<p>BTW, thanks AllMusic and MSDAD; I appreciate the comments.</p>
<p>Citation, why not move beyond the slogans? Do you have any evidence to show that continuing to do what we are currently doing in Iraq is somehow going to produce a different result?</p>
<p>According to the administration’s own words, the occupation of Iraq should be winding down. It wasn’t supposed to last more than a year; the insurgencies been in its “last throes” for ages. Its by no means premature to talk about letting the Iraqis manage their own affairs. </p>
<p>I don’t think we’d have been in longer than another year no matter which party gained control of Congress. Your party had already passed legislation to do away with the Iraq Inspector General (the only person overseeing the private contractors) by October of 2007. The only reasonable interpretation of that is that the Republicans planned to be out by then, unless you prefer that it’s that the Republicans wanted the contractors to be able to resume their previous well documented fraudulent and abusive behavior by a decent interval after the elections.</p>
<p>“Stay the course” is a slogan, not a strategy.<br>
“Win” is a goal, not a strategy.</p>
<p>Not a Republican, from the so-called President on down, can explain how we can can create stability and security with a government that is structurally weak, corrupt, and riddled with informers for different factions and that presides over a society where there in no center to hold and little interest in doing so.</p>
<p>The silence is deafening. Maybe they’ll try to recycle Chalabi.</p>
<p>There is still some belief that we can either bomb people into submission, or otherwise force them into acting in ways concordant with Western ideals.</p>
<p>Despite all the death, tragedy and heinous decisions of the past three and a half years, there are still those who believe the above. I wonder what it will take for them to change their minds.</p>
<p>I tell my A.P. and Gov’t students all the time that war is great for the economy. It’s the inevitable downturn in the economy when the war is over that is a killer. Check America’s economy after any war except WWII and Korea. Without fail, the economy took a decided plunge. The difference with WWII and Korea was we had the Cold War and the Nuclear Arms race to maintain an abnormally high level of defense spending.</p>
<p>Golani is not an American citizen…OK, so scratch his rambling on and on and on from a true extemists’ point of view. I can assure you if his “coward” ass was on the front line, he would have a much different point of view. Those that appear to be “for the war” and sorry to see Rumsfeld step down after the big Dem win, want to catagorize EVERYONE else who sees things differently as crazy liberals who want to “cut and run”. If they only knew how transparent their comments are. Sore loosers.</p>
<p>Yes the war is good for the economy…so ask YOURSELF what you stand to loose by these new changes…fewer officer billots? Less governent jobs and perks, fewer contracts awarded…the list goes on and on. What is really pathetic and what I will defend is that those who oppose the war are somehow “not supporting the troops”. I don’t support those making the irresponsible and war monger decisions. Peace out.</p>
<p>I find it pretty arrogant to assume that only western nations have the intellectual and social strength to have a democracy. It seems insulting to suggest that Iraqi’s are incapable of governing themselves.</p>
<p>Pesox, would you have said the same thing had you known that when i turn 18 in a month, I am getting my citizenship and then next fall joining ROTC at whatever college I attend?</p>
<p>o and misterflyer I am happy when the deathcount of our enemy goes up. Sort of like Americans were happy when the deathcount of Nazi soldiers go up because its either the death count of US soldiers or Iraqi terrorists. Ill take Iraqi terrorists any day.</p>
<p>There is no proof that I am anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, I challenge you to prove that.</p>
<p>I am interested, how do you know what my citizenship is?</p>
<p>SJMom, do you know a thing about Iraq besides campaign slogans?
You’re the blustering stay-the-course type…tell me what Bush’s strategy is and then defend it. Support your strategy by incorporating the structure of the Iraqi government and the powers & intentions of the SCIRI/Badr Corps, the Mahdi Army, the points of agreement between Sunni and Shiite factions, the peshmerga, that status of Kirkuk, the relative influence of Iran under various scenarios, etc. </p>
<p>You can’t. </p>
<p>There isn’t a strategy besides being caught in the crossfires and Bush, like Mr. Micawber, hoping something will turn up. And like Mrs. Micawber, the hard core with blinders will never desert Bush.</p>
<p>Actually, I’m NOT the stay the course type. I’ve posted several times that I think we have far too few troops in Iraq, and that I think we need to spend whatever it takes to get rid of the insurgency, rebuild infrastructure and help structure a democratic government. What’s happening now is “bleeding to death by paper cuts”. I typically prefer to address problems head on – identify the problem, identify the necessary resources and spend what it takes. In general, I think it ends up costing a lot more to do things piecemeal. </p>
<p>By the way, I really feel that I go out of my way to treat your opinions with as much courtesy as I can muster. I try not to denigrate your intelligence or knowledge of any situation (words like “blustering” for example) – I just offer my opinions. But I think it’s rather rude to continue to offer insults instead of solutions. </p>
<p>You haven’t yet offered any suggestion as to what YOU would do to fix Iraq. Saying that we should never have gone in doesn’t fix the problem as it exists now. But I’ve raised the question of how you, or any other Democrat, would solve the Iraq problem. Your response is to insult me and try to obfuscate the question through your own version of “bluster.”</p>
<p>Why does the U.S. have to “fix Iraq”? If my kid breaks a bowl in a china shop, no one expects that he is going to be the one to fix it. If anything, he is likely to make things worse. Best thing to do is to isolate him, make sure there aren’t any more things he can break, deduct the cost of the breakage from his allowance, lecture him sternly, and make him promise never to do it again.</p>
<p>mini, I think we have to have some solution to Iraq, simply because we are there now. Any action we take will have consequences.</p>
<p>We can “stay the course” as you like to call it, by maintaining the current level of troops, which doesn’t seem like a workable option to me.</p>
<p>We can “cut and run” which is what I believe many in the Democratic base would like – just withdraw US troops altogether, and worry about the resulting anarchy later.</p>
<p>We can increase our commitment of troops, money for rebuilding, self defense for Iraqis and impose sanctions if they start to fight among themselves. (Send each child to his room until they can play nicely, in mommy-talk.)</p>
<p>I don’t like any of the options, but option three seems to have the best chance of long term success to me. I don’t believe in just ignoring problems, hoping they’ll go away – in my experience, things just get worse if the underlying problems aren’t addressed.</p>
<p>Where are these troops coming from, when recruitment is down? Are we calling a draft, which will include both your sons and mine? Are you willing to sacrifice your sons for this war? Please answer honestly.</p>
<p>Where will we be finding additional money for rebuilding, considering that we have already borrowed ourselves up the wazoo, and much of that money is being squandered, wasted, or stolen by some shady no-bid dealmakers?</p>
<p>The US troops can’t even control the violence in Baghdad. Self defense for the Iraqis? No one knows if the guy wearing a uniform is going to be the next suicide bomber!</p>
<p>I am curious as to your responses.</p>
<p>PS, I don’t think the problems are going away either. I think we are facing a real and existential danger. However, I also don’t think that our occupation in Iraq is addressing the problem at the source.</p>
<p>I believe there is no chance of “success” in any of the strategies. The bowl is already broken. I think we should shore up Ayatollah Sistani as best we can, making nice with Iran and Syria as we do so, try to get some guarantees from Turkey as to Kurdistan, put lots and lots and lots of money in an internationally controlled development fund based on guarantees of Sunni civil rights, and WITHDRAW.</p>
<p>Phased withdrawal: begin on Monday, and finish on Friday.</p>
<p>Will it “work”? Probably not. I truly believe it could have three years ago. But with the vast majority of Iraqis of all stripes approving of the killing of Americans, all we do by increasing troop levels is paint larger bulleyes on them. </p>
<p>I don’t know why you would consider that “ignoring problems” - to me, it represents a rational approach as to whom is most likely to be able to solve problems, and whose participation just makes things worse. WE are the problem, the boy in the china shop, and the sooner we recognize that, the better.</p>
<p>Allmusic, recruitment is up in all branches, marines, navy, airforce, except for the army. The number of soldiers signing up for another tour of duty is staggeringly high too.</p>
<p>As far as my son goes, I would not like to see him leave college before he has his degree. I think an all-volunteer military works best. Besides, he’s so nearsighted that they’d never put him on the front lines! (jk)</p>
<p>Why can’t we take troops out of Europe? I don’t want to look up all the deployment info, but we have troops deployed around the world. I don’t advocate taking them out of Asia, but does Germany really need all our guys?</p>