and this definitely saves me some time :) Thanks for crossposting your thoughts! I am very close to your view on this issue.

I'll write more on this topic a bit later.

First off, let me congratulate RS for finally breaking the lockstep position of the administation and allowing a forum about the Iraq War on the front page.

Next, to add to what Brendan said about liberal oppossition, we do not know if the administration lied to lead us to war as of yet.  I believe you are sincere in your convictions over the belief that the administration and our allies thought there were WMDs, but there are a lot of facts to contradict your belief.  Until Phase II of the Iraqi Intelligence Report is completed, our debate about this issue is futile.  Let's just say the issue is not resolved and there is plenty of evidence the intelligence was hyped.

I have nothing substantial to say about your commentary on democracy.  I hope the Iraqis come to the conclusion that this governmental style leads to stability and progress, but it can't be thrust upon a people.  It is a process, and the best democracies evolve from a process of historical development, not military intrusion.

The most significant problem I see with the your analysis of the war is that you are still in the mind-frame that the insurgency can be crushed somehow.  If you read through some of the comments on this site recently, a rift exists between conservatives who believe we can annihilate the insurgency through blunt force and a liberal position pertaining to winning the support of the Iraqi populace to squelch the base of the insurgency.  The latter is more of a psychological warfare technique of winning the hearts and minds of the people.  The populace currently despises the US and prefers our withdrawal .  With this as the underlying feeling in Iraq, we can never defeat a guerilla war.  This is no time for a 'Sherman', because it is not a conventional war.  There is no government to submit to our will and force to surrender, just as there are no armies to defeat.  Your analogy is false. 

Similarly, even if we kill Sadr (another cornerstone passed which will bring peace to the region?--Heard that one before), the disdain for the US will still exist, and his militia will split into more factions causing more problems.  It is easy to destroy an organized group, a behemoth animal can always be brought down, but small factions like ants or snow bury you in a deluge, and you can't kill just a few to make the rest stop.  There is no organization to topple.  It is a civil war, and we are caught in the middle.

Furthermore, continued and escalated aggression (even if we had the troops) will lead to more terrorists as the recent NIE reported .  You chop one head off and another emerges in its place.

This leaves us with three options as I see it:

1)  We can commit a regional genocide and wipe out all insurgents and any civilians in our way.

2) We can withdraw and help from the sidelines in various ways (money, tactical strikes, etc) waiting for a winner to emerge to deal with.

3) Split the country up into its various ethnic regions a la Eastern Europe.

All of these have there problems, but I am most in favor of two and three.  I think this is where the new debate must begin.

is annoying to say the least. It's nice to see him talking the talk now when he had 6 year to actually do something to further the conservative movement. He destroyed what Gingrich started.

and one that sorely needs some attention. Thank you for reaching out!!

I concur that a "democratic" Iraq is not the be all and end all solution it was once touted to be. For now the goal should be stability.

Interesting that you take note that the seeming unstated goal of the war from the outset was to witness a miraculous domino effect of establishing a civil society in Iraq based on American style democracy, neglecting to notice the "non European" aspect of the Middle East.

As one who forsaw the fallacy of this War from the moment the President started repeating WMD, like a chatty Kathy doll, I am relieved that you or anyone else that supported this failed attempt  has come to an awakening.

The oddity that it is the so called liberals who embraced the reality of the consequences of this war should force to you at least pause for a moment and acknowledge that perhaps this motly group of liberals is not as unrealistic or lacking in pragmatism as your constant stereotyping insists.

Could you please make a note of that.

The oddity that the best course for achieving stability is appealing to the secular aspect of Islamic culture, when in fact the US occupation of Iraq has served to inflame the religous fundamentalists who resent and fear a Christian take over, a long simmering and historical feud.

The oddity that liberals have more respect, recognize and show more tolerance for many religions, different cultures, including the gay culture. That liberals were not interested in remaking Baghdad in America's image because liberals really are pro-life and recognize that violence should never be the first answer, but truly a last resort.

All that said, for the purpose of stability in Iraq I believe the US should diminish its glaring presence in the country somehow, without betraying the people for whom it promised a rose garden, by pulling back to an offshore balance position, leaving enough troops to guard the oil fields, and the airport.  To achieve this goal, the US will be forced to work with Iraq's neighbors.

I feel a deep sense of relief that we are having this discussion, and a profound sense of sadness for the people of Iraq who seem to have lost their country and much more their families and friends, their jobs. I hope the US can guide them to stability. All we know for sure is that this is a huge challenge and one that should be approached wisely, with eyes wide open.

That Zinni and Batiste are calling for one last stand.

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide

I don't see how a solution for Iraq can be brought forth without listening to all options. How many more soldiers is it worth losing?

Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

Indeed, General Batiste has recently written that pending the training of an effective Iraqi force, it may be necessary to deploy tens of thousands of additional “coalition troops.” General Batiste said he hoped that Arab and other foreign nations could be encouraged to send troops.

I can't imagine a coalition of an Arab military helping the US in Iraq. Especially when al-Queda will kill anyone that is seen as helping the Americans or their cause. I can't foresee sending in more US troops without a draft.

The options for Iraq seem to be, really bad and absolutely horrible.

Read Gov Dean's speech in the Council of Foreign Relations given 1 month before the Iraq War started,  closely---and you find the real reasons "liberals" opposed this war.  And you will realize how prescient he is.

Joe Wilson said too about Democracy in Iraq months before the war started--If you establish Democracy in Iraq--the one who will win is the populist candidate who will stir emotions and passions from the electorate--and those who will stir hate of Israel and US will be the one who wins.  He said Saddam would be the closest friendliest leader you would have.

Also it has also been said 66% of Iraq are Shiites with kinship to Iran--thus who else would be Iraq's leader--except a Iran friendly theocratic islamist leader.

http://www.gwu.edu/~...

To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.Nor has the Administration prepared sufficiently for the possible retaliatory attacks on our home front that even the President's CIA Director has stated are likely to occur. It has always been important, before going to war, for our troops to be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-protected. In this new era, it is as important that our people on the home front also be well-protected.

The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.

.....

So I want to be clear.Saddam Hussein must disarm.

.........

In the past, UN inspections destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity in Iraq than were destroyed in the Gulf War.The inspectors are now back inside Iraq.They are interviewing scientists. Confiscating papers. Conducting surprise visits. This past weekend, the lead inspectors reported that Iraqi cooperation, while still not satisfactory, is improving. Iraq has dropped its longstanding objections to U-2 surveillance flights. And serious proposals are being made for strengthening the inspection teams, making them bigger, and shielding them from intimidation.

The President dismisses all this,............

And if we believe terrorists - especially if they are terrorists linked to al Qaeda - have set up a poison and explosives training center in Northern Iraq, outside Saddam Hussein's control, why haven't we verified that information and destroyed that camp?...........

We know that Saddam will get away with whatever he can.But what can he get away with as long as Iraq is inspected, under constant surveillance, surrounded, grounded because of no fly zones, and barred from receiving weapons and other strategic materials?

  The CIA and Defense Department have indicated that, by far, the most likely scenario for Saddam using chemical or biological weapons - or sponsoring a terrorist attack - would be precisely if we invaded Iraq,
  because then he would have nothing to lose.  Neither President Bush in the State of the Union nor Secretary Powell at the UN mentioned that intelligence assessment. And it is just one of many issues the President has not yet adequately addressed.........

It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities - on its turf, not ours - where precision-guided missiles are of little use.It is possible that women and children will be used as shields and our efforts to minimize civilian casualties will be far less successful than we hope.

There are other risks.Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval.........

And, perhaps most importantly, there is a very real danger that war in Iraq will fuel the fires of international terror.Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oi......

We need to consider what the effect will be of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Baghdad, a city that served for centuries as a capital of the Islamic world.

.................

To me, one of the best examples of long range vision was the Marshall Plan, put in place after World War II. That Plan was based on a clear understanding that America was not an island, and that our prosperity and freedom depended on the prosperity and freedom of our friends in Europe. And so we reached out to societies that had been devastated by war and helped them recover.The payoff was enormous. During the Cold War, those societies served as a living demonstration of the opportunities created by democracy. They helped bring down the Berlin Wall, and suddenly a continent that had been torn apart by centuries of strife came together in liberty and peace.

Now, we have a new opportunity to do on a global basis what the Marshall Plan did for Western Europe. By that, I do not mean massive new aid programs, although I do favor increased investments in fighting global poverty and disease.I have in mind a vision that would open the door for every country on every continent to participate in a system of shared duties and benefits.I have in mind an integrated world system in which every nation has incentives to abide by the global rules of the road - especially in such areas as fighting terrorism, respecting human rights, conducting trade, observing fair worker standards, protecting the environment and combating corruption and crime......

I don't read or hear any metrics.

How do we know when we're done in Iraq?  A "stable government?" What are the metrics of a stable government or even a slightly functioning society, neither of which exist at present?

There is effectively no government in Iraq now, at least not a government that would stand for more than a couple of months after we left.  How do you propose we impose an effective government? And the rhetoric about killing all our enemies there by any means necessary... How many are our sworn enemies, bent on killing Americans globally, and how many would forget all about us and kill each other with an even greater reckless abandon in a drive for power/control/riches, and couldn't give a damn about us once we pull up stakes?

Kill al Sadr.  The guy doesn't even control his own militia anymore. I think we've heard that fable one too many times, as if killing some character propped up as the devil will somehow lead to another corner turned. Remember the deck of cards? Saddam's sons? The capture of Saddam? Zarqawi's death? Saddam's trial? And now al Sadr's death will be the next corner turned? Sure, the guy may need to be killed, but so should thousands of other guys, I suppose.

Perhaps we just go on killing and killing and killing.  And we can add more troops and kill more and more and more... losing more of our troops and treasure in the process. But all I can say is, apparently, some of us have learned not a goddamned thing from Vietnam. We kept adding troops there... to what effect?

Here's the problem, Leon: Fighting a standstill war against an entrenched, native insurgency is almost always a losing proposition, short of making a mammoth committment of men and materiel over a very long period of time.  So how long do you want to commit mammoth amounts of our people and resources to Iraq?  A decade?  Two decades?

In Vietnam, we stayed seven years too long at a cost of an additional 30,000 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in our own materiel, and in training and arming a South Vietnamese military that lasted about a year after we pulled up stakes. Nevermind the puppet government we propped up there that fell even before the military collapsed.

And you're proposing a similar puppet government for Iraq. How long would any such regime last after we leave, given that what we have been doung, essentially, is training and arming sectarian militias?  Hell, we can't even get the Iraqis to supply the number of troops our commanders have asked for in Baghdad! Guess what? Unfortunately, the last stable, secular government there was the one we overthrew, and it is likely to be last stable, secular government in Iraq in our lifetimes.

As for your broad-brushed assertions about the "anti-war left," are you really that ignorant about the great majority of Americans who disagree with this war? Certainly there is a very small, minority segment of the 65% of Americans who want to get out of Iraq who qualify as "anti-war." But a much larger percentage of those who want out of this never-ending disaster are "anti-endless-stupid war." And that includes most Democrats who were eager to go into Afghanistan and finish the job before these neocon peabrains led us on this massive distraction in Iraq. You must think the American public is made up of rubes who can't recognize a black-hole of lives and treasure when they see one. (Yes, some folks actually remember Vietnam.)

The "kill-`em-all-and-the-hell-with-politics" rhetoric is silly because it defies all reality.  Gee, maybe Ronald Reagan will come back to life, ride in a horse and solve all our problems! Ender is always promoting the same fables here.

You're simply lining up the groups to blame when we finally admit that this was a royal screw-up from before we ever invaded. You sound like Richard Perle. It's always someone else's fault.

Newsflash: The neocons were always scoffed at and viewed as fringe lunatics by the foreign policy establishments of both parties because their insane pipe dream of overthrowing Iraq, Syria and Iran had disatrous consequences for the region and the world. And they were too myopic and ignorant to see those consequences.

The neocons were a running joke in foreign policy circles.

Well, the neocon movement is dead now. Because the very scenarios predicted by knowledgeable and realistic foreign policy and military policy hands from both sides of the political spectrum have come true.

It is sadly and pathetically humorous to watch the neocon crowd running around in Chinese-fire-drill fashion with their arms and index fingers extended outward, looking to blame everyone else for the biggest fiasco in U.S. foreign policy history. But they never accept any of the blame... even though those who knew better saw this coming long before W and Dick and Rummy and Wolfowitz and Feith ever made a move.

Turn that finger back on yourselves and your ignorant neocon friends. Because that's where ALL the blame for this trainwreck resides.

It was  stupid idea doomed to failure from the very outset.

For god's sake, as a proud member of the Party of Personal Responsibility, take some responsibility for this friggin' mess.

What a bunch of cowards...

The one that says, "Us Democrats didn't oppose the Gulf War." Go back and check the Senate roll call vote - it was 52-47. You get one guess as to what per cent of that 47 was comprised of Democrats.

the democrats in Congress with we the people who did not support this war.

We could also confuse you with your Republican leadership  in Congress that chose to look the other way when a Florida Congressman was using the page program as his personal playground.

We have heard this song and dance a million times right along with the oft repeated railing against democrats that if they didn't support the war they were opposed to fighting evil and unpatriotic. It is somewhat tiresome.

I am sure many of those democrats now regret their vote, as many of the republicans regret ignoring certain scandalous behavior. Such is life in politics.

have much for which to answer, but I don't believe we know the facts yet with respect to how much they knew about Foley and when they knew -- no need to rush to judgment.

I would agree that using one vote to determine broad support is probably too simplistic. I wasn't paying much attention to politics in 1991 =) so I don't know exactly how the public and how Democratic politicians reacted after the invasion began. It was a pretty short war, however, and my impression was that it was pretty popular -- weren't Bush's approval ratings as high as 90%?

But......

the vote was for the authorization to use military force as a last resort. It wasn't entirely  certain that the war was inevitable. I think some that voted for it were hoping for more restraint from the leadership.

The powers that be knew enough to know better, and they still thought Foley should run for Congress yet again, and encouraged it.

FPers can edit all comments. :)

That's why I don't like to play a mother hen =)

I've got a few special edits in mind already... heh.

win one of the debates by changing our words around?  :)

you were elected to office?  Right on!

Good observation, btw.  The party of responsibility does just the opposite again.

Nothing big. Big enough to know the dynamics of serving as an elected official (citywide) in a sometimes hostile environment (and people can get very hostile and intense when it comes to their kids).

But agendas rise or fall on their merits. When one side can't make a convincing case for their agenda, they have two choices: try and sneak it through using either false pretenses or slight of hand, OR putting it up for a vote and watching it fail.

I've seen both.  But choosing the firt, less honorable option doesn't really gain anything for those pushing such an agenda. Because an idea that can't be explained in a way that draws support will fail once it's exposed to the light.

Making the case and letting it rise or fall on its merits is the only way these things work in the long run.

In the case of Iraq, Bush tried and failed. He couldn't make a convincing enough case to the American people. I don't know how anyone turns that around. But I certainly don;t see anything at RedState (in the first four essays) that would lead me to believe those arguments will convince Americans that we need to stay in Iraq for an extended period.  And, certainly, essentially calling Americans "fools" for bailing on Iraq ain't gonna' do it.  And there's plenty of that going on over there.

This polciy was written and directed by neocons. Deny it if you want. Read the writings and speeches of the PNACers. This is precisely what they had ben advocating for years.  You can deny it all you want, but it isn't a "hysterical conspiracy theory." It is history. Written in black-and-white.

This war was pre-ordained with Bush's election and most folks in Washington knew it.

Um, what is the "stated mission of the war?" At least that stated by Bush? Just curious.

As for the lack of metrics in the posts at RedState, I note you do not debate that point.  Just a lot of rhetoric about setting up a "stable government."

That means nothing in the current context of Iraq.

How long do you think we would need to be there to ensure such an entity? At what cost in terms of force and dollars? Yeah, yeah, I know, you're not a military expert.

The problem you guys have is that the American public is way ahead of you. How do you turn them around and commit to the massive amounts of people and resources we would need to build a "stable" Iraq?

Yeah, if only we had a general who would just go in and blow them all to hell...

That and five bucks might get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

How will we know when we've finished the mission in Iraq? Is is the number of hours of electricity in a day? The number of barrels of oil exported? The decline in violence? Regular meetings of legislative bodies? A police force that is not made up primarily of death squads and sectarian militias? An Iraqi military that will show up where and when it is supposed to show up?

All of this blather about "when Iraq is stable" is just that - blather. It's an open-ended committment that this country does not have an interest in at this time.

Bush tried to make the case for "staying the course" right up until two weeks before the election when he bailed on that concept in the face of a coming Democratic tsunami. Abizaid said today that we don't need more troops (despite calls from some including McCain that we need 50,000 more -- shades of Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam).

I just want someone who is advocating either staying or even increasing our presence to tell us when and how the situation improves and how we can measure that improvement.

No one -- and I mean NO ONE -- has been able to make that case and that is why support for the war continues to fall.

it's not enough to blame the person who actually is responsible for the policy, in the "The Buck Stops Here" sense - I must now spend my days refuting all the persons who might have influenced it?

If this is the new approach, we folks who follow politics just became busier people.

Also, I think that you missed the not-so-subtle point that, in Paul and I's view, the current problem does not admit of a political solution, and so therefore your cry for a "metric" is hollow, at least as it's directed towards me.

Also, I feel no further need to sell a long and expensive on-the-ground operation in Iraq, since I don't necessarily support one anymore.

Also, I feel no further need to sell a long and expensive on-the-ground operation in Iraq, since I don't necessarily support one anymore.

You don't support a "long and expensive on-the-ground operation in Iraq."

What is it you are advocating, exactly? And what are the odds of what you are advocating taking place, given the current realities on the ground, both in Iraq and here at home?

By the way, Bush wasn;t the driver on Iraq. That was Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and Feith, all of whom, save Feith, signed the original Statement of Principles for PNAC.

And what were these folks advocating in January 1998 ?

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

And you want to claim that discussion of a PNAC agenda consitutes :hysterical conspiracy theories?"

I thought you were a student of history?

I will refrain from offering an opinion at this moment.

That said, I stand by our military and our leadership and support their mission in Iraq.

Especially in light of the current top news:

Top general warns against Iraq troop timeline :

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The assertion by Gen. John Abizaid seemed to put him at odds with some Democrats pressing the Bush administration to begin pulling out of Iraq...

Asked about his testimony in August that Iraq could fall into civil war and that the sectarian violence was as bad as he had ever seen it, Abizaid said that more recently the situation has improved, while still troubling. He visited Baghdad in recent days.

“It’s certainly not as bad as the situation appeared back in August,” Abizaid said, adding that he saw growing confidence among Iraqis in their government. “It’s still at unacceptably high levels,” he said of the sect-on-sect violence “I wouldn’t say that we have turned the corner in this regard, but it’s not nearly as bad as it was in August.”

So for now I stand with President Bush.

that he is "very encouraged".

This would be a formidable undertaking, and certainly not one which will work if we insist on maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council. But once it began it would begin to change the calculations of Saddam’s opponents and supporters -- both inside and outside the country -- in decisive ways. One Arab official in the Gulf told me that the effect inside Iraq of such a strategy would be “devastating” to Saddam. But the effect outside would be powerful as well. Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy. And Saddam’s supporters in the Security Council -- in particular France and Russia -- would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.

No wonder the PNAC/neocon crowd was laughed at by the foreign policy establishments of both parties. They were absolutely friggin' clueless about the consequences of an invasion of Iraq.

Look at this pie-in-the-sky baloney from Wolfowitz. This is the same guy who promised the Congress that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the entire rebuilding process.

These guys were, are, and will always be, nothing but clowns.

Now it's all Bush's fault, eh? That's easy.

I suggest the netire noecon/PNAC agenda has been repudiated. (A very good thing.)  Bush may have been the guy who signed off on their fantasy, but he didn't come up with this plan. Hell, Wolfowitz went before Congress at the outset of this disaster and prmised that Iraqi oil would pay for all the rebuilding.

And I still haven't read or heard a single estimate from those who claim we need to stay of how long it will take for "victory in Iraq" (one of the most nebulous phrases since "I did not have sex with that woman") to be achieved.

A year?  Ten years? Twenty years?

Are you for staying or going? Or neither?  Or both?

I might have a plan to achieve the subjugatin of Islamism by air-dropping white chocolate cadbury creme eggs into selected Mosques in Saudi Arabia, but until someone in a position of elected power signs on the dotted line for that plan, I'm just another idiot with a ridiculous plan. And, if some government official really does sign off on that plan, it might be appropriate to say, "Boy, Leon was an idiot to come up with that plan," but the only thing that really matters is that the person who actually put my plan into action was an idiot.

Again, I'm no military expert, so I hestitate to say, "What I envision can be accomplished in X number of days," but I feel nonetheless confident in saying that what I envision should be capable of accomplishment in less than a year, at the outside. If it cannot be done in that time frame, then it is time to admit that it either cannot be done, or that we lack the will to do it.

But I think your final sentence presents a false set of choices.

If it cannot be done in that time frame, then it is time to admit that it either cannot be done, or that we lack the will to do it.

How would you ever know that the reason it couldn't be done was because "we lack the will to do it?" How would you ever be able to determine that?

like "believe" in his statement.  Abizaid obviously has a vested interest in the perception of the mission: he doesn't want to demoralize his troops and wants to feel he's accomplishing something.

For all our mocking of Bush substituting "timetable" with "benchmark", I think it's not a bad idea that we find objective, quantifiable ways to measure stability.  Off the top of my head, I could say # of attacks, # of protests, infrastructure projects completed, water and power availability, # of US and Iraqi deaths would be more significant that a general who "believes" we're making some sort of undifinable "progress".

I don't want to be having the same debate two years from now.

It's just more rhetoric without even the slightest bit of substantiation.

I think that is precisely what McCain is aiming for with his call for 50,000 more troops.  He knows it is very unlikely to happen and he wants to have his "I-told-ya'-so/you-lacked-the-will-to-do-what-is-necessary" excuse in his back pocket.

... because these exports would supposedly fund some of the reconstruction, rather than the American taxpayer footing this ever-increasing bill as is now the case.

You have suggested here that we need more troops on the ground. McCain has advocated for 50,000 more troops.

Abizaid said today that we don't need to add troops.

I say  BRING IT ON!!!!

then why did he pretty much called it a civil war in August. Your argument doesn't wash because he was much more critical previously - almost echoing Dems, and now he changes his tune...

Right...

Accorrding to the latest poll , 71% of Iraqis want us out within a year.  Of that 71%, 37% want us out in six months.

The Iraqi government, on the other hand, wants us to stay because they know our departure means the end of their government.

... forever.

Any ultimate, further crackdown by U.S. forces s likely to bring more of the same.

Seems to me the Iraqi sentiment expressed in the poll is that the Bush administration concept (repeated here by Leon) of "I'll give you freedom if I have to kill you to do it" has run its course among people who have had to go get a relative or two or a dozen from the morgue.

Like many...I was originally taken with the idea that Democracy...could serve to dampen the flames of Islamism that rage across the Arabian Peninsula....In retrospect, I can hardly believe that I was capable of overlooking the absurd assumption involved in drawing this parallel....that the Muslims of the Middle East, like the everyday citizens of Eastern Europe, could not possibly desire to live under the governmental system in which they found themselves....What I think that this war has caused many conservatives to forget is that democracy is not an end, it is a process....democracy will not magically change such a people into a nation friendly to Western interests....[T]he belief that...the hardness of man's heart can be cured with more money and freedom is one that is fallacious to its core

In examining the road to today, there is something else that needs to be brought up.  Why was good counsel ignored and dismissed so easily by so many Republicans and conservatives?  There were people who spoke out before the war who understood the things I quoted above.  Why were they ignored?  Did America let partisanship blind us to good sense and good judgment?  Was it more important to belittle the opposition than to make the right decisions?

It is unfortunate that many who speak about the war choose to use hyperbole and hysteria to communicate, but does that provide an excuse for not hearing the underlying truths? "They may have a point but they expressed it poorly, therefore I don't have to listen"?? 

The Republicans were in charge and thus the onus of this fell upon them this time.  But it may be the Democrats who face such a choice next time.  Ignoring advice just because the speaker is from the other party or does not phrase it exactly how we want to hear it is not how good decisions are made. 

I challenge you to find one liberal who does not wish to promote Democracy in the Middle East. 

You'll have just as hard a time finding one of these as you will trying to find one that thinks violence is the way to do this.

You've heard the voices of far too many liberals to indulge in smearing liberals as anti-Democratic -- it's the height of intellectual dishonesty, and you know it.  Perhaps you're still mad about losing the election (and thus the debate)?  In any event, while the country is hardly under any obligation to listen to the losers' opinion on this matter, but I suppose some people just don't know when they're beaten.

As far as doing "all that is necessary", PR aside . . . it defies belief that you think this way.  Considering our lack of respect and sympathy for Iraqis is what got us here, I suggest that anyone who thinks we just weren't "tough" enough needs to shut up now and stay shut up, because IT IS YOUR FAULT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE.

Winning the "hearts and minds" is the only way to curb the insurgency.  Agreed?  Otherwise, your suggestion only breeds antipathy and anti-Americanism, so I can only conclude that you either don't know what you're talking about, or you are actively agitating for the U.S. to lose the war for good.

Yes, supporting Democracy is "liberal at the core" -- after all, it was liberals who founded Democracy, even as conservatives (from Greece to Rome to America) try to dismantle it through their war-mongering, nationalist, xenophobic, authoritarian outlook.  Granted, Bush believes in Democracy about as much as he believes in Christ (which is to say, not at all), but he knew that professing a liberal agenda is the only way to gain political capital in this country.  After all, if he'd said to voters that the goal was hegemony in the Middle East (which seems to be conservative movement's pole star in foreign policy, correct me if I'm wrong), nobody would have supported the war except that strange 15% of the nation that thinks he's "too liberal" (yes, polls actually show this!).

However, lip service has never made a difference in these kinds of situation.  Bush is no liberal, that's for sure.  The U.S. has gotten where it is in Iraq by taking a decididely non-liberal approach, which is, throw our weight around and act like everyone else believes we're the best nation on Earth (irregardless of our actual performance on the gorund) when nothing could be further fromthe truth. 

If we'd done it the liberal way, with (real, not imagined) international coalitions, respect for the Iraqi people, and a humble attitude toward our strength and position in the world, I don't think the Iraqi people would have gone from loving us to hating us the way they have.  But the failure of Iraq is a failure of conservatism -- witness attitudes like:

"the question of what shall be left behind in Iraq is not a ripe one at the present time, for the primary mission should be (and should have always been) the utter and complete annihilation of our enemies who are there, using whatever force is necessary."

. . . as if the question as to who the enemy was were that black and white, and the cathartic expression of one's desire to smash one's enemies were somehow helpful.  There's also the quesion of how exactly we plan to smash these unidentifiable phantoms without shooting ourselves in the foot, i.e., losing the hearts and minds of Iraqis. 

I mean, if we simply dropped enough explosives to turn Iraq into a parking lot, sure we'd have smashed our opponents, and we could beat our chests Leon-style, but I hardly see how this would advance our goals.  The (emotionally-charged) attitude you express in this post is not very many degrees of extremity away from this approach, and I suggest that this is, in essence, the conservative approach toward the world: we are strong, ergo, everyone must do what we want. 

How this is any different than common thuggery is beyond me.

Fish, barrel, shotgun...

I can think of another group of people who think Americans are "fools", and they wear turbans, beards, and speak of Mohammed ruling the world.

In fact. George and Dick won "Recruiters of Year" at the recent al Qaeda Awards Banquet. (Third year in a row they took the top honors.)

Very open to white lies.

Missile is WMD but if the range is just  up to Israel.

They knew Iraq had no nuclear bomb--Israel had bomb it previously.

Chemical weapons that is >12 years old and degraded.

Thus they could have WMD but not significant enough reason to invade.

Besides if WMD is the reason--why are we not invading N Korea now?

At least Clinton sent a battleship carrier to scare the daylights out of N Korea to accept inspections from Clinton.

Bush43 frequently reminds me of the Ferengi.  They want some subserviant to chew up their stuff and feed it to them predigested.  It's even a weaker form of Cliff Notes.  That and they are greedy bums.

A missile above a certain range may be in violation to the UN resolutions, but it remains a conventional weapon unless it has a CBN (chem, bio, nuclear) warhead.

Likewise, degraded chemicalm weapons are no more WMD than non-enriched uranium.