An understatement of classic proportions! If we are guessing, then I will take the current situation, where we are running the Insurgents out of ammo, our nation is not being attacked directly, and there is some hope of controlling Iraq, and putting Iran on notice that we aren’t far away with a goodly force and airbases. Withdraw and it is indeed anyone’s guess as to the ultimate outcome. Reeinforce our troops and it makes things a lot more difficult for the insurgents all around. Further, I like the idea of having a strong force next to Syria, just in case they get ambitious in the near term. I also like the idea of putting it to the Iraqi by saying you can have your government and your oil, but only if you comply fully with our agreements. Otherwise we will indeed turn things around into a full occupation and seize the oil fields.

Benevolence does not work with Islamists, but force does. I agree that the current Islamist government is playing a friendly charade with us, just waiting till they can gain sufficient power to throw us out. We should disabuse them of this notion by declaring that we will be in Iraq until we deem it fit for us to leave, so you have the choice of insurrection or full cooperation; take your pick. We put a delay in their sovereignty for our purposes, not theirs.

The whole strategic idea is to split the ME Islamic nations geographically, isolate Iran, and kill as many Islamofascists as show up for the war–over there–and with Iraqi help. The terrorists should have to battle their way into Iraq, not stream through the porous borders with Syria and Iran. As someone said, insurgents get tired of war, their base dwindles, and their opposition grows, given enough time. We need a few years with the illusion strongly built that we can stay as long as necessary.

Obviously, the nation needs to get behind this push, or it will not succeed. We, as a people, have not been put to the question properly, but I believe it could happen, if not right now, then after the 2008 elections. The people do not know what the real stakes are in Iraq, nor do they remember the commitments we have made to the Iraqi.

Perhaps it is true that only one of two things could mobilize the nation behind the war: 1) another attack of serious proportions in the US; or an Iranian adventure that becomes a cause for war, like their attempt to capture some of our troops once more.

There is a third possibility, which has many ramifications. We suddenly attack Iran’s air defenses and communications/command and control points, and then their nuclear facilities from the air. This has been expected by some, including me, in early 2008. The “Surge” fits that pattern closely, as more and more troops are eased into Iraq under that rubric, not only to further subdue Iraq, to cover for the loss of Brits in Basra, but also to face Iran with significant additional forces.

Given that Iran retaliates, we are launched into yet another, much larger, phase of the ME war. We then must look to our backs in Iraq!

That is one reason for not executing this attack until 08. We need the time to build up our forces, both at home and in Iraq, with stocks of weapons, vehicles, and the training of new troops. There might be an urgent campaign this Summer/Fall to prepare the public for this new phase of the war, as well as a call for mobilization of reserves and a draft.

The other reason to wait might be to give the opposition in Iran a year or so to do something significant.

This would present the new President, from whichever party, with an on-going war, but after major damage to the Iranian’s nuclear capability has been accomplished. The Bush saga ends there.

So I am guessing too!

It’s their discipline in NOT having attacked us yet.

But since you seem to know everything, maybe you can enlighten the rest of us as to why our avowed enemy hasn’t struck our homeland again in any meaningful way.

I’m guessing they made a poltical calculation that it is better to have us in Iraq with world opinion against the US than to drum up the type of sympathy and national unity that existed after 9/11.

Why have the entire country howling for blood again when their objectives of drawing us further into a generational fight seems to be working?

And besides, when it comes to barrrom boasts, you could probably coast of the 9/11 attacks for quite sometime before anyone tops you.

A landmark erased, 3,000 dead, trillions in economic damage, plus the US Army bogged down in two wars, 3500 KIA, 24,000 wounded, and they just have to wait out the corrupt Iraqi government’s collapse on its own.

Why would they have to attack us again?

Not me. I think they can reach an accord as they have in the past once the occupation forces have left. Not instantly and not perfectly but certainly not until then.

“You rarely see the radical anti-war left spewing their bile and venom about the daily atrocities committed by Muslim fundamentalists around the world and particularly in Iraq except for some obligatory condemnation of a particularly heinous beheading like what happened to Danny Pearl or David Berg.”

Not that I’m radical left, but what’s the point? Once you’ve made it clear that you don’t think that blowing up busses full of children is acceptable, and that those who perpetrate these acts are evil, what are you supposed to say?

They aren’t going to listen to us anyway. On the other hand, in a democracy we might actually have a chance at changing the war-happy attitudes that we have at home.

“C’mon, Bush equals Hitler? 9/11 was an inside job? No War For Oil? All killing is the same?”

1) No he isn’t, but he’s certainly an authoritarian power grabber. I hope you like it when a Dem president wields all these surveillance, detention without trial, excecutive secrecy, unitary executive powers. He’s hardly enhanced American democracy has he?

2) Yeah, well, conspiracies are as they do.

3) No, obviously oil had nothing to do with this war. Obviously. Our leaders were surprised to find ll this black stuff, that is vital to national security and while is being increasingly bought up by rival great powers, under their feet when they liberated the Iraqi people. To my mind saying “This war wasn’t about oil” makes about as much sense as saying “9/11 was an inside job”. It just contradicts blatantly obvious reality.

4) All killing is the same? It feels that way when it is your family being killed which is why it doesn’t matter whether the civvy was killed as part of a murder campaign or by indifference. It all end up being blamed on the occupation. Yes, it is unfair but it is how it works.

I didn’t make any predictions regarding the war beyond “It is going to be a bad day to be a Republican guard” and a rather childish memory of the reasons why we didn’t invade Iraq after the Gulf War. They still held.

“”And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?

And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

All of a sudden you’ve got a battle you’re fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques,

Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.”"

Dick Cheney 1992. He was right then…

However it is strange that you claim millions fo refugees and mass shortages of food and potable water as failed predictions.

Lincoln would not have been re-elected if he did not produce some victories before the election. If we were still in North Africa and the edge of the Pacific after four years of war Roosevelt would not have been elected again. The Kaiser was overthrown by a war weary Germany. Constant warfare with few results puts you out of office. Rick is right, this will not go on indefinitely, right or wrong or deluded or farsighted or whatever reason you want to use there is no longer the political will to continue. That is a basic fact the Republican party has to contend with.

The Democrats on the other hand are ignoring the consequences of withdrawal, somehow wishfully thinking that once we are gone somehow everything will magically turn out OK, or at least hoping the resulting chaos will some how not come back on us. Just pulling out means millions of deaths and a regional war, the left can’t be concerned about Africa but turn their back Iraq and have any intellectual consistency.

So what to do? In the Kurdish territories the national flag is not shown, and they are not interested in getting involved in the Sunni/Shiite civil war. Sunnis, many of them Ba’athists, have made it clear they don’t want to live under a Shiite government. There have been enough deaths that I don’t see the possibility of reconciliation. There are no good choices here, only the lesser of many evils choices. A Federal system where the major groups can be ruled, and policed by, their own people is about the only solution I can see. Separate the groups, even pay people to relocate, and let them deal with the factions within their own sects and hopefully be so involved internally they leave each other alone. The discovery of oil in Anbar gives each group access to the precious juice and eliminates the problem of revenue sharing.

But what about AQ? In Anbar the Anbar Salvation Council has taken on AQ, and I see that happening elsewhere as AQ either wears out it’s welcome or is seen as outsiders that are meddling in local affairs. With the US gone there would be no reason for them to be there and most of the Sunnis have no desire to live under their version of Islam.

A loose Federation is not a perfect solution by far. There are many justifiable criticisms, for example what happens to the Kurds should PPK raids trigger a Turkish response, but by separating people at least some of the reasons for conflict go away. The internal divisions in the three groups begin to take precedence, and even the day to day problems of civil administration becomes more important than continued fighting.

It is time to stop playing the blame game and trying to determine who did what to who first, the situation is what it is and it is time to offer solutions. You may now feel free to comment and call me a moron , imbecile or what ever.

So the president HAS called for young people to join the armed forces for the sake of war, called for higher taxes on oil, and given that war footing speech? What a fool I’ve been. Surely we Democrats are doomed at the polls next year.

Your posting #26 is dead on. Thank you for an awesome expression of truth there.

I then viewed Richard’s and it became obvious that when “reason” and “clarity of thought” were being handing out, Richard was more than likely telling someone….”We told you the Earth was flat!”