The loss of any life is tragic.  But now is not the time to cut and run.  It is not a majority of Iraqis that want a sectarian war, but a minority, along with many foreigners.  To abandon Iraq now is to admit that America is a paper tiger.  And it will not quell terrorism, only embolden it.

Yes, but despite the tough talk we are  paper tigers.

To abandon Iraq now is to admit that America is a paper tiger.

Yes, but despite the tough talk we are paper tigers.

I was going to say the same thing . . . quickly we're proving ourselves to be just that - all smoke, no flames.

I love how some claim to KNOW what the Iraqis want.

Yes, but despite the tough talk we are paper tigers.

I reject your description.  But will concede we CAN be paper tigers.

The unrest in Iraq is the manifestation of the deep differences between the factions in that country. No matter how long we stay, we will not end that hate and no matter when we leave Iraq, these factions will have to settle who will control Iraq or even if Iraq will end up as a single country.

The idea of a STABLE DEMOCRACY is just not going to happen. There where people in our government that warned Bush and Cheney that the idea of establishing a stable democracy by deposing Saddam would spread democracy thought the Moslem world was flawed from the outset. Remaining longer in Iraq will insure more dead and wounded Americans and the spending more money. It will NOT produce anything like a Stable Democracy! History will judge the Bush invasion of Iraq as one of the most serious errors in Foreign Policy the United States has ever made!

The objective seems to be changing, slightly, at least the description changes.

First it was riding Iraq of WMD, and elminating the safehaven for Al-Qi-KillsR-US-Da, and enforce UN resolutions. We were spending a few billion a year on maintaining the security of region by keeping a carrier in the gulf and basically keeping the situation unchanged from 1992 on.

Then it became mission accomplished/complete, lets go home, or onto the next theatre of operations. Plans to leave, i.e. take the vast majority of troops, have never been developed before the invasion and certainly at this point, when Saddam was on the run, and that statue came down, it seemed like it might be over rather soon, i.e. a year or two.

But it isn't and wasn't so, the current administration has had and has continued to have an over-optimistic view of the situation from the begining. So then the goal became find Saddam and the loyalists give up. Meanwhile create an environmental situation where the terrorists can't thrive, i.e. no more daily insurgency attacks, no more daily carnage for the tv audience, also improve the quality of life for Iraqi's beyond pre-war levels. Single-nationly pretty much, stand up the entire service sector of the cities and rebuild an economy of the country so that when a government is elected it has something to run.

Well, that's great, we have an elected Iraqi government, while we're doing the security and they're blaming us for the lack of security. I'm not sure when our job became the nation building B.S. we weren't sold on to get into this theatre but this war becomes less just day by day. The people who need to stand up for their country are the Iraqi's. They need to take charge, they need to do the killing of the insurgents, the peacemaking, the political deals. They need to be in control so we can get out. It's no longer about improving their lives as well as it shouldn't be. That should be their job. We've thrown more money at this problem that could have been spent fortifying our borders, targeting Al-Qi-KillsRUS-Da via special operations, quieter, will fewer casualties, and this is a painful lesson learned for future American Presidents as well as

They were real shy and quiet about making this war about the "oil" before-hand fooling a lot of people, the majority, me too, but now it's clear the intention of engaging Iraq rather then North Korea in a denial of WMD war was about the oil and the threat, and it's an opportunity cost that may just severely harm us in the future.

Very similar to the continued use of internal combustion engines and harsh effort to elminate any type of serious competition of to them in our daily lives.

Where we are today is, higher gas prices, Duh never saw that coming right? Thousands of soldiers dead, a country with an ineffective governement dictating their security woes to us because they are incapable of defending themselves 3 years into this war. The contractors and subcontractors and sub-sub contractors of the war effort have bilked the government out of billions at the very best time (early on) because of no-bid contracts, and there is no clear solution to the problem we created, no clear exit timetable, no clear exit strategy. Oh no this war won't be like Nam, nope, we're winning.

Sure the casuality rate is lower, our technological superiority is greater, but the goals are out of alignment with the situation and with the achievability of the situation. The time to leave was 6 months after the invasion, get the Iraqi's setup on the voting and the checks coming for 5-10 years but leave it to them to solve the security and rebuilding of the economy. Unfortunately to leave now would be more disaster but at what cost to stay? Virtually no change in the situation in the near future. So were just going to accept the losses as acceptable? Nobody is going to come up with a grand plan to win the war?

I got a plan, lets leave, call it cut and run if you want, lets stop throwing money at Iraq, lets let them figure out their problems on their own. Let's stop wasting money on how to get gas from $3.00 a gallon to $2.25, lets abandon the pure gasoline as the fuel for E85, lets dump the internal combustion engine as soon as an alternate becomes as cheap, lets force the companies that build these things to pay a pollution and gas tax on the vehicle, yeah lets put them out of business, trade those jobs for financial and nation indepedence and security.

Or we can continue to just go with the status quo. Whatever.

Dan:

You are very correct. I think the voters should take President Bush's advice when he tells us we should JUDGE BY RESULTS. For that reason I voted early yesterday for Democrats because I know to keep the GOP in control will give America more of the same foreign and domestic policies which have failed beyond belief!

Well I believe it was the President who was originally elected under the ideas of uniting rather then dividing, and measuring with objectives and setting goals and having accountability. Well that the uniting rather then dividing certainly is working out well isn't it?

I'd say about as well as trying to be President of the United States re-invading a country, and then trying to not nation build. It's so hillarious its sad, and of course this is all true too. How about firing the CIA chief that handed him the "slam dunk" intel before we went into Iraq, how about letting Colin Powell, the top administration member that I recall that was against the war, letting him go. How about keeping Mr. Donnie Rumsfeld in the cabinet after finding out about no exit plans, the Abu-Grab prison scandals, even after he offered his resignation and then offered it again.

I believe it was the President who decided to get us into this war, in Iraq, to pursue the terrorist threat along with other things that he didn't sell but we ended up buying anyway in their country. It is his responsbility as well as both the Rep's and Dem's who were for the war, and those who didn't fight hard against it. I accept my responibility as well, as I supported the war to remove Saddam, didn't dig as deep into the political realm and research as deeply as I would have liked, but moreover, I wasn't leading anybody, or a nation into this mess, and it was the congress and the President who have done so. By his own means and measures the results of the Iraq war are to be as expected.

There is also the economic law of diminishing returns to be explored in this situation. The government has been elected, the people have made their choices, basic structures are in place, our soliders and commanders have conveyed to the Iraqi people on the local level how democracy works and given examples while also fighting off an insurgency. By staying inside Iraq another three years, how about five, or ten more? What do we hope to accomplish? We're going to rid the nation of Iraq of an insurgency? I doubt that. We're going to eliminate the safe haven for Al-Qaeda, yeah right, that's working out great right now isn't it?

Look the reason the guys and gals in our military are over there and morale is high is because they have our support here at home, and that they are fighting for each other's survival. To say that the troops are fighting because the cause is just or because they think they are part of the great struggle against evil is stretching it too far. What is going on is more civil matter then international struggle.

Sure Iran and Syria are involved, just like you'd expect them to be, trying to secure additional influence in the area in the absence of Saddam's forces. Saddam's million man army and secret police forces as well as his xenophobic methods of operation as well as the ten year Iraq-Iran war leave little comparison in the balance of power against the United States. Iran doesn't want a war, but in any case knows that unless it's a conventional war, one which would not be easily fought in the terrain of Iran they have a decent chance of avoiding one, yet still gaining influence in the border regions as well as inside Iraq supporting the insurgency.

The insurgency is an Iraqi problem not a US problem to make it ours is to add continued cost to both lives and dollars to this nation-building project, idealistic or not this war shouldn't have been fought this way. It certainly wasn't sold this way.