That is a lie, frankly col. If you "eliminate" people who aren't doing anything wrong, people like Col Gene will call you a nazi. If you don't, they simply bide their time, hitting you in criminal fashion and posing as civilians the other 90% of the time.

So if we don't kill "civilians" Col Gene complains that we aren't stopping the attacks. When we do kill "civilians", Col Gene waves the bloody shirt and screams injustice. You treasonously demand failure, and them blame other people for it. The only true fact in the situation is that Steve, Col Gene and the rest oppose what we are doing in Iraq, and will find fault no matter what we do.

We've defeated and occupied an entire nation with fewer losses than single battles in WW2. I think the sentiment here is facetious and unrealistic. The sentiment from others is ghoulish and politically motivated.

What I said is that the conditions that Bush has made for our pullout ( not the time) was when the Iraqi Army and police can secure the country. What I said is that is not likely to EVER happen!

Col, you have no idea what's going on in Iraq besides the MSM headlines and what the NYT tells you. You should say "you don't want it to happen".

Bush violated the most basic military principal of warefare - overwhelming force.

You got that right!

We need to set a date to end our committment and if the Iraqi people do not step up and defend their new government so be it

couldn't agree more. 

There are just insurgents, attacking sporatically in hopes people like steve will see it and write catch-22 articles like this.

For over two years, you know perfectly well my argument for and against the war--at the outset either continue the Clinton war but with greater bombing intensity, invade with overwhelming force, continue to pressure the UN to complete a thorough search for WMD--neither was done and we should admit to our fallacy and end it by a second wave invasion or withdraw strategically. "Kicking down doors" we have already subscribed to and it didn't work. Your reference to city crime left off a more relevant and positive alternative: job opportunity and education aligned with hard muscle. 

There is another word for "unilateral withdrawal", it is called "surrender"

BS! It is called "get your act together, Iraqis, we have shown the way." In no way is this to be construed as a cop-out, dishonoring the 2000 brave; they fought and died to help lift the Iraqis toward democracy--if it doesn't come to fruition, at least they died giving the Iraqis the seeds of democracy that eventually will be realized however imperfectly.

All those who challenge the glorious Blair/Bush strategy are French surrender monkeys!!!

The only true fact in the situation is that Steve, Col Gene and the rest oppose what we are doing in Iraq, and will find fault no matter what we do. We've defeated and occupied an entire nation with fewer losses than single battles in WW2. I think the sentiment here is facetious and unrealistic. The sentiment from others is ghoulish and politically motivated.

True, I opposed the war as conceived. But I also was sensible to realize that the condition in Iraq was but an extension of the first war, which GeoH and Clinton did not carry out forceibly; GeoW had the opportunity to clamp down on Saddam by other means--he chose invasion and omitting Powell's warning about the pottery shop[with invasion comes occupation]. As for WWII battles, they were unconditionally won.

Again, back to my point about the neighborhood. If we used a force "overwhelming" enough to kick down every door in Iraq and investigate crimes before they happen, I wonder what the Bush-haters around here would be saying?

They'd be screaming Nazi, they'd be calling Iraq a police state. They'd be saying we were crushing the human rights of Iraqis punishing them before they commit crimes. Then, any future attacks would be blamed on our oppression.

If we don't, and just send in a million more troops to stand around and make a pretty show of stopping the insurgency, all we do is give them more targets. Stop pretending that you are the level-head, steve, because you have the most irrational opinion of all.

You are trying to pose the idea of making war on civilians, when RIGHT NOW we have articles on JU calling us villains for doing so.

"As for WWII battles, they were unconditionally won."

By killing all the SOLDIERS who were fighting us, and taking the remainder prisoner. So, are you suggesting we turn Iraq into one giant prison camp, and kill all the civlians who don't surrender? What happens when they say they surrender, and then keep fighting when our back is turned?

The problem is, we are being attacked by people who did surrender, and who smile and wave at our soldiers when they aren't attacking us. The only way to prevent it is to crush their human rights and turn Iraq into a police state, which if we did you'd be right here bitching about it...

My, testy, no amount of aging has mellowed you. No one is suggesting murdering innocent civilians but simply that US troops are undermanned and need help to ferret out car bombs, known pockets of resistance and the Syrian/Iranian borders. This will show we indeed mean business without which the only alternative is "bye."     

Those "pockets of resistance" on the Syrian border are towns where women and children live. Killing civilians will be considered "murder" whether they are innocent are not, and you don't have to stray off this forum to know it.

Again, you ignore the catch-22 of the situation. "Ferriting out" would be considered oppression, and people would immediately blame future attacks on our horrible oppression of the Iraqi people. To saturate Iraq with military and crush resistance would be to oppress the innocent Iraqi citizens. This isn't WW2 where people who surrender are put in prison camps. People who surrender are left to attack again in Iraq.

We can't kick in doors just because an area is anti-US. When we are attacked and given cause to investigate an area, we do. You know that you'd be right here complaining if we turned Iraq into some huge concentration camp for killing those who oppose us and oppressing those who don't.

(And yes, it does make me testy to see someone who knows exactly why we don't do something but still poses the question for propaganda value. We are sacrificing lives in the spirit of freedom and human rights. For that you find fault. Not like you wouldn't find fault if we did the opposite as well.)

Bush violated the most basic military principal of warfare - overwhelming force. You got that right!

Sorry people and that "includes" you col klink! "overwhelming force" is NOT a perquisite for winning either a battle OR a war! While it would be a slam dunk at that point, it's NOT necessary for a win.

The time for more troops was at the outset of this war not today. We need to set a date to end our committment and if the Iraqi people do not step up and defend their new government so be it. The time is soon comming to end this war for our troops.

More troops would most certainly help now. But they aren't available. And there is no will among either the politicians, nor the people, to create a force big enough in order to accomplish the goal. It took about 10,000 Marines and Soldiers to succesfully besiege Fallujah, a city of 350,000, and keep it out of the hands of the insurgency for many months. The problem with the siege of Fallujah was that the US Military could only sustain one large scale operation at a time. For Fallujah, American troops from other parts of Iraq had to be pulled in order to provide the manpower. The occupation force is not large enough to run multiple simultaneous operations across several urban centers.

The problem with America running an effective counter-insurgency is her name and reputation. America doesn't have the 'edge' needed to fight an effective counter-insurgency. She plays too nice, and speaks the language that forces her to play nice. Then she always has the worldwide media breathing down her back if things get a little dirty. Her enemies know this. And that's why they fight as they do. All mankind is barbaric at heart. The difference between the civilized and savages is that the civilized can be barbaric when necessary, and can return to being civilized afterward. The savages cannot.

The biggest current problem with the war is that American withdrawal is tied to conditions which we cannot control--the readiness of a native Iraqi military able to conduct (and win) in operations against the insurgents. But after all this time there's only one Iraqi batallion capable of operations independent of American support.

Sorry people and that "includes" you col klink! "overwhelming force" is NOT a perquisite for winning either a battle OR a war! While it would be a slam dunk at that point, it's NOT necessary for a win.

Well, if our goals are very limited, then of course overwhelming force wouldn't be necessary. But we didn't just seek to remove Saddam from power--we were trying to transform Iraqi society. As impossible as that idea is, one shouldn't even contemplate the prospect without a willingness to employ overwhelming force.

1: Prs. Bush has stated ad nauseum what needs to happen before we will pull all troops out of Iraq. Just because his detractors don't care to open their ears, doesn't change that fact. 2: There is another word for "unilateral withdrawal", it is called "surrender" and would do nothing more than turn Iraq over to the bacteria to run rough shod over the people. Only losers quit just because things aren't going absolutely perfectly. If the Founding Fathers listened to the naysayers, there would never have been an American Revolution.

1. What Bush said was necessary for withdrawal is the creation of a competent Iraqi military capable of operation without us. Only 500-600 Iraq soldiers are capable of that 30 months after Saddam was toppled.

2. Realism is the key. KIA's and WIA's can be swallowed if success is the result, and if the losses are not so severe that they compromise the ability to operate in the future. Iraq is not a success. Iraq is a huge mess.

If we don't, and just send in a million more troops to stand around and make a pretty show of stopping the insurgency, all we do is give them more targets. Stop pretending that you are the level-head, steve, because you have the most irrational opinion of all.

If that was the case, Bakerstreet, then we should reduce our presence in Iraq to 1 soldier, and make sure he doesn't leave the Green Zone. Then they won't be targets. The point of massively increasing troops presence is not to use them as for constabulary duty, but to engage in active fighting. We do not have the tools to fight a stealthy counter-insurgency. We stand out, and can never blend in. We have to play to our strengths: displays of force. Do what was done in Fallujah at this time last year, but do it all over the Sunni strongholds-- Ramadi, Fallujah, Samarra, Baquba, Mosul, and especially Sunni Baghdad. The result of Iraq is not going to be a masterpiece, no matter what. We need to opt for the best possible solution given the circumstances.

"If that was the case, Bakerstreet, then we should reduce our presence in Iraq to 1 soldier, and make sure he doesn't leave the Green Zone. Then they won't be targets. The point of massively increasing troops presence is not to use them as for constabulary duty, but to engage in active fighting."

WHich is a moot point, since active fighting is over. What battle have we lost because we were outnumbered? You claim that numbers are our problem, and yet you offer no reason why more troops would help. How would more troops prevent roadside bombs, unless you used them to overly oppress the Iraqi people which is what the attacks are blamed on in the first place?

Once they ARE attacked, we only use a fraction of our forces to address the attackers. Kind of shoots the idea that more would help in the foot, doesn't it?

We aren't fighting forces that we can't beat with even a small fraction of our force. The difficulty is knowing where they are and who they are, because they hide as civilians among civilians. Those are issues a million more soldiers wouldn't help, and that would only be helped by further oppressing and abusing the rights of Iraqis.

In reality, we could crush any organized offence that attacked us directly in Iraq with HALF the troops we have there. You can claim this isn't constabulary, but it really is. We are weeding hit-and-run insurgents from innocent civilians. More troops would just be standing around waiting to get attacked.

"2. Realism is the key. KIA's and WIA's can be swallowed if success is the result, and if the losses are not so severe that they compromise the ability to operate in the future. Iraq is not a success. Iraq is a huge mess."

By that standard no war the US has ever fought has been a success. Not the civil war, not WW2, none of them. All the nations we invaded were ruined, all were occupied years later, and each war spent us militarily to the point we couldn't as effectively react to other threats. Patton's view of the Soviets, and our unwillingness to address them, is a great example.

We were so spent by WW2 that we were unwilling to undertake more than small proxy wars with the Soviet Union and China for decades. Personally, I consider Kennedy's Cuban efforts a failure. Castro is still laughing it off. Yet, for some reason people revere him and consider Bush much worse. Seems like political sour grapes more than real military "failure" on Bush's part to me.

The battle to remove Saddam was outstanding. The plan to control Iraq when Saddam fell was a disaster and is the reason we have lost over 2,000 troops. It is because Bush did not allow those with the military knowledge and experience to call the shots. Thus, most of the 2,000 dead and 35,000 (combat and non combat) injuruies are a direct result of decissions Bush made. Best reason I can think of that he should resign along with Chehey or be Impeached.