hardly has room to pretend offense at Turnea's statement.

Yeah, well if you can't tell bitter sarcasm from genuine wagering, there's not much I can do about that Aquilla. Hopefully, others may recognize the sardonic intent behind those posts.

As the Administration seems to be making up its policy as it goes along and seems to have no exit strategy other than to get the story off the front page before November 2004, it seems rather obvious to me, that the Bushies treat the lives of American soldiers as disposable assets.

And what makes you think I was "pretending" offense at Turnea's statement? Allow me to clarify my position: I was offended.

Clear enough?

When, do tell, WILL it end?
How can anyone be sure? With mounting US military/Iraqi civilian casualties, a sentiment that went from neutral, to pro-US, to anti-US (using majorities), and a sudden increase on attacks on US military vehicles/installments, this conflict could carry on for a LOT longer.
Or, it could end quickly, maybe within two years.
I just don't think it's very likely...
To quote an Iraqi civilian -
"The only thing they [the Americans] have done - is take the cotton out of our mouths which Saddam placed there. But they have put this cotton in their ears!"

Why, yes of course. What else would it mean?

On a totally unrelated note, could I interest you in in an affordable dictionary?



Can you back that up with evidence?

Now you are making it sound like Bush does not care about the dying troops. Well, i can be sure that you are wrong. Presidents hate sending troops into war. Do you think Truman wanted to send troops to Korea? No. He hated the idea.

Do you think FDR wanted to send troops to Europe after Pearl Harbor? No!

Bush Sr. worried about sending troops to liberate Kuwait.

It was kinda obvious that terrorists were gonna spill into Iraq to wage their dumb Jihad. Al-Queda had said it and so had Hezbollah.

I nulled my vote as there was no option for being sure it would be more than two years. How long do you think we'll be in Korea? Unless a government totally hostile to the US takes power and physically ousts us, there will be American troops in Iraq forever.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

This should probably be taken up in the History Debate, but as it was raised here...
It is apparent to most historians (and to a fair number of observers at the time) that FDR was eager to send troops to Europe well before Pearl Harbor - which is one of the reasons that the notion of Roosevelt allowing the Japanese attack to happen has such currency. Do you have any foundation at all for your terribly unlikely "No"?

No hawkish politician is ever seriously concerned about dying troops. Otherwise, they would not be hawkish. Placing the value of human lives below political ends is one of the prerequisites of waging war - regardless of political party, nation, or historical period.

1. I personally took the question to mean how long will the troops be present in large numbers of see significant action and the like. They may be present for two years but I believe the "fight" so to speak will be over.

2. I think the Korea example isn't the best. After all in Iraq there is no "North Korea"-type force to threaten (Now that you mention it, that's a gaping hole in the Vietnam comparisons as well) Perhaps a better concept comparison would be Saudi Arabia. Yes, I'm well aware troops stayed in SA for thirteen years or so... That isn't the point. The point is that troops withdrawal (to a large extent) will occur when the threat has passed. Iraq is no longer a threat so our military left Saudi Arabia (despite the widespread belief we would never leave). It is my estimation (again the credit goes to the Iraqis) that the threat will largely be done with in a year or so.

Fair enough. I took the question to mean "How long do you think it will take till Iraq quiets down and American troops withdraw?" I guess it's all in how one interprets "quiets down". To our Command-in-Chief, that "quieting down" apparently happened months ago...


Okay, then, how long do you think we'll be in Germany? You're correct that Iraq, unlike Korea, is not yet partitioned - though it might as well be (in three parts). Granted, there is no clear "North Korea-type force", but there is definitely a violent opposition. I obviously see the point you're making about "the fight", but I think it is a bit soon to say anything about the future of Iraq - especially as our administration seems to have no clue about any kind of strategy - never mind an exit strategy. We don't even seem to have any clear idea of the nature or extent of "the threat". In terms of the attitudes of Iraqis themselves, not much seems to have changed over the past few months - for good or ill (though there does seem to be a marginally increasing impatience with the way things are going).

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/warfaq.php



I just cited this with some other points in the why did we go into Iraq "why oh why" thread. I don't think there is an exit strategy.

Whether the terrorists have enough suicide (or homicide, as it has been suggested) bombers to last that long remains to be seen. How a change in administration here would impact this plan also remains to be seen.

But now that the flush of victory is over, I wonder how many volunteers will continue to join the U.S. military as soldiers remain targets for the terrorists coming in from hither, thither and yon to attack them.

The current reduction in troop strength in Iraq is already starting. The next rotation of replacement troops are heading to Iraq in a little while, and American forces will be reduced by 20%

Troop rotation in Iraq

Certainly, though I think a more key question (considering there will always be terrorists somewhere willing to try and "stick it to" the US for whatever flimsy reason)

is: Who are these people willing to fight?

Iraq forces will soon be the dominant force (in numbers) on the ground in Iraq. When the Iraqi military is developed enough the coalition will largely leave. Are these terrorists willing to face down an Iraqi force, when the glory of striking out at the "occupier" wears off? I doubt it. The terrorists cannot prevent the formation of a democratic government in Iraq, they don't have that kind of power. Once this occurs the terrorists will have nothing the face but millons of (armed) Iraqis who want to get on with their lives. Kind of takes the glory out of the whole terrorist deal...


Might be a good example, but then again Germany isn't exactly the worst place for our troops to be...


I think that speaks volumes about our efforts. This is not the most friendly region to America and the media there has being engaged in some vicious attacks. Yet Bremer it seems has come out on top in the war for hearts and minds even in Baghdad (one of the toughest areas).

If the President cares so much about the dead and wounded troops GoAmerica, why hasn't he attended the funeral of any of the fallen soliders?

The president did not go to the funerals of the nine fellow soldiers who died in the same ambush that led to Private Lynch's capture; he hasn't gone to any funerals for soldiers killed in action, The Washington Post reports.

If Bush cares so much why does he seem so determined to avoid honoring any of the dead troops by paying his respects at a funeral?

I wonder if Clinton went to the funerals of the troops killed in somalia? Embassies, Cole? Any info? I DO know that he did not go to the site of the '93 WTC bombing...ever.

In the defence of Presidents who choose not to attend funerals though, it would appear that these funerals are both extremely painful and private. The event of a media circus that would transcend on these funerals had Bush attended is something he's no doubt aware of. Would the funeral then become about the son/daughter of a grieving family or about the President? Should Presidents attend EVERY funeral of a fallen soldier? If not then it becomes a matter of choosing one over another and whose son/daughter is the one who gets slighted?

I really don't think it's the place of a president to be a these funerals. Honoring ALL of the fallen in a national ceremony with the names being recognized would be a much more appropriate thing to do.

As Yoda would say, "Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future."

I think we will be involved in Iraq, with men and women on the ground for many years in one form or fashion.

Good point. But shouldn't the President of the United States be the person to set the example for the rest of us to follow?

This is excerpted from an editorial in today's Washington Post:

SHOULD THE government stop barring camera coverage when the bodies of war dead arrive at Dover, Del.? Shouldn't the president be attending funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq? Are the country's leaders attempting to obscure the true face of war?

The answer to that last question is, yes, they probably are, and in that they aren't much different from just about every administration going back at least to the time of Pericles in Athens. To look on the true face of war is to be shocked, repulsed, distressed. No government in wartime has wished to show its people the hideous reality of a field hospital at Gettysburg or the thousands of men -- including many Americans -- whose remains disappeared into the muck of the first great machine-driven war, which ended 85 years ago today. And if we are honest, it must also be said that many of the people don't wish to know every awful detail of the wars their country fights.

What such veterans are owed above all by this society -- more than sympathy and obsequies -- is the sense that we and our leaders respect their accomplishments and share to some degree their sense of duty. They deserve, from the president on down, an understanding that it can't be business and fun as usual when people are dying for their country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Nov10.html

If President Bush cares he should demonstrate that he cares. No one expects him to attend almost 400 funerals, but just attending one would be a tremendously humane and sympathetic gesture on his part.

how does one go about choosing which funeral to attend?



Shouldn't the families be the appropriate judge of what they want for their dead? if they want the dead bodies of their sons and daughter to be paraded in front of the media or not? Has one family that I'm not aware of come forth and requested their dead child be splashed all over the networks and newspapers? Don't they have that right to decide? Once dead, don't they become the property of families rather than the country? It's a matter of what one considers "respectful" of the dead. Especially if the dead and mutilated is your own child. opinions on which differ.



what proof do you have that he doesn't care? How do you know what he has done for the families in lieu of funeral attending?

Bush met with the families of 26 dead soldiers this past Monday. I know that's not going to a funeral and I know some will believe it's too late or that he is bowing to pressure and that may be true.

What I found interesting is:



Under Fire, Bush Meets Families of Iraq War Dead

I don't think Iraq will calm down until the US withdraws its troops.

What makes you think eliminating basically the entire force that is policing and stabilizing the country would...stabilize the country?

CP

No. It won't matter if we leave or not because they will just continue unopposed unless the new iraqi army is as lethal as we are against them.

The only victory condition for the guerrillas is to drive the Americans out. When they're gone, why would they want to continue fighting?

Though I agree with your condition for the end of the battle (the relative withdrawal of coalition forces) I think the reason is based on a mistaken assumption.

This is certainly not a genuine mass resistance. The vast majority of Iraqis continue to oppose the guerillas.

However, coalition withdrawal will remove a basic component of the rationale for the tiny minority that wishes to attack coalition forces, for whatever reason.

I stick with my year-and-a-half estimate, the terrorists tactics serve only to solidify the position of peaceful Iraqis and it is Iraqis who will determine the outcome here.

I honestly don't think we'll *EVER* leave Iraq, at least not entirely. We'll keep finding reasons to keep a military presence, just to keep us close to the oil.

How exactly will a continued military presence "keep us close to the oil"?

I assume you don't mean physical proximity.

Well they would have to continue fighting if they hope to reinstate the brutal Stalinist regime that they supported before the war right? Do you think the people of Iraq, who by a significant margin are very glad to be free of these thugs, are going to just allow them to take the country back for Saddam?

Never happen.

This is lame. We willingly bought oil from Iraq up until we invaded and we'll buy again after we leave. We need the oil, but we really don't need the country of Iraq all that much.

Let's all repeat after me: the amount of oil able to be pumped from Iraq is not even close to the amount of money we've spent beating up Iraq and will continue to spend rebuilding their infrastructure.

We will continue to import more oil from CANADA! Seriously: we import about 2 million barrels per day from Canada and were importing only a few hundred thousand barrels daily from Iraq. Is Canada next?

This is true. America paid off the debt for Alberta. Oil is so lucrative that Alberta became the only province in Canada to abolish the PST.

Some benefits of maintaining a presence in these poorly producing oilfields are:

-With improved maintenance improved yields may come. This is an investment.
-Now that the oil for food program is controlled strictly from the us side and not the un side the opportunity for future embezzlement exists.
-Russia has snubbed the greenback and converted oil sales to Euros because it sees large emerging markets - China ten years from now, ever improving consolidation of UK countries, and a gold backed currency vs. a hyperinflating currency on the verge of collapse. Bottom line is America lost one of the bigger oil producers to a newer more vibrant market. Steps in flow stabilisation had to occur.
-Easy walking distance to their theological arch nemisis Iran. Implied intent to any country considering a move from us dollar reserves will get punished - Argentina are you listening?
-'Cause Ariel Sharon and his greater map for Israel- look at the map, need I say more?

Also consider that military budget spending has skyrocketed since 2001. If you have all this arsenal, some politician will find a use for it sooner or later. Might only has meaning if it is flexed occasionally.

Thoughts to reflect on,
Trouble

My apologies for straying off topic Jaime. After seeing the new complications occurring from Iraq and failing to garner public confidence - you ask an almost rhetorical question. The short answer, at least two years of occupation, anything sooner would be viewed as a loss of face. The administration knows leaving with the overwhelming advantage in firepower can only lead to questions - questions that place the blame on themselves.

The question of resolution gets farther away as each day the aggressiveness elevates. Take Tikrit's Israeli razor wire enclosure. All it does is intimidate. Does firing through every house in Samaara garner confidence? Quieting down is the reverse of escalating, right? I don't care which news source you go to the actions speak of one thing - a loss of control. These are tactical errors, failings in judgement.

This answer falls mostly on Paul Bremer's shoulders. The success or failure to integrate is based on his success or failure to endear himself to the Iraqi people. The watchword is confidence. The second word is for the administration, it is priority. After taking casualties reconstruction has slowed dramatically. Personnel has shifted back into a unproductive defensive mode. The situation is in a circular rut. They won't commit forces due to casualties yet inaction is breeding more guerilla tactics. The most powerful force in the universe is delagated to sentry duty and nothing more. On both sides of the line trust] has been lost. Now ask yourself if we are getting closer or farther away from that day of trust and you'll know the date when this will be over..

Trouble

I believe that this whole thing will be somewhat of a mixed bag for us. I see us doing well in Afghanistan, and that one day, they will have free, and unfettered elections. Time frame?-2 years. On the otherhand, I see Iraq being somewhat of a loss for us. I see us cutting our losses and turning things over to the Iraqi interim government that will collapse faster than the radicals can reach Baghdad. If the Ottoman Empire was the "sick man of Europe" then the interim government is the "glass jaw of the middle east" I find it simply impossible that the Iraqi security forces would have enough resolve to fight rebels who have shown guts in standing in front of M1A1 Abrams tanks, knowing the whole time that they will die. I don't see the provisional authority Iraqis as having that same kind of resolve in battle. If they did, we would certainly hear about pitched battles between them and the guerillas(and the civilians who evidently side with the dark side) When do we cut our losses?- five years tops

I'm not so sure of this, considerable elements of the old army will be incorporated once concerns over de-baathification are allayed. That mean some of these same brave souls who fought us (under threat of death) in the Gulf War will now have something to fight for, the lives of themselves and their families. I believe those who want Iraq to succeed far outnumber those who want Iraqis to fail and I believe it is the terrorists who have no hope of victory once the Iraqis get back on their feet.

We may not hear about it enough, but the new Iraqi army and police are certainly fighting and plans are in the work for a more effective domestic protector of the Iraqi people.

US plans Iraqi paramilitary force
In plain-speak, some the Shia militias (once an unsteady ally, and something of a wildcard) will be aiding security around the country under a unified command. This included other ethnic factions, of course but the Shia are a majority.

The terrorists are out-gunned and soon to be tremendously outnumber, they fight a losing battle. Only one thing can lose this and that's a political collapse of the coalition. Thankfully, that does not seem to be happening on the american side.
US weathers Iraq troop losses

Have you heard the accounts of the Samsarra battle? Since every citizen has an AK-47(and in some cases, heavier weapons such as RPGs) civilians are believed to have joined the fight against our troops. I haven't provided any links to accounts of the battle, I'm just relating what I've read. Feel free to take it for what it's worth, but I'm confident that a simple google search would bear it out. Now if they had shot at the rebels from their windows and tried to pick them apart, I would be more apt to believe your statement. I wish the Iraqi militia would show some resolve,as the Afghan fighters did by storming past Taliban tanks on horseback with our advisors in tow, and directly engage these rebels, or for the civilians to directly engage the rebels as well. If these rebels are so outgunned and outmanned, then the citizenry of Iraq would not be intimidated by them and would fight them with the courage of a fighter facing a tank with a rifle.

That is possible, but the question of course is how many civilians. Let's consider the facts for a moment. The vast majority of Baghdad residents want US soldiers the stay for more than the next few months (72% according to Gallup opposed to the 26% who want withdrawal in a few months) and an even greater number see that Iraq would fall into chaos were a pullout to occur (85%, apparently at least 10% want chaos ).

About 64% of Baghdadis view attacks on US troops as totally of somewhat unjustifiable. while only 8% consider them completely justifiable. Yes, 8% call for violent removal of the "occupiers" some popular uprising...

Despite endless reporting that US troops in Iraq have lost the war for hearts and minds by bahving poorly towards Iraqis, 58% of Baghdad residents consider the behavior of US troops while in-country very to fairly good. Of those who gave negative opinions, 42% say it is based on what they've heard.

All of this from one of the toughest area is Iraq. One with a considerable Sunni population, in the North and South this sort of (grossly under-reported) positive news is likely to be even better.

The polls are available at The CPA's Website but were taken independently by Gallup.

I'll try to find more stories on the efforts of the new Iraqi security forces (out of time I'm afraid) but I hope this clears up any suspicion that the Iraqi people as a whole (of even a significant plurality, are supporting the terrorists.)