After all, in the final analysis our aim was regime change, nothing more.

I think it was probably less regime change in and of itself than installing a regime amenable to US interests; that's why there is unlikely to be any real democracy in Iraq for several decades.

but redeploying some of them to Afghanistan where they are needed to protect the women voters in their coming election and to rout the warlords.

This would probably end up being a waste of lives - the warlords are far too powerful and cunning to be easily defeated by the Americans, and "the Northern Alliance" would be unlikely to volunteer once more to be the cannon fodder to achieve the destruction of their own personal fiefs. The US would be better off in a strictly strategic sense to abandon Afghanistan and merely patrol the air and the borders rather than attempting to achieve any progress in that godforsaken place.

The US would be better off in a strictly strategic sense to abandon Afghanistan and merely patrol the air and the borders rather than attempting to achieve any progress in that godforsaken place.

Yes, as the Soviets had learned. Overall good reply.

If we COULD count on support from our allies, why aren't they sending those troops to Afghanistan now? Why does stabilization there need to propped up by the US when Afghanistan is supposedly a "legitimate coalition?" The fact is, sadly, that even if Kerry wins, and even if we go to our "allies", hat in hand, they are not going to send any troops to Iraq. Not a single one. They simply will not face the possibility of beheadings and pullout demands.

Steve, we have 130,000+ troops in Iraq. At best, if we could count on the good intentions of our "allies", we could expect maybe 20,000 UN troops. Okay, lets pretend we could even get 50,000. Do you think 50,000 more US troops in Afghanistan is going to make a difference? Do you think we would be morally right to crush these warlords, the opposition to "our" government in Afghanistan? Sure, you may see it as suppressing armed revolt, but others would see it as assassinating political opposition.

I find it difficult to understand how you can take a "U.S. is not going to babysit them much longer" in Iraq, and then do the exact same thing in Afghanistan. Every time we interevene in Afghanistan, we de-legitimize the government there and make them look more and more like a puppet regime. If we "enforce" the election there, it will be worthless to the incredulous Afghani that thinks the American Democratic system is just a sham.

Afghanistan is way ahead of Iraq politically, and while I do think they need some help, I think nothing would benefit them more than standing on their own feet. Iraq simply cannot do that now, and a relative handful of UN peacekeepers isn't going to help things a bit, even if there was a chance in hell we'd ever get them.

What we need is more troops..not less. More in Iraq. In Afgan they arent having Major problems, we are there hunting terrorists, not stoping rebels.

As an ex-marine myself, I don't understand why you would want more troops only to tie their hands as the brass has done to the Marines since they returned. If they would allow them to be gung ho Sadir would be history.

Baker, I'm too tired to argue and sick of the whole damn mess. All I know is that we've been pussy footing too long in Iraq and its time to start moving out--and the hell with the allies and the UN. Unfortunately, the Afghans do need hand-holding; they've been neglected. Actually the Northern Alliance did the heavy work; now its time for us.

"Baker, I'm too tired to argue and sick of the whole damn mess. All I know is that we've been pussy footing too long in Iraq and its time to start moving out"

I am sick of it too, but I take an opposite tack. I think any city that a US soldier can't walk safely in has yet to be defeated, the war is still on there, and should be pounded until they ask us politely to enter. We shouldn't be sacrificing infantry as a PR statement, we should win the war.

I think leaving Iraq in the hands of militias and people like al Sadr just means we will have to deal with it again later. Enough with all the hand-holding and worrying about international opinion. We should end this damn war in such a way that we are obviously victorious. As it stands we are sending a message that anyone with a few surplus rifles and RPGs can chase away the US military.

It seems inconsistent to me to say we need to put Iraq "on notice" as they are approaching their election, but we need to increase our presence in Afghanistan during their election.

If they would allow them to be gung ho Sadir would be history.

It looks lilke we're going to launch a new operation against al Sadir.

I am thinking that France and Russia would much prefer a puppet dictatorship in Iraq to a democracy.

I don't think we're leaving any time soon.

From the Tribune:

Link

IG

We still have troops in Germany and Japan, and WWII ended 60 years ago.

Yeah, it appears to be unsolvable without a steadfast policy.

Madine: True, but when WWII ended, we had the support of most of the world, Germany had an established democratic system before the war, and we and our allies had full military control of the country. Also, our intent was to conquer not establish a democracy.

IG

Good point, InfoG, somewhere along the line the point is lost that there was indeed a time when Americans were appreciated. Of course when we wield a big stick, one assumes that allies will only have smaller sticks. 

" and we and our allies had full military control of the country"

I think the main difference in many recent conflicts is that our allies have insisted that we *don't* have full military control. The current problem in Iraq is a good example. Were this WW2, we would solve the Sadr problem with a couple of 2000 pound bombs. To appease our "allies", though, we have to be insanely sensitive to the values of a ridiculously diverse set of "allies".

We are prohibited from even understandable civilian casualties, which was not an issue if you remember the damage done to Berlin. We have to appease Iran, of all people, because the hole this weasel is hiding in is a "holy place".

I think the idea of calling an occupation "complete" when large portions of a nation are not only antagonistic to, but openly making war upon our troops would have been a silly prospect for WW2 era military commanders, and frankly it is pretty damn silly to me as well. It would be akin to police chasing criminals into a house, allowing them to shoot at passersby, and claiming that the situation is under control.

It's too early. The fighting is still hot and heavy, regardless of the lack of mainstream coverage time it got in the first few months.
Leave now, and we'll be back again, only we'll have to start over at the beginning. We're going to be there for a long....long...time.
It's another Korea....only without the nice lines drawn down the middle to keep the terrorists out.(mostly)

If the US is now facing problems with holy sites, it should consider setting up a force made exclusively of Muslim soldiers and use that to take over Islamic sites. The Wahhabis slaughtered hundreds in Mecca centuries ago, so it's not like widespread death and distruction is alien to the holy cities of Islam.