The war ended nearly 4 years ago. The President said it. The MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED. And as The Wall Street Journal op ed page said today we must bow to him on that and everything else he wants. Even - in this time of Terrorism - your virgin daughters if he feels they can make him more manly and thus have more energy and be stronger.

What's going on now is an occupation. They almost always ends unilaterally and badly. We've enjoyed ours. The Russians loved Afghanistan and are now having joy in Chechnya. Slow learners. And Israeli's (I have relatives there) are doing peachy with their own war over/occupation ongoing.

What exactly are we going to win there? If we kill every last flipping Iraqi and every non-Iraqi in the country except our guys and the Brits and whatever other allied forces are still there is that going to help? We can do that in a technical sense. We have the military power. Will give us a win in the world win-loss standings?

You think if we kill a few more millions we'll see a democracy rise up from seeds that someone dropped? You think the natives even have a clue what a democracy is and why they should want one (any kind, any variety) and die to get it.

Explain this to me please. You can use whole sentences and words of several syllables. I understand things like that.

And yes it's a real domain name. Look it up.

To answer your question, yes it is not only possible, it is reality. (Sorry, I know your question was rhetorical, but I couldn't resist.)

Steve Bobker's major miscogitation, above, perfectly illustrates the attitude that Pelosi and Reid are stroking. They pretend that the war is an act of US aggression, which is why "ending it" is their only thought.

Saying were ending the war is not nearly as accurate as saying "We're ending american involvement in the war." I agree. But right now we're not really fighting al queda, we're spending all of our time trying to keep to drunken brawlers from having at it, and we're taking punches in the meantime.

The democratic plan would only prolong the war if there was a realistic plan for preventing further carnage. Otherwise it could be argued that american involvement is prolonging the war, albeit at a much lower casualty rate.

The two armed camps have appear to be decided on where, when and how to kill each other. Until we have some plan or incentive to make them stop, american involvement is merely prolonging the inevitable.

Dusty, was that "possible, a reality." a comment about......?

If it's about Iraq tell me why you think democracy is sprouting?

Glen (ah, now I recognize you), your comment is inane. But why should I be surprised. We attacked them. Everyone says so, even Cheney and Rummy. That buddy is aggression. Whether it was justified or not is a matter of dispute between people. But, Glen, we did attack them. Some thought they might want to attack us and theus we should attack them first. But we did attack, uh, first. Preemption it's called. Agression was the tool......... That's NOT the issue. It's settled fact.
Good grief man, agression isn't even a crime. Me I can get get very agressive at times, scary agressive (I'm a bit oversized) The issue is whether any good might good of killing off, rather slowly, the rest of the US Army in Iraq. Most now say no. Hey, man. we won. Four years ago! That's almost a whole dog year. Now we're overstaying our welcome just like my flipping relatives last Saturday night. The difference is they only drank a few more bucks worth of stuff and Iraq is costly billions and worse, lives lost for no gain. It ain't getting better. Try reading the wonderful Mike Totten on this site.

Donald Sensing: "Many knowledgeable observers say there is a real risk that Saudi Arabia will send troops into Iraq to protect Iraqi Sunnis from the Shias and their Iranian sponsors. This is a recipe for a regional war that no one wants, even Iran."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I think it's our only hope. It's a "wish upon a star" hope, because if there is no regional war, if Iran just eats Iraq without resistance, that's not good, and having acknowledged defeat (tacitly, in withdrawing), we would have a trivial remaining ability to shape events. But if there's a way through to a satisfactory outcome from this mess, that's it.

I think we should try to get to that good outcome, as opposed to sitting in place, bleeding casualties, money and prestige as the price of preventing the red on red attrition that we need.

A strong Iraqi state would be Islamic and hostile in any case. If it was possible to achieve it, it would be harmful to us. We should not go in that direction.

"We broke it, we own it" is not a war-fighting rule. If we blow a hole in an enemy submarine, we are not obliged to pay for the repair of the submarine and return it as good as new to the enemy, or give the enemy another one just as good in its place. If we decapitate an enemy state, we are not obliged to rebuild its war-fighting potential and return it to the enemy as good as new or better.

We should not give the enemy a state. We should not give them anything unless it's a broken neck.

Instead, we should be taking away enemy strengths and hammering wedges into enemy weak points.

Iraq has potential as a wedge, if it draws in backers of the Shiites and the Sunnis.

-

Donald Sensing: "The enemy of the United States in Iraq is not really either Shia or Sunni militias. It is al Qaeda."

It is the system of Islam.

Since you disagree with that, your recommendations for the war will be as different as your ideas on what and where the war is.

But I hope you will acknowledge that my answers to your point one follow logically from my designation of the enemy.

And I hope you will agree that my designation of the enemy follows from evidence. Not "proof", but enough evidence to convince some reasonable people, though not all reasonable people, such as yourself.

Therefore, to desire the implementation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid's intentions on the war does not imply stupidity or inability to realize that Muslims will continue to practice jihad, to fight and kill. That's what some people who agree that the "get out" option is best do realize - and count on.

This is not an intelligence test that everyone on one side or the other has failed. Rather, for some it's a real difference of perspective.

Steve --

Your assumption is that turning over Iraq and it's oil money and people to Al Qaeda and Iran is cost free. It is not.

Here is what the acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (and a Hamas man) said in Sudan:

" Ahmad Bahr began: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

Bahr continued and said that America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.

The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."

--------------

This is what we are fighting: ISLAM. And we are fighting: MUSLIMS.

Currently in Iraq we have intel networks, local allies, contact on our terms with Al Qaeda (who we are mostly fighting). We have soldiers and Marines fighting Al Qaeda, instead of first responders or cops or people on Airplanes.

Yes, great idea. Let's run away and wait at our desks to be killed. For the airplane to crash into the building or the nuke go off in Manhattan (as Tenet feared in 2001).

Israel's experience is instructive. THERE IS NO GETTING AWAY FROM THE WAR. Israel has tried to deal, bargain, appease, withdraw and all it gets is more war. Every Jew "down to the last one" will be killed by their enemies who are the Muslims.

The choice is to fight, have some of your people die. Or surrender and have ALL of your people die.

What "deal" can be made with Hamas? With Hezbollah? With Iran? With Al Qaeda? Only this: surrender to Islam and become like Afghanistan.

Note: we send hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinians every year, along with arms for the PA military. This is what it gets us.

I find it ludicrous to assert that the US Army is being "killed" in Iraq. Casualties while tragic are very light compared to most wars. We lost more than 5,000 on the first day of D-Day. Over 50,000 in the Normandy Campaign. If we cannot sustain these casualties we might as well surrender to Islam as Ian Buruma suggests.

David, Thank you for much clearer post than i could hope to create. You're right on all counts.

Steven, you can play the war v occupation word game all you want, but it doesn't change things here or there one iota. Neither can the media, which begs to differ with you, when they call it a civil WAR, or when the mood hits them, an insurgency.

And please do not compare what we are doing with what the Russians did either in Afghanistan or, now, Chechnya. The disimilarities in motives, tactics, treatment of civilians, efforts to improve the countriy's infrustructure, improvements to the economy in general and healthcare in particular, outweigh any perceived similarities you wish to attach by noting they both are described as an "occupation" and make you look as silly. And before you tut-tut those differences, I'll note that such things make all the difference in the perceptions people in have country and is crucial to whether the "occupation", as you like call it derisively, is a success or failure.

That's why your hypothetical "If we kill every last flipping Iraqi and every non-Iraqi in the country ...." is silly, not only to me, but, based on the reports of what Iraqis themselves have said, to them.

Your last comment is stupid. No one here thinks the premises you offer. But, yes, I do think the majority of Iraqis have a clue what democracy is, why they might want it, and what is needed to achieve it -- quite a few are already laying their lives on the line to get it and many of them are dying.

Steve (#5), when I wrote and posted, your comment (#1) wasn't showing. I had directed it to Sensing's rhetorical question. Sorry about that.

Dusty, that is great truthiness. Wonderful. Bet your eyes are brown.

Jim: If that's the case and for all anyone truly knows maybe it is, then let's untie our hands. You think we can't kill them all? You think they'd do it to us. So let's just do it. You won't hear me argue. But first impeach the current President for playing along with the Saudis and other rich Arabs and then after the impeachment execute him for treason. He's been no friend of America in the last 5 or 6 years. Osama seems to tell him what to do. If we must wipe out Islam (poor idea IMO) then we need to do it.

BTW, anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to anything Hamas says is gonna get gulled. Watch what they do and react to that especially if you're Israeli, but listen? Oh come on now.

Dusty, and I posted 11 as you posted 10 a bit sooner.

I take it all back. Can we say no harm, no foul?

Im sorry, in all this smoke and fire did i catch the point somewhere that leaving Iraq in far greater turmoil and civil war with the only peace in the offing either Iran-raq or Al-Quedaraq could be to our advantage? Which side do we back in that dogfight? And lest we all forget, there are more than ex-Baathists, Al Qaeda bombers, and Sadr-ist in Iraq. That is not by any means a fair assessment. Those are the people making the most noise and killing people- they are able to do so because they are being financed and armed from the outside, not because they are the majorities any more than the VC was the majority in SV.

Im sorry, but we owe a debt of honor to the Kurds and those Shiites and Sunni who have tried to make this thing work. They DO damn well exist, and many of them have died in the line of fire already. How many times does the US have to evacuate an embassy and leave the people who believed in us and fought and bled for us to the mercy of those we dont have the political will to face down? Let me say this plainly, if 3000 American deaths is too much for us to bear over 5 years, we better just pull up the drawbridge and hope like hell nobody with a torch comes knocking. Because we are FINISHED as a world power. Maybe not in a day, but certainly in the days to come. So if you people dont think the Iraqis are worth dying and killing for, maybe think about the rest of the world, and eventually our own asses.

We cant be chased out of Iraq like this. Period. Insurgencies can be defeated, the Brits did it in Malaya and we could have learned from them. Now we are scrambling and that idiot Harry Reid had half the formula right- you can eventually do this with a political solution (but not a political solution alone, otherwise there would never be war). We are on the cusp of getting our arms around a tenable condition. Pulling out the rug now is disasterous, counterproductive, and idiotic. We are going to win or lose this war THIS year, everyone knows it. Why in gods name should we decide we lost now when we will still be there for the rest of the year even under the Dems plan? Its INANE.

Ever look closely into how the Brits stopped the Malaysian insurgency? A good friend served there in the Brit army. Basically there wasn't wide spread support for the "bad" guys and most impostantly there weren't all that many. Malaysia is a peninsula. The Brits cut if off ratjer crudely and effectively and then killed all the "bad" guys. Not many happy vets of that time left in Malaysia. The methods were basically whatever killed them.

"It will be a victory that will embolden them to intensify their offensive operations against the West."

HMMMM, they seem pretty well emboldened as it is. I doubt they need any further encouragement. US presence in Iraq gives them a cause, a nearby target, & a rationale. I don't see how we could further embolden them.

This idea that we need to keep fighting so as not appear weak, or to send a message, is pure Alice in Wonderland.

If you're saying you're taking your comment to me in #11 back, no problem, Steve, either way, 'cause it sounded like a compliment as my eyes ARE brown.

If that's not what you mean, then I am still mad. :)

"Basically there wasn't wide spread support for the "bad" guys and most impostantly there weren't all that many. Malaysia is a peninsula. The Brits cut if off ratjer crudely and effectively and then killed all the "bad" guys. Not many happy vets of that time left in Malaysia. The methods were basically whatever killed them"

I've studied the Malayan Emergency pretty intensely, and everything you are saying is true- but its true because of the British strategy. Its also why Malaya is a good parallel to Iraq (or was a few years ago maybe).

1.The insurgents were based out of the minority ethnicity (Chinese) just as the Sunni became the initial insurgents in Iraq.

2.The insurgents nucleus was formed around former militants (anti-Japanese guerillas) much as the ex-Baath party formed the core of the Anbar insurgents.

3.Communist Chinese spurred and largely facilitated the insurrection, in much the same way Al Qaeda spurred Iraqi violence. Native Chinese were indoctrinated into typical Communist regiments.

Malaya was easier in some ways to isolate, true, but it was also a dense jungle landscape instead of desert. The Brits had 35,000 men and little air cover as opposed to our 150,000 and complete control of the sky. If we had ever actually tried to seal the borders we might make a comparison, but water under the bridge i guess.

The Brits had some very simple ideas that they exploited very rigorously- they removed suspect populations to more easily monitored positions. They forced every Malayan to carry a photo ID card to determine who belongs where(we havent done this and its 60 odd years later. Would have been a brilliant move and i hear we are finally trying it in places like Fallujah). They produced an effective Hearts and Minds program. They brokered a Democratic political deal.

Most importantly, they made a pledge to withdraw British Forces from Malaya when the Emergency ended and kept their word.

They didnt set arbitrary deadlines, they set metrics. When X happens we will do Y. All of these things i've been arguing for since summer of 2003. The last is the one still open to us, and the path we should follow. We strike a deal with the Iraqis and as many factions as we can. We will withdraw ALL US forces when X,Y,and Z have happened. A big part of our problem is the predictable suspicion of nearly all Iraqis that we arent intending to leave any time soon (or late). We fed that fire by never bothering to announce what conditions would allow us to leave (do the math, we werent in fact intending to leave). Those dreams are over, now we need to leave at some point. Figure out what conditions we will leave under and announce them.

And those Xs,Ys,and Zs are political deals. That way we leave on OUR terms, and if the iraqis go back at it when we're out, THEN its their problem. But most importantly we dont get chumped out and lose all our credibility on the world stage. We say we're going to do something, let everyone know in advance, then we do it. Very rare for our nation, i know, but doable.

Guy's after Jan. 20th 2009. The US will leave Iraq. Till then this is all dick beating.

Steven --

I would rather NOT end up in a place where the only solution is killing hundreds of millions of people. Responding to nuclear destruction of our cities.

I would rather signal strength to deter aggression.

While GWB has been fatally compromised by his Saudi supporters, those same Saudis are in bed deeply with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Moveon, and Kos. Where do you think the money for the Peace Movement, the lawyers for Gitmo terrorists, Daily Kos, MyDD, Firedoglake, etc. come from?

Gulf Oil Terror Sheiks.

If GWB has been bad (he has) in prosecuting the War, not the least of which is calling it by it's name (a War against Islam), the Dems have been even WORSE.

Bush will at least "threaten" Iran, Pakistan, and Syria. Nancy Pelosi wants to "talk" and rules out any other option. Kucinich wants to impeach Bush for saying "all options are on the table" wrt Iranian Nuclear weapons.

The choice is this: back the Dems retreat, get US cities nuked by this provocative weakness, watch Dems grovel and surrender, see more US cities get nuked, eventually some sort of backlash/uprising and a Billion Muslims get reduced to half that number.

OR, back Bush knowing he will at least fight some of the time and project an image of some kind of deterrence.

Both choices suck politically. One IMHO sucks more than the other.

Dems strategy (bail out) would be successful if Muslims were not fundamentally aligned to kill or conquer us. If they wanted limited aims we could give them without being bothered in our essential security. This is clearly not the case. Even those we send lots of money to, arms, and support politically want to kill us all. THUS the only thing left is intimidation.

Your course of action would only lead to widespread surrender and Ian Buruma's suggestion that the West surrender to Islam's never ending demands. Burquas for all women. Ban Christian and Jewish worship. Ban all Jews. Ban all alcohol. Ban all pork. Mandatory Islamic prayers five times a day. Etc.

If you don't want this you will have to fight.

Mark B: Generally speaking, I agree with what you say. If we had followed some path like you suggest, the situation would be better now. But think about it. Why do you think we built the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad? Why do you think we didn't renounce the idea of permanent military bases? Given that the WMD argument for the war was a charade, is it possible that the idea of a client state in the Middle East, hard by our implacable enemies in Iran, was part of the plan? And the reason your excellent proposals were never heard is that they were emphatically inconsistent with the plan?

I keep wondering when the remaining war supporters who are not actively psychotic will have that come-to-Jesus moment?

Nobody is talking about the secular, democratic, pro-American Iraq any more. We aren't even trying to improve Iraqi infrastructure any more. That means, we have already lost. All that is left is trying to arrange some sort of consolation prize, and for George Bush, the Great Decider, that will be leaving Iraq when he is damn good and ready, which means, under the Obama (or Clinton, Kucinich, etc.) Administration.

See also this pathetic retreat disguised as a definition of victory.

And don't, of course, miss the repeated announcements that we are making progress; we just need a teeny more time.

#13 from Mark Buehner: "Im sorry, but we owe a debt of honor to the Kurds and those Shiites and Sunni who have tried to make this thing work."

I'm sorry, I don't agree. At all.

We owed Uncle Joe Stalin's boys a lot more than we owe Muslims, but that didn't obligate us morally to back moderate Communism or moderate Communists as the only answer to radical Communism.

We aren't morally obliged to back moderate Islam or moderate Muslims as the only answer to radical Islam.

-

#13 from Mark Buehner: "How many times does the US have to evacuate an embassy and leave the people who believed in us and fought and bled for us to the mercy of those we dont have the political will to face down? Let me say this plainly, if 3000 American deaths is too much for us to bear over 5 years, we better just pull up the drawbridge and hope like hell nobody with a torch comes knocking. Because we are FINISHED as a world power. Maybe not in a day, but certainly in the days to come. So if you people dont think the Iraqis are worth dying and killing for, maybe think about the rest of the world, and eventually our own asses."

I sympathize with all of that.

But perhaps your complain should be addressed to George W. Bush, who defined this war in a way that means even if we win, which we seem unable to, we lose, and if we stop doing what is harmful to us, it's a humiliating defeat.

Imagine if we had decided to pursue the Cold War by fighting to establish and maintain strong Communist states, and one or more of these wars was not going well. Anti-Communists, as well as those who opposed all use of American force, would be saying: "we should get out. What we are getting in return for the lives of our soldiers, and their wounds, and the price we are paying in money and prestige is nothing, or less than nothing. Let's go, and never mind our alleged moral debt to moderate Communists."

What you said above would still apply, word for word. But it would not be sufficiently persuasive.

After 11 September, 2001, there were two states that didn't even make a disingenuous pretense of regretting what the jihadists had done and how much our American friends had suffered, and one of these states, Iraq, had a serious interest in weapons of mass destruction, and oil money to fund programs. We, and by "we" I mean the Americans, with help from the Brits, invaded and ended the governments of both states. Bravo!

But when we fought to give our enemies successful states, we turned the wrong, Islam-friendly rhetoric that George W. Bush had used from early on into wrong actions, and committed to those actions in big ways.

Until we give up that wrong course, we will be fighting to strengthen our enemies. I want that to stop.

-

#13 from Mark Buehner: "We cant be chased out of Iraq like this. Period."

Watch closely.

We are fighting for democracy: power to the people right on! Almost two thirds of the relevant people approve of attacks on our troops, and about four out of five are inclined to blame us for the bloodshed. Only the Kurds disagree, because they are using the Americans to build themselves a state. Other than that sensible vote for self-interest, we have three quarters of Shiites and practically all Sunnis approving attacks on our troops.

What happens when you fight to empower your blood enemies? If you lose, you lose, and if you win you also lose.

That is what is happening.

#13 from Mark Buehner: "Insurgencies can be defeated, the Brits did it in Malaya and we could have learned from them."

Insurgencies are not all alike. This war is not that war.

-

#13 from Mark Buehner: "We are on the cusp of getting our arms around a tenable condition. Pulling out the rug now is disasterous, counterproductive, and idiotic. We are going to win or lose this war THIS year, everyone knows it. Why in gods name should we decide we lost now when we will still be there for the rest of the year even under the Dems plan? Its INANE."

I do not think everyone knows that e are going to win or lose this war THIS year. I think we are losing for reasons that have nothing to do with what year it is. I think other people also see the war as not worth fighting for reasons that are not time-critical.

Victor Davis Hansen has written on this sense that the war is not worth it. (link)

It would be reasonable for you to say: if you guys do not think time is critical, General Petraeus does and many soldiers on the spot do, and I do, so could the surrender chorus wait for just a year while we sort out whether the surge can win this war or not?

I think that would be a very reasonable request. If that is what you want. Is it?

I've always said, I'm prepared to change my mind on Islam. I did before, changing from a very favorable view (which I had held for a long time on the basis of reading and trusting the "best" authorities) to an unfavorable view, because the facts showed I had been wrong. And I'm prepared to change again, but only on the basis of even more impressive new facts.

If the surge can provide such facts in a reasonable time, like one more year, great. No matter how illogical the war seems to me and to others, if it works, it works. But I want to see results, or let's get out.

"I would rather signal strength to deter aggression." Good luck with that, Jim.

Notice how after we signaled our strength by invading Iraq, Al Qaeda swarmed in like flies to sh*t? I don't think that all those suicide bombers are going to be detered by fear that we might kill them.

I see how Iran has really backed away from developing nukes after we sent armies to topple govt's on either side of them.

The signal of strength we sent with our latest surge certainly hasn't detered a thing.

Re: #8 from Steven Bobker: thanks for your kind words!

We democrats are committed to defeat, we are invested in defeat up to our eyeballs. One way or another we are committed to total defeat for the US, and we certainly hope we can achieve it while George Bush is in office.

But either way, defeat it will be, as close to Viet Nam as we can possibly make it. We are hoping CNN gets some good shots of helicopters leaving the embassy.

As for the US military, well, that's just going to get the big budget axe as soon as we can arrange it. I mean, the military's good for social promotions like Janice Karpinski and what was his name? the guy who ran for president Wesley Clerk(?). But you've got to admit that history ended when the USSR collapsed, so it's time to do away with atavistic institutions like the military. Besides, those guys are way too patriotic and you can't count on their votes.

So if you're betting on an outcome, bet that we're going to do what we say, and bring this house down on everyone's heads.

I agree with Mark Buehner 100%.

As to the Malaysian insurgents… First they were inspired by the Japanese defeat of Britain. Even though history might minimize these events as a matter of a few years (and the Japanese were certainly unable to win the hearts and minds of the Malays), defeat encourages challenges, rational and irrational. This is why Harry Reid’s declaration of loss will kill Americans. (By all means, declare victory if you ought, but don't declare that we've lost)

Second, the Malays were encouraged by the British officers that remained to fight a counterinsurgency against the Japanese. Many of these officers had communist sympathies; they had ceased to believe in the justness of the British system. And here is a fundamental question; is America's political system just? Does it possess the elements that a fractious Middle East needs to avoid the competing evils of rising imperialism and ethnic/religious strife?

Is it possible for two such prominent politicians to be that stupid?

That was meant to be rhetorical, correct? And, no, I don't think it is impossible. They seem to try and prove their stupidity daily.

Mark B said:

Let me say this plainly, if 3000 American deaths is too much for us to bear over 5 years, we better just pull up the drawbridge and hope like hell nobody with a torch comes knocking. Because we are FINISHED as a world power. Maybe not in a day, but certainly in the days to come.

Amen

David Blue said:

Victor Davis Hansen has written on this sense that the war is not worth it.

Uh, that is not what he says.

All of that being said, Rev. Sensing has written a good and true piece. If we have it the way of the Pelosi's and Reid's we will prove once and for all: "No worse friend, no better enemy."

Mark --

I am not concerned with deterring individual jihadis. I AM concerned with deterring various tribal sheiks, Pakistani Generals, and Iranian Mullahs from giving various jihadis nuclear weapons. Particularly the Pakistani Generals.

Running away from Iraq screams weakness in the face of continued aggression by the Iranians and slow-motion collapse of the Musharaff regime into Taliban/AQ control.

All the US needs to do to "win" in Iraq is deny that nation to Iranian and AQ control. That's it. As long as we stay we win. As soon as we run away we lose. We still have troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea. I would expect in several years we would have about the same amount of troops in Iraq.

Yes Jihadis swarmed to Iraq. To face soldiers not unarmed civilians here at home. And because if they LOSE in Iraq (and we win simply by staying there) it's a terrible defeat. We are in the heart of the Arab world and show by force we cannot be evicted. That a stand-up fight against Americans is self-defeating and terrorism only brings on that stand-up fight. So better to use other non-terrorist means to promote their agenda.

VDH's sense was that decades of "death to America" has along with nightly carnage on TV from Iraq led most Americans to conclude that Muslims are "not worth it" and are indeed the enemy and that "rubble does not make trouble." Making the next mass casualty attack including a nuking of an American City result in a widespread cry to start eliminating nations.

Given our only choice is fight or surrender (Andrew J Lazarus contention we can retreat with no consequences to the contrary) Americans have likely now concluded reform is not an option but nuking nations out of existence will be.

Rev. Sensing said also:

"This is just stunning. Neither of these tiny lights of American politics (nor their colleagues) seem to recognize that just as it takes two sides to wage war, it takes two sides to end it. The Democrats think they can end the war simply by packing the troops up and bringing them home."

Thinking about this some and cruising my usual other haunts, it seems to me that to paraphrase Col. Ralph Peters (Ret.) - the winner of a war or battle is not decided by the winner but the loser. The loser 'says', 'Stop, I have had enough!' Astute thought that is. The Democrats are declaring defeat,as I have said in other places. It becomes plainer day by day. So, I do not really agree with this part of your post, to pick a nit. I think it takes only one to declare a winner and it appears it ain't us. We are declaring defeat and going home to lick our wounds. Also, to hope that the enemy does not follow us home to take the prizes that go to the winners. Anyone want to bet on that outcome? I don't.

The Hobo

We attacked them. Everyone says so, even Cheney and Rummy. That buddy is aggression. Whether it was justified or not is a matter of dispute between people. But, Glen, we did attack them. Some thought they might want to attack us and theus we should attack them first. But we did attack, uh, first. Preemption it's called. Agression was the tool......... That's NOT the issue. It's settled fact.

We are not fighting the nation of Iraq, Steven. That war is over. The current aggression is against the sovereign and legitimate government of Iraq (recognized as such by the United Nations) by persons who wish to destabilize or overthrow it. We are assisting them in resisting that aggression. The aggressors will not stop just because we do.

Why am I telling you this? To waste bandwidth, I guess.

If we decapitate an enemy state, we are not obliged to rebuild its war-fighting potential and return it to the enemy as good as new or better.

After World War I, Europe built a peace based on a broken neck (as you would put it) for Germany, and the result was another and worse war in nothing flat.

The comments following mine on this thread simply reinforce my observation that we are not "winning" in any traditional sense of the word. We're just not "losing" in the sense we stick around in Iraq, with the money, the deaths, the chaos, the jihadi recruitment bonanza, insisting (in the teeth of all evidence) that eventually something better will turn up. Stupid is not the same as tough.

#26 from Robohobo: "David Blue said:

Victor Davis Hansen has written on this sense that the war is not worth it.

Uh, that is not what he says."

The link works and is correct. Victor Davis Hansen has indeed written on this topic, as I said.

Of course, he doesn't agree with me that this sense that it is not worth it is well-founded. But I don't feel obliged only to call attention to people who are agreeing with me. He acknowledges the phenomenon and makes an intelligent comment on it, and that was reason enough to link to his piece.

#29 from Glen Wishard: "Who the hell is THEM?"

This of course is what we disagree on, and much depends on the answer.

#29 from Glen Wishard: "David Blue:

If we decapitate an enemy state, we are not obliged to rebuild its war-fighting potential and return it to the enemy as good as new or better.

After the Napoleonic wars, some far-sighted men like Castlereagh built a European peace based on stability and strength, not vengeance towards France. The result was a entire century of almost uninterrupted peace for Europe.

After World War I, Europe built a peace based on a broken neck (as you would put it) for Germany, and the result was another and worse war in nothing flat."

I would not describe inter-war Germany as having a broken neck. It was insulted but not dismantled.

I also have many reservations about your description of the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars, but they matter less than whether that bit of history is a valid match for the current jihad wars. I don't think it is.

Um, Andrew? What is it with all this "jihadi recruitment bonanza" crap? I never understood this argument. There aren't a bunch of peace-loving Muslim guys, sitting around drinking a beer and watching the game, who just jump up when they see America invading some country and shout, "Dammit, honey! We have to do something about those damn Americans!" Where do you people get that picture? The people who volunteer for this stuff are full-bore murderers, and have always been so. Their religion is fricking FOUNDED on violence and rage, it's always been that way, these people have always been committed to it. They'd be trying to kill infidels whether we invaded Iraq or whether we didn't. They'd just be doing it somewhere other than Iraq.

For a video troop response to the slow bleed, happening right before our very eyes, google this:

YouTube message to Jack Murtha from The Autopsy

Hits the key point -- it's the troops they're hurting.

Is it possible for two such prominent politicians to be that stupid?

Sadly, yes.

In fact, in the United States there is a non-trivial likelihood that prominent politicians will be that stupid, and more.

People have a lot of misconceptions about the Democrats. People assume that they want to win, that they care what happens to Iraq if we evacuate, that they think about the future at all. Remember, many Democrats pressed hard years ago for something to be done about Saddam - they changed their position with few consequences. They can do so again.

Today it benefits them to pursue this policy. They will deal with the reprocussions later, by pinning the policy on others and claiming that they did not want to evacuate. And they will do so successfully, because Americans do not pay attention to politics. They only pay attention to the mood their televisions give them.

Leaving is Losing.

And for those William who are there and whom you hope will put up a big 1 for the USA in the Win column although according to Glen (above) we're just mediating the kids as they fight, since we've already WON,

for poor Americans and everyone else stuck in your mindgame,

dying is REALLY REALLY losing.

If you guys who think so highly of combat try it a bit we'd all be better off.

#28 from Robohobo --

I see your point but still disagree. You write, citing Ralph Peters (I think), "the winner of a war or battle is not decided by the winner but the loser. The oser 'says', 'Stop, I have had enough!'"

I agree that one side of a war can signal surrender, but the other side gets to determine the terms. That means that the winning side actually gets to determine when or if the fighting stops at all. It is not enough for the losing side to say, "We quit." They have to agree to quit according to the conditions dictated by the winning side.

That's what Pelosi and Reid (and the rest of the Dems) seem oblivious to. They think they can "end the war" (their words) by quitting the fight and vacating Iraq. But the enemy will not agree that the war is ended. War in Iraq will continue if we leave in the foreseeable future and al Qaeda will not relent from pursuing attacking us elsewhere.

The Dems have continually said that the real war against al Qaeda is in A'stan. If we pull out from Iraq, thousands of al Qaeda fighters will be freed to go from Iraq to Afghanistan and AQ can still continue to fight for control in Iraq.

Do the Dems envision pulling our troops from Iraq in order to send them to A'stan? No, they have repeated over and over that they want "to bring the troops home."

Not only is their plan a guarantee of failure in Iraq, it condemns Afghanistan to more violent war, too. Mark my words, if the Dems' "plan" for Iraq comes to pass, the insurgency in A'stan will ratchet up a magnitude or more. Then the Dems will trumpet how that war is Bush's failure too, it can't be won (or is already lost) and there's nothing to do but bring our troops home from there also.

If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were paid agents of al Qaeda, what would they be doing differently than what they are doing now?

Here's where i come down on this-

Bush has screwed the pooch on Iraq, perhaps irredeemably. Perhaps not. I've been over the reasons why, i wont recap them here except to say Bush is the commander in chief, the responsibility falls on him- and that includes rallying the Nation so that we arent a few votes away from Congress quitting the war. Even if you believe nothing else Bush did was wrong- his political failure is hard to argue.

So- where do we go from here? First, we have to turn off the past (what got us into this is essentially irrelevant at this point), I symphathize with the argument that Bush doesnt deserve a last chance considering his track record, but must reject it because honestly at this point retreat is as costly as pushing on in the big picture. We're essentially 'all in', folding now will save a relatively small number of troops, which will almost certainly be more than compensated for by our enemies transferring freed up resources to Afghanistan and elsewhere (the Cole bombing type attacks get their funding back). We just wont pull troops out fast enough by the Dem timetable to matter.

Essentially, by next fall we will know one way or another who won this war. Either the surge shows dramatic progress, or the US public will bail out on the war wholesale and Congress will pull us out. For that reason, this current Democratic strategy is as pointless as it is foolish. By next October it will be readilly apparent which way the tide is flowing. If its against us, we can start pulling the plug immediately, having virtually the same effect as this current proposal. So why telegraph our move? For political purposes as far as Reid is concerned. And because the other possibility is that we will see dramatic progress.

Thats why the second integral thing we need to do is (finally) create a set of concrete metrics by which we will be able to leave Iraq on our terms (as best we can at this point). This is the best incentive to the Iraqis- instead of fear of US forces leaving trying to motivate, it will be hope of US forces leaving that will motivate. Either way, we start pulling forces out either the end of this year or the beginning of next. We're in the 4th quarter. Not much point quitting the game now.

Rev Sensing - I agree 100% and that was my point. The jihadis are going to follow us home whether we roll over and play dead as Pelosi and Reid plan or not. That is what those two don't get. They are going to dictate the terms of our surrender and those terms are couched in the phrase "Death to America!" shouted every Friday noon from ALL the mosques around the world. Well, may not ALL but you get my point. Too many are calling for us to submit, even those in our own countries.

Someone made the point above that how would the actions of Pelosi and Reid be any different if they were paid agents of the al Queda? Answer is they would act no differently.

The Hobo

Wonderful. You don't accept the rule of law here either. COOL.

You just wrote a treasonous staement schmuck. Pay for it at your leisure.

Huh? Care to clarify that?

Hey Stephen -

Your comments aren't rising to the level of an argument, just namecalling.

Works on other sites, not here.

Feel free to make any argument you choose that's related to the point of the post. But jumping up and down and poo-flinging (which your last two comments really are) doesn't make the cut.

If this isn't clear enough, feel free to email me and I'll explain.

A.L.

Re: #40 from Mark Buehner: OK, that makes sense. It was not clear to me before what your wanted, but if this is all I approve.

There are honorable reasons to disapprove, because there is reason to think that any benchmarks will be faked and fudged as much as possible. It seems like we've announced benchmarks before, and then no more is hear of them, because they weren't met. And I think the results of the surge so far are in part a result of locals deciding to let the Americans build stuff for them for free - but the tribute is steep and increasing, and impossible to continue like this indefinitely, and Islamic hatred does not diminish, and is soon as the hated infidels - that's us - aren't increasing or pile of payments for tolerance fast enough, the local war will be back on. So with a combination of wallpapering over Iraq's fundamental failure to move, and a deep flood of money for the enemy to strike later but not now, if may be possible to fake the test. (Even though of course Al Qaeda will surge to make sure any test is failed.)

But, I'm very sympathetic to the argument that General Petraeus deserves every chance and full support to make his idea work. There is no point to going through elaborate training, education and selection procedures to elevate people you hope are talented and well prepared and then promptly undermine them. And I agree with the critics of my position on this that we likely will need to fight more after quitting on Iraq than we do now, so cultivating and supporting military talent is no small thing.

And, even if all we do is prove you can't do this, we may need to do that, to prove it to ourselves and internalize the result, so that we can fight the rest of this war more wisely.

And, I've said before and still say that while America should quit, Australia should not. When the Americans go, we should go, but not before. We should not go the ways Spain did.

And I don't believe that people at the top of the tree are talking defeat now for what I would regard as the right reasons. I don't think so, because they don't say so.

Which means, in fairness, that they have to be free to speak. But, it's not like they regard themselves as being not free to speak (for patriotic reasons). Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria was not the work of someone who felt that Patriotism required her to stay out of the way of the American executive branch.

But ultimately, while I do support the army and therefore the general and therefore the surge, and while I do see justifiable criticism of anti-war forces, I can't support the war itself.

If the American President was to ask me:
"What would it take for you to support the war again, as you did when we were contemplating invasion?"
I'd say
"Tell me how this fight is supposed diminish Islam?"
George W. Bush's answer to that is something like:
"We're not fighting Islam, and we never will. Islam is a great religion, it's a religion of peace. And if you don't think so, you're a bigot."
(The main but not the only time George W. Bush showed this attitude was over the opposition to the ports deal. He seemed to think opposition was prejudice, much as the White House suggested that opposition to the appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was anti-woman.)

We're nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq. We're trying to build up Islamic because we think Islam is fine. And I do not hold to that.

So I don't support these nation-building wars.

And I think that those who oppose them, even for wrong reasons, may produce good results.

(And we might as well hope so, because it's obvious which way the political current is flowing - tragically for pro-lifers, who are going to go down with the misconceived approach we have to continuing the war.)

Anyway, I won't concede that non-support for wars that are now nation-building projects for the benefit of the enemy is just irrational or stupid. It's not. It's rational and consistent - just on assumptions that the White House does not agree with.

AL You're right on 42 except the name is Steven :). Had I spent more time I'd have explained that saying that George Bush was in the pay of the Saudis is equally treasonous and would have been called out within seconds. Bad and incomplete language on my part and I apologize for that.

As to 38 I have to disagree: It was in response to one of the all time stupid statements which in it's entirety is
"Leaving is Losing."

Now I'm sure a lot of folks here can supply a lot of personal context for that. And I can too. But my personal context is very different.

I like this site because it admits more than one point of view. I'm NOT always sure the folks in the reply threads agree with that philosophy. And yes, I do play whack a mole sometimes and sometimes I'm overly sarcastic and sometimes my word choice is poor and/or hasty. I expect to get called out on that.

And I do change my positions and views and do not think I or my side is always right. BTW I guess you need to consider me an armed liberal too. What do yah like? Me, I love my Mossberg 580 and cherish my Model 12. I like a stainless steel slug first up. followed by double O. I'm cuddly. Then there's always those neato flare slugs. We shoot a couple of boxes of different stuff every now and then and see lots of interesting slugs as I with some local cop buddies. (These are flipping home defense weapons -- you don't think a treehugger could be a hunter do you?).

As with any war passions run high. People allow their emotions short circuit their thought processes. I have been all over the place with my feelings about the war. From grudging support in the beginning to total opposition now. Without getting into all the questions about the initial justification for the war or the way it has been managed, it is obvious to me that we can not achieve anything like a victory or even a satisfactory outcome. As was the case in the USSR and Yugoslavia once you remove the strong central force holding a country like Iraq together it will revert back to it's original make up. The sooner we let this process begin the better. We need to involve all those that will be players in this process, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

"We need to involve all those that will be players in this process, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia."

Involve them in what exactly? Participating in a civil war? I think we've made a good start at that.

Seriously though, i keep hearing about how we need to 'involve' these nations. Involve how? What does that mean? Is sending Iran and Syria weekly updates on sewer reconstruction going to slow them from backing their ponies with exploslives and trained terrorists? What exactly does this mean?

Mark, I agree with a lot of what you said.

At this point, I am willing to give Petraeus another 6 months(ish). The problems, however, are primarily sociopolitical, and we have no solution for them. You can keep troops there as long as you want, it's not going to change anything until the goverment gets its act together.

That's the catch-22. If we leave, the goverment dies. If we don't dramatically change course, the goverment does nothing, violence gets worse and the goverment dies slowly anyway. If we stay there is a slim chance (you're saying I have a chance!) that the goverment will get it's act together and things will improve.

But I'm not holding my breath. Pollitical leaders are starting to show more & more dependence on guerilla forces. Until we can demonstrate that we're worth working for, I don't see anything changing.

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that if we lose Iraq, terrorists will come here next. Terrorists are coming here anyway. What's happening in Iraq is a more of a tribal feud than a religous feud (Although many are also radical religious groups). Instead the Shia/Sunni groups that are primarily attacking us now will turn sights on each other. This is an entirely different problem (with many unforseen consequences) seperate from terrorists coming to the homeland.

Alchemist and David B, you both make important points. The devil is certainly going to be in the details. As Harry Reid has been mindlessly misapplying- there must be a political solution, but that can only happen in the context of a military breakthrough. The people out there interupting the political process arent doint it just to screw with the US, they are doing it because they want to ultimately usurp that position for themselves. Hence us bailing out only dooms any hope of any sort of national government, at least until one side prevails and imposes itself on the others. Either the unholy Baathist/Al Qaeda union or the Sadirist/Iranian puppet act. Neither of those is acceptable, and a fullscale war between them is only marginally preferable. We have to either seperate and damp down those forces, or encourage them to fight. So no-one should be under the illusion that withdrawing is some sort of moral victory. We will have no choice but to go back to the kind of backing 'our' bad guy mentality that got us in trouble with Hussein to begin with. Lets try to learn from the past- which would be easier if Pelosi and Reid would bother to engage in the 'what then' discussion.

But that aside, lets talk details. I'm not an expert by any means on inside Iraqi baseball, so I can't point to many specifics. I believe Patreus has the guts to risk the WH wrath and if asked the right way would provide some Victory metrics we can start with. Beyond that, Congress should be meeting with the president and banging out a compromise that requires the WH to provide these victory conditions in a concrete and very public way. Here is the kind of thing i was thinking of:

-Levels of all-Iraqi forces in all the major regions and cities would be one for certain.
-Scheduling the next round of elections.
-Oil revenue sharing and other deals between regions signed off on.
-No major neighborhoods US or Iraqi forces cant patrol. No 'no go' zones like Sadr City was. Iraq government forces must be the only organized user of force, at least on the surface.
-Some sort of deal or treaty between the Anbar shieks and the government acknowledging federal authority.
-It may be a bridge too far, but Iraq needs to be in control of its own borders. The Iranian border in particular needs to be sealed and trade carried out only through carefully scrutinized border crossings. Land mines should be employed similar to the DMZ in Korea. The US can continue to patrol the sea lanes.

Thats what i got, im sure there are plenty more possibilities. Congress should demand the WH announce these victory conditions and then offer 6 months more funding with no withdrawal strings. In 6 months we have this debate again based on the success or failure of the metrics. If we havent accomplished our goals via the surge, I think Congress will be able to override the President and put a stop to the war. If the goals are met or are close enough not to quibble over, the next set of metrics is debated and announced tied directly to how many troops can be withdrawn how fast.

The upside of this is it both lights a fire under the Iraqis and reassures them. The carrot is that we will withdraw US forces in the relatively near future, and they can look at a virtual flowchart of the whens and whys. The stick is that if they dont get their act together, our departure will be quite abrupt and very soon. If the metrics arent lived up to, we could have the vast bulk of our troops out of country right around the new year.

I'm not so sure that Vietnam is a not a valid semi-comparison to Iraq or that it won't reignite a few folks, but let's forget about the unholy mess that lead to the US leaving for a moment. Let's just look at what happened when we left. There was a fairly brief, moderately bloody civil war. The Sunni's --oops the Republic of S Vietnam - lost. Everyone knew it was going to happen and it did. But then Vietnammade a serious effort to rejoin the world community - it's so neat how economic reasons tend to lead to that outcome.

There were several possibilities much in play in the late 60's and early 70's. The Domino Theory which has been nicely recycled was a major player. Can anyone tell me one tile or state that changed sides after we left or bugged out if you will. Cambodia and Laos don't count. The tiles were flipped long before the US left and Cambodia was already in the hands of serious nutcases. Burma is a possibility but it fell off to the side, and not into the "Commie Bloc." Overall China got friendlier mostly for reasons of economics but also because they could become friendlier since we had no combat troops and planes threatening their southern border. They're touchy like that. Remember the Yalu River in Korea? I don't think that problem would have existed if we hadn't been so militarily agrressive - but that's another story for another time. And how many troops do we still have in Korea? Anyway China seems to be a tile that has stood up a bit after we left. Maybe not, but maybe so.

OK then what about unleashing a flood of similar wars against us all over the world. Grenada? Nada. Panama? The Balkans? Another interesting story but without any ties to us leaving Vietnam.

Ok, next. The Viet Cong would follow us home. They'd stalk and kill us in the streets of LA and San Fran. There were certainly some bad eggs in the Vietnamese who came over here , and some serious discrimination problems that sometimes ran both ways, but the majority are proud upstanding Americans. Look at the list of Americans who have died in combat in Iraq. You'll find Vietnamese names on that sad list.

Another aside and a plug: My absolute favorite hot sauces are made a by a California company called Huy Fong. If you like hot stuff and haven't tried go to their website, www.huyfong.com. Many regular stores carry them. The company is owned and run by Vietnamese immigrants who are now US Citizens. Unlike many agricultural companies they insist on US grown produce picked and packed by US citizens. All their packaging -- all the plastics - are made in the US of American materials and with the same requirement that Americans do the job. The same for marketing and everything. I'd be an admiring customer even if their products were just ordinary.

So all that leads me to wonder why we have to stay in Iraq until every last terrorist is gone or we do some undefined thing called WIN. If we think Iran or Syria will invade (they might; nutcases are found everywhere) then we should be securing borders in the same way the DMZ was built in Korea. Indeed, considering some of the published Saudi comments, maybe that's where a DMZ should go.

If we think we can control the bar fight that is developing or is ongoing (you pick), then we need much better mind control medications. Seriously, what do you do if you're in a bar and a major melee breaks out? If you have any brains and you want to keep them, you get down on the floor and crawl OUT. You might have to smack folks behind their knees to get them out of the way, and that might hurt them some, but your only goal is the door. You could not care less about winning or losing because no one wins or loses in a bar fight. And I do believe that a bar fight is the best analogy for what's happening in Iraq. A nationwide borderline rational or drunken as you see it brawl. America doesn't need to worry about winning or losing or as being seen as a weak nation or anything else. We just need to be outside, looking in. It's not a win, but it's not a loss either.

Steven, there are several things wrong with what you are saying- but its good to hear the argument made in a fleshed out way.

As far as Vietnam goes, there wasnt a Civil War resulting from out exit- there was an invasion from the nation of North Vietnam where Soviet built tanks rolled over the South Vietnamese governments forces the American Congress had cut off supplies and ammunition to. The VC was a negligible factor after Tet.

Secondly, you are completely glossing over the extent of the brutality the north Vietnamese were responsible for after the war:
"In Vietnam, the new communist government sent many people who supported the old government in the South to "reeducation camps", and others to "new economic zones." An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.1 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.1 Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.1"

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

Not to mention up to 1,000,000 refugees that escaped by boat. The virtual enslavement of the entire Vietnamese population under the specter of Communism was hardly the cheery result you make it out to be. South Vietnam could have been another South Korea. Living in Vietnam even today certainly in no way compares in standards of living much less freedom to SK.

Your analysis of the American actions effects on Cambodia is also off.
"When the U.S. Congress suspended aid to Cambodia in 1973, the Khmer Rouge made sweeping gains in the country. By 1975, with the Lon Nol government running out of ammunition, it was clear that it was only a matter of time before the government would collapse. On April 17, 1975 the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Killings_and_torture

This is a clear cycle- ending the war by leaving the field to the thugs DOESNT end the killing. It intensifies it massively, and shifts the burden almost entirely to the innocent.

As far as the VC following us home- the two situations just arent comparable. First off, the VC were done in 1975, it was NV regulars that defeated SV. Secondly, Vietnam was a political struggle, a struggle over a nation. Our fight with terrorism, particularly the AQ and foriegn jihadis acknowledged to be the worst of the bombers in Iraq is a global battle for idealogy based on religious conviction. It knows no borders. The foriegners that blew up the Golden Mosque arent going to settle down and take up farming in Iraq, nor go back home to whittle on their porch in Egypt. They will take the fight to the next field. And Iran I think we know will certainly not hang its terrorist spurs up. Irans resources will be devoted to their next goal.

And its not that the jihadis will be flying to NYC. Do we expect to keep American troops in Kuwait, as most every end the war Democrat in Washington has suggested? American troops were already being targetted in Kuwait before the invasion stepped off. If we move to Kuwait or Dubai or anywhere else in the ME after being chased from Iraq, our troops will be dying there as well. We could of course abandon the region completely. And let these professional bombers and killers run the region while exporting their terrible skills to Rome and London and Paris, which we already know is happening. But with the resources of the entire Persian Gulf to fund these acts, you can bet there will be more London Subway and Madrid Train Stations yet to come. If jihadi funding isnt being funnelled to their prime mission in Iraq, it will certianly be freed up for use elsewhere, and none of those places are likely to have the best trained warriors in the world shooting back at them like they are in Iraq.

Good reply Mark

I didn't mean to gloss over the results in the south. I know it brutal. I was overly glib. All civil wars have a brutal aftertaste. The American Revolution and "the War of Northern Agression" :) I just moved to Florida

Excellent point about the VC and the NVA. While the VC were not truly significant in the last years, i ngeneral you'd rather fight the NVA than the VC. For all the obvious reasons. Jungles do equalize. That's why we tried to remove as much jungle as possible.

I think in 15 or 20 years you might want to revisit your economic comparison re SK. They sure weren't what they are now. And go outside most cities in SK and it's still REAL rural.

The Khmer Rouge were serious nutcases, but Lan Nol wasn't anyone's idea of a bargain as I recall. And of course that whole situation wasn't helped by the US forgetting there was a border between Nam and Cambodia. The NVA also ignored the border pretty much. Uh, yeah that happened. Some friends and I were there a couple of times.

I think you overstate the jihadi argument. Yes, they can do damage. But they are by no means the greatest threat to Europe or America.

We could always let loose a pure special forces reply and kill them in their sleep. There will be erors and innocents will die, but campaigns like that have been effective in the past and can be again. It's just that this flipping bring a political solution to a bar fight approach we seem to be taking doesn't work. Can't work. It's gas on the fire.

Millions more are going to die in Iraq. That's a horrible thing to say and I take no pleasure in saying it. I think it's simply inevitable. And in that case I'll be chauvanistic and wish as few Americans are among the dead there.

BTW take a look at http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9302
I think Luttwak is dead on. I know where he was born and I know his reputation and I think he might just have nailed it in this article. Certainly shook a lot of what I've always believed.

Overall I enjoy your posts. I'm a bit leery of wikipedia as a primary source. It's very useful but you need to treat it with care. I think you do.

Re: #50 from Mark Buehner, #51 from Mark Buehner: I've already said why I disagree with things you say in the first paragraph.

"But that aside, lets talk details..." you say - and from there on I pretty much agree with you.

I also want to see something Jonah Goldberg asked for a long time ago: a straight national referendum in Iraq on whether we should stay or go. On opinion polling, "go" will win that one by about 80% to 20%, and then we're gone in a year, tops, with a solid democratic reason. On the other hand, if Iraqis say to each other "all that blame the infidel stuff was fun when it had no consequences, but not if the Americans are going to bug out for real, so let's rethink this," and they decide democratically they do need America (and its allies) to stay, that might change things in Iraq for the better.

Of course I think there's no real chance that option B would happen.

What I don't see is good reasons for people who agree with me that we are hosed not to want to put this to the test and see if the miracle does happen. Do the referendum and see if the Iraqis have a change of heart. Back the surge all out and let's debate the results. Set reasonable metrics and keep them so public that they can't be dropped or ducked. If you think you know what the results of all the tests will be - do them!

If what you really want is results, if only they were on offer - why not let those who claim or imply that results flattering to Islam can be obtained have every chance to provide those results? Or else fail with no room for excuses. An educative process would follow.

Putting things to the test for a limited but sufficient time and learning from the result works, whichever way things work out.

I can't see what we gain from self-sabotage and ducking the issues.

Mark B, we've been hearing "six more months", or as we call it in Hate-America Land, now comprising a majority of America, one Friedman Unit since the beginning of the war.

Don't you agree that if in October the situation looks the same as it does now, the "Leaving is Losing We Win They Lose" crowd will be making the same argument as they are now? Are you prepared to dismiss them then? Are you prepared to be called a traitor and a coward?

We've moved to a very curious concept of "winning" since the halcyon days of the now-lost secular, prosperous, self-sufficient, pro-American Iraq pipe dream of the neo-conservatives. One that seems more related to domestic politics than anything on the ground in Iraq! I, for one, am not at all surprised.

Yes, despite Gates, Rice, and the President "warning" the Iraqi government to actually take responsibility and stop free riding off of our coat tails and blame us for all their troubles (which may be true), the problems in Iraq will always be due to the Democrats. Nice spinning guys!

So even if we do train up the government forces to "standard" and the sects magically manage to hold each other hands in a nice democractic setting in the nice peaceful, tolerant, pro-democractic, muslim nation, and we give them their wish list of small arms ammo that we may see used against us in the future (600,000 12 Gauge 00 Buckshot 16,000,000 9mm Ball 100,000,000 M855 5.56 Ball 40,000,000 5.56mm Tracer 50,000,000 5.56mm Blank 36,000,000 5.56mm 4 Ball/1 Tracer 30,000,000 7.62mm 4 Ball/1 Tracer 10,000,000 M118 7.62 X 51mm Ball 100,000,000 7.62mm X 39mm Ball 20,000,000 .50 Caliber 4 Ball/1 Tracer 170,000 40mm HEDP Grenade http://blog.wired.com/defense/

What about that day when we eventually WILL LEAVE?

"Deafeatocrats" and "Pro_Victory" people actually agree on that point I believe?

I'm sure the ultimate neocon game plan was to make a nice jump-off point in Iraq (when it settles down in 2004, and the Iraqis are eating at Mcdonald's, watching MTV, and are waving American flags) to other hot spots in the Middle east, but I think that idea fell through the cracks.

What if the government still fails? Are we forever to blame? Must we occupy indefinitely until this mythical day is reached? Would the Iraqi people actually want that?

I wonder if the government in Iraq actually put up the idea for election to ask the Iraq people to see if they want us there, how would that go?

They are so brain washed by Al-jazeera and the left wing media, so they would vote against their own self interest correct? Maybe this will yet again be the "white man's burden." When the government of Iraq is exposed to be faux government it really is, they can always fall back to the by-line that America made them like this, so America is forever indebted and vilified to Iraq.

So despite 20+ yrs of brainwash, American flag burning, and scorn in the Middle East, 2, 5, 10, 15... years of occupation would make them realize what a great system American hoisted Democracy is.

But I guess we are succeeding since now the Iraqi government has a European style parliament complete with 2 month vacations:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070503-1354-iraq-summerbreak.html

All this talk about COIN is bunk. For a real counterinsurgency operation to work, look to the conventional armies, how about the Nazis in WWII or Soviets after that, how did they keep Eastern Europe in check? Mass punishment, mass killing.

I know we would never do this, because we are a touchy-feely military, and we must win "hearts and minds." (I am being sarcastic here, just proving a point that anything softer than what those guys did is almost pointless, since the enemy will surely grip the populace in more fear if they suspect them collaborating with us and disobeying them than anything we can do to the populace).

How about shutting down the cell phone network? Since the insurgents have nice spotter positions on the rooftops and only need to SMS each other to tell the location, activity, and composition of every American patrol.