Just to bring it back down to Earth, there is no way that Al-Q could take over Iraq. There is also no way that they would split Iraq with Iran.

What is more likely is some combination of Sadrists and Shiite Islamists controlling the center with a constant insurgency in the Sunni areas.

It is always worth remembering that Al-Q *hates* Shiites more than they hate the US. Shiites alike *hate* Al-Q.

And, of course, Iran alreasy has an oil-rich base of operations - Iran.

“in order to win the GWOT decisively, the regimes in Iran, Syria, and Pakistan ”

With all respect, you are going into bizarro land here. What do you think would happen in Iran and Syria if you toppled the regimes there? Flowering democracy and moderation again? Hardly, you would end up with a different bunch of Islamists in Iran and would swap a secular regime in Syria for another Islamist one. Has Iraq taught you nothing?

As for the lunacy of toppling the regime in Pakistan, well, the less said about that, the better. What do you think would happen if the US toppled Musharaf?

I agree with you that President Bush is a bad president but here is a prediction for you. Bush will sign the bill or the Bush administration will reach a compromise with Congress where Congress gets most of what they want. Still it is hard to believe either Congress or the Administration would play these games while Iran is making the moves they are making. This indicates to me that virtually no one in the halls of power in the US or its allies understand the gravity of the threat we face. After all, if our allies got it, they would put pressure on the Administration and Congress to reach an accomodation.

President Bush especially does not seem to grasp the nature of the threat. This bill, for all its flaws with the pork, funds the troops. If the troops in Iraq are allowed to run out funding, they could become vunerable to an Iranian attack. Even if the troops are fully funded, Iran is a very formidable foe. If the troops don’t have the resources they need, they would be vunerable to being routed by the Iranians.

Even if the President insists on the veto, The supporters of the bill will probably make concesions to backers of the President to get them to switch sides. They may put more pork in the bill or something. As a result of the compromises, the binding timetable for withdrawl from Iraq will remain in the bill and a veto proof bill will arrive on the President’s desk, so that if he vetoes it Congress will over ride the veto and the troops will get the funding they need.

Thanks for the reply to my post. For the US to have any chance of achieving all three goals of, 1.) an Iraq that is allied with the US in the GWOT, 2.) an Iraq that is stable, and 3.) an Iraq that is a representative Democracy will require a mass infusion of more troops either from the US or its coalition partners. Colin Powell and others were right when they suggested that we needed overwhelming force. The problem is we can’t get the type force structure we need. The military simply is not big enough nor are the American people or our willing to make this kind of commitment.

To continue the current strategy is just slow motion defeat and by the time we are defeated we would no longer have a military capable of defending the American homeland. It seems to me that it would be better to withdraw now and secure our borders. In all likely hood this is an enemy who will follow us home. Also we need to focus more on the biggest threats of Russia and China. Withdrawl may buy us some time to rebuild our military. Also. we would do well to develop more of our own oil and gas reserves.

The current proposed bill gives General Petraeus exactly the support he said he needs, and gives him a year and a half to accomplish the mission he laid out for himself.

Congressional oversight, regarding military use is nothing new. It’s been with us forever in our republic. The most basic example was the passing and subsequent modification to the War Powers Act of 1973. The bill was passed over Richard Nixon’s veto, and has withstood court challenges since. This act requires regular reporting and oversight. And guess what, it also provides congress with the ability to set deadlines and time tables.

Deadlines were set in 1982, which limited our intervention in Lebanon to 18 months. Deadlines were set in 1992, which forced the withdrawal of all US forces from Somalia by March 31, 1994.

Congressional oversight of military spending is also nothing new. Even during our greatest (or second greatest, if you include the Civil War) existential crisis, World War II, congress took a proactive role in oversight of military contracts. The effort was led by then Senator Harry Truman.

Essentially, this bill gives Bush exactly what he’s asked for. This bill gives General Patraeus exactly what he asked for. This bill gives the troops, included returning wounded, exactly the support they claim they need. This bill also provides oversight, clear milestones, and a demand for an exit strategy, leaving security to the elected Iraqi government, with ongoing logistical and training support. This bill does not take away from our military being used to go after al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups that threaten our national security.

Bush’s proclaimed veto on this tells us quite a bit. It says that he cannot handle oversight or accountability. It says he cares more about his imperial presidency than he does about supporting our troops.

Your analysis is right on the money.

If we get out, or set time tables to get out, all hell will brake loose in the Middle East…. But if we stay as Bush and the Republicans want us to, we simply give our enemies what they want. That is to say keep America in a quagmire from hell for years to come, destroy our Army’s capability to fight, make us trow away hundreds of billions of Dollars, and with a “victory” that will in effect hand over Iraq to Iran in a silver platter. With “victories” like that I’ll take a defeat any day.

In my opinion this administration from the get go have set up a set of falce choices. Is not stay or get out. It is in my opinion separate the Shiite, the Sunni and the Kurds and send them their separate ways in a loose Confederation… And then get out.

The moment Bush went from phantom WMD’s to creating a Democracy in Iraq (Nation Building), America’s effort in Iraq was doomed for failure. This Administration is not only incompetent, but is down right delusionaly incompetent. The most tragic thing about Iraq’s mess, is that the Bush and his Administration were WARNED about the consecuences of the invasion by the Arabs, by the Europeans, in fact by the entire world.

See, Bush doesn’t believe that the Iraq war is winnable, he just doesn’t want to own up to that facts and admit it. He wants the next President (who will most likely be a Democrat) to own his mess.

In either case (the bill passing or a Veto) the Democrats win and reafirm that Bush and the Republicans own this war. If the bill were to pass, the troops come home and its Bush’s legacy of failure.

If Bush vetos the Bill, then he owns the war in toto, bad for the Republicans when we are still in Irag in 2008.

It’s brilliant, that why Bush is so angry, its lose-lose for him.

If you Republicans don’t think that the trashing your party got in 06 was enough….. Then continue to support the Idiot in chief and his war, and you’ll see a new, improved, trashing for the ages in 08. Hell after 08 Republicans will be lucky to walk straight any more if they keep this up.

As for Bush….. The happiest people to see him go will be the Repubicans themselves. What a disaster of a Presidency, what a moron of a men.

I never gave any suggestion that I am a “right-wing type.” I don’t think there is a military answer to every thing. Also I don’t think every thing has a diplomatic answer either. The strategy employed by many of our enemies whether they are Islamists or communists sems to be try and tie us up in endless diplomacy while they get stronger. A proper foreign policy will focus on both diplomatic and military efforts. Perhaps with better human intellegence we can identify more Arab “moderates” and provide support for them. This is another area the US is very weak in. American human intellegence is not very good. With better human intellegence capabilities we may be able infiltrate our enemies and prevent attacks from occurring. In time, this would serve to lessen the need to use the military.

Thanks for the reply to my post.

“How long do you think it will take to obtain this goal and how much money do you think the American taxpayers are willing to spend to obtain this unrealistic goal?” I honestly don’t know how long it will take to obtain this goal. As I recall from someone who was a boy during WWII, many American leaders thought it could take twenty years or longer to defeat Nazi Germany. I would be willing to give it as long as it takes but the American people must be behind it. Right now they are not. Unfortunately the Administration has not done a very good job of explaining the stakes and the main stream media has been no help at all either. For a variety of reasons, I don’t think the media or the Administration get it.

As for how much money the American taxpayers would be willing to spend, we spent over a trillion dollars adjusted for inflation during WWII. We have not spent that much on the GWOT yet. To date, in American history, we spent more on WWII than on any war we have fought. The current enemies of Iran and Al Qaeda pose a far greater threat to the American homeland than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or likely ever could have. Also, we are only spending about 2% of the economy on military operations right now. During WWII, Korea, and Vietnam a much higer perecentage of our economy was spent on the war efforts. If the Administration will explain the stakes, they could probably get the American people on board. The bottom line is you spend what ever it will take and I don’t think the goal is unobtainable. Failing to achieve the goal laid out previously likely means conceding the country to Iran, Al Qaeda, or some combination of them. If this happens, American national security and probably the very survival of the country could be placed in grave danger. You don’t win a war against an enemy who poses an survival threat to your country by conceding ground, especially when we don’t have to. If Al Qaeda and/or Iran are allowed to gain complete control of Iraq, they would have an oil rich country as a base of operations. This would make an already formidable foe much more formidable. By withdrawing from Iraq now, it may actually mean we have to spend more on national defense, at least in the short term, as our enemies will be in a much stronger position than they are now. Its hard to tell. With that said, in the long term, we could help ourselves greatly by developing more of our own oil and gas reserves, by implementing tough fuel efficieny standards, and having a more sensible immigration policy. At a minimum, there needs to be a moratorium on immigration from Arab lands.

“Would you support a return of the draft because that is the only way you could get that amount of troops that you need for all of these missions?” Right now the American people would not support all of these missions so I’m thinking long range. Assuming we withraw from Iraq without achieving a situation where Iraq is stable and allied with the US in the GWOT an enemy who already poses an existential threat to the US will probably gain control of the country and American security will be in even more dire straits than it is currently in. Those additional trained and well armed troops will probably be needed to defend the homeland. With that said the thought did cross my mind. You see, in order to win the GWOT decisively, the regimes in Iran, Syria, and Pakistan are probably going to need to be removed. This will require a much more more potent force structure than we currently have. Also, we will need to keep close tabs on Russia and China. In any event, the US faces a survival threat. If this is not dealt with now, it will only grow even more dangerous. I think we need to have the proper force structure to meet the looming threats of the 21st century. This will probably require a draft. Even if we are not going to use them for foreign missions, they can and should be used for border security.

I was not aware that General Petraeus only gave the “surge” a 1 in 4 chance of working. Frankly, had I been the President or a member of Congress, I would have told him to go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that has better odds and if you can’t or won’t we will find someone else for the job. Congress whether they are Democrats or Republicans are not in the business to give the President the man he wants. They are there to evaluate the candidates based on their qualifications and confirm the candidate accordingly. In other words, they are not in the business to rubber stamp presidential appointees. Personally I think President Bush is the worst President in US history. I think he is certainly worthy of impeachment. I hope and pray we can make the surge work between now and 8/31/08 because this is how much time we have. If we fail, this will probably be catastrophic for American security interests.

With all of this said sometimes the optimal policy cannot be implemented. I’m going to suggest a policy that we should acutally be able to do. 1.) Develop more of our own oil and gas reserves. 2.) Implement tough fuel efficiency standards. Much of the money from our foreign oil purchases is finding its way into the hands of our enemies. Doing these two things will greatly limit the amount of money available to our enemies. This should hamper their ability to wage war on America and the West. 3.) Secure the borders, place a moratorium on immigrants from Muslim lands, and closely monitor the mosques. If we do these things, in time, we should be able to defeat our enemies. We may even be able to do it without firing another shot. Actually these suggestions are all good ideas regardless of the situation elsewhere in the world. In fact, we should have implemented these things right after 911.

Given that we are unlikely to get the resources we need to deliver a decisive defeat the Jihadists in Iraq, it would probably be best to pull back to Kurdish areas and only intervene in the Iraqi Civil war to try and prevent Al Qaeda from gaining control of the country and to attempt roll back the influence of Iran.

Is leaving US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely the only way to contain Iran? We practiced a policy that included containment against the Soviet Union for almost fifty years. I would hope and pray this one does not take as long but it could. Perhaps it could take longer.

How do we fight this threat? You are right that this never gets discussed enough. First we have to understand that the enemy poses an existential threat to the US. This enemy is every bit as dangerous to the US as Nazi Germany was. Perhaps even more dangerous. Nazi Germany had no realistic chance of attacking the American homeland successfully, at least not when we joined WWII they did not. This enemy can successfully attack the American homeland. They can even defeat America. This is especially apparent when we factor in their alliances with Russia and China. President Bush did say we will fight a different war. What I think the biggest mistake was we did not use enough troops and we never corrected that problem. I tend to agree with your assessment of “doo doo bird Bush”, however, regardless of what he is or what we think of him or his Administration the US still faces an enemy who poses an existential threat to it. This will remain so whether he is impeached or not. To fight this enemy, I would begin by increasing the size and strength of the military. I would enhance border security and I would implement a more sensible immigration policy. Also, I would open up all of domestic oil and supplies for drilling. In addition, I would implement tough fuel efficiency standards. Fianlly, I would withdraw from Iraq without delay. The American people are unwilling to support our continued involvement there. We need to take whatever time this will buy us to strengthen our military so we are ready for them when they try to attack the “Great Satan.” If I’m wrong about them and they don’t attack, then we have a strong military deterent against anyone who would consider attacking us!!

Roderick: How long do you believe it will take to obtain this goal and how much money do you think the American taxpayers are willing to spend to accomplish the unrealistic goal?

B. Poster: It is going to be very difficult to root out Iran’s influence. The best we may be able to do is to contain it in much the same way that we contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Roderick: So the only way to ‘contain’ Iran would be to leave U.S. troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely, correct?

B. Poster: Whether Bush has played politics with the military or not does not alter the fact that the US faces an enemy who poses an existential threat to it.

Roderick: The question that never gets discussed is how do we fight this threat. Unfortunately you right-wing types believe military action is the one and only answer to each and every sitution although terrorism is asymetrical warfare.

Even doo-doo bird Bush got it right when he said we were going to have to fight a different type of war–but he decided to fight it the same way previous conflicts have been fought.

B. Poster: I also agree that the size of the military should be increased. I don’t think 96,000 is nearly enough. I think we should go on a war footing simillar to the mobilization we did for WWII. Even if these additional troops are not used in Iraq, they will likely be needed somewhere. They will probably be needed for homeland defense.

Roderick: Would you support a return of the draft because that is the only way you could get that amount of troops you want for all of these missions?

B. Poster:When the Democrats voted to confirm General Petraeus they should have known full well what his strategy would be. An anti-war position is an honorable one, however, the way the Democrats have gone about it is questionable.

Roderick: HUH?
They gave Bush the man he wanted and even Patraeus said that the surge had ONLY a 1-in-4 shot of working. The Iraq appropriation bill the House passed set a withdrawal deadline for August 31, 2008 and the Senate passed a Spring 2008 withdrawal deadline. If Patraeus can’t make the ’surge’ work given over a year then maybe he wasn’t right man for the job.