<p>Then what would you suggest? (I mean that politely)</p>
<p>Which philosophy? Or did you just run out of interesting things to add to this debate?</p>
<p>I would suggest clearly delineating a timeframe for withdrawal, immediately involving regional governments in an ongoing dialogue about goals for Iraq (because realistically one cannot just unilaterally set goals and have other governments not interfere) - even if those goals include a partition or an Islamic state. The fact is, a government for Iraq will have to be shaped by all of the players in the region, and may not end up the way we’d like it to (secular, unified). But in the end, forcing our ideals onto Iraq is just not going to have good results.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>unnecessary destabilization of an already-unstable region that happens to control the majority of the most important natural resource in the world</p>
<p>the fact that the world is probably [less</a> safe](<a href=“http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/IISS-Iraq-Occupation26may04.htm"]less”>http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/IISS-Iraq-Occupation26may04.htm) because of the war (hint: young people disillusioned by abu ghraib pictures and hospitals getting bombed don’t rush to join the peace corps!)</p>
<p>somebody in my direct family has indeed served in this conflict, on the front lines, in two campaigns. after the second campaign, he came back and told every male in my extended family not to join the military under any circumstances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the world will be even less safe if we bring all the troops home within the year. I like the mentality among anti-war people that we can’t do things. Things get hard, yes, but that doens’t mean we can’t get things done. I wonder what you people would have said once American boys started falling in Normandy (Our problem is with the Japanese, not the Germans. That’s a European conflict!). </p>
<p>The facts:</p>
<p>We are in Iraq</p>
<p>We can leave or we can stay. </p>
<p>Where people differ is whether we can accomplish our goals or not. Judging by the immense success of the last 7 months I’d say YES WE CAN!</p>
<p>“somebody in my direct family has indeed served in this conflict, on the front lines, in two campaigns. after the second campaign, he came back and told every male in my extended family not to join the military under any circumstances.”</p>
<p>That’s the problem with anecdotal evidence with a sample size of one - it means nothing. Fortunately, most soldiers do not have the same view as your relative:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME](<a href=“http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/31/obama-semi-intense-with-reporter-at-presser/]The”>http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/31/obama-semi-intense-with-reporter-at-presser/)</p>
<p>He doesn’t use the same words but apparently Obama also wants troops in Iraq for 100 years. Unless he thinks his planned US Embassy in Baghdad won’t be attacked.</p>
<p>Don’t be pedantic. The difference is about how long candidates want to maintain significant troop levels for combat operations. How long each wants to keep the embassy guards there really, really isn’t relevant.</p>
<p>Conservatives say that they want to stay in Iraq to fix the situation. However, the only problem is that they are unwilling to swallow the pills neccesary to this. To fix the situation in Iraq, there needs to be cooperation with Iran and Syria. There would also need to be a large amount of troops. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group said that. However, Bush’s Axis of Evil Rhetoric and irritational stance on diplomacy has hindered any chance of cooperation. If I can find a Republican who is willing to do all that is neccesary to fix the situation I will not be as skeptical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t take quotes out of context. McCain was talking about keeping troops in Iraq like we have troops in Japan, Germany, Korea. He said as long as they aren’t being attacked he’s fine with keeping them there 100 years. That is far from “combat operations” and much closer to what Obama said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like the surge…which has shown marked success.</p>
<p>That’s one part, yes. Look, if I saw real progress in truly changing the underlying terms of the engagement in Iraq, vis a vis sectarian engagement, peace processes, involvement of other regional partners and all that, I would be all right with troops being around to keep everyone off each others’ throats during a peace process. That’s reasonable. But that’s not what’s happening now. Right now, all that’s happening is US soldiers shooting any terrorist they can see, with basically none of the other ongoing processes necessary for long-term peace. Not sustainable, in my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. But the point that I, and many conservatives make, is that we have already seen a huge improvement in terms of violence in Iraq since the surge. It’s only reasonable to continue what we’re doing and see if political improvement will follow with the huge reduction of violence. Things are going much better now in terms of violence (nobody can argue this, sorry). Before the surge none of the democrats wanted to put more troops in, none of them said it would have any positive benefits. Well, it has.</p>
<p>Quote:What I said
</p>
<p>What LAX said. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For someone who complains about McCain being taken out of context, you sure cut the head out of my post. ISG said troop surge in ADDITION to diplomacy with Iran and Syria. If Republicans were actually serious about fixing the situation they would open up that diplomatic engagement. Alas, they have not.</p>
<p>[Sources:</a> Iran helped prod al-Sadr cease-fire - CNN.com](<a href=“Sources: Iran helped prod al-Sadr cease-fire - CNN.com”>Sources: Iran helped prod al-Sadr cease-fire - CNN.com)</p>
<p>Iran helps quell Shia violence. Is it time to start being realistic and negotiate with the power players in Iraq to resolve the situation. Not under the Repugs.</p>