Neatly said. Play-acting is right. When told more troops would be needed by a guy that knew better, Bush fired him. When told it would cost more than $20 billion, Bush fired him. When told many times and in many ways they were cocking things up, they screamed “unpatriotic”. The only thing they never did was fight this war like a war. They did exactly what they accused Democrats of doing in Vietnam. They let politics affect the commitment. Face it, if you meant to subjugate and hold a country of this size, you raise an army to do it. Not play soldier without enough of our troops. It’s more than a disgrace, its treason.

These guys are fools. Leave it to a woman to sort things out: an orderly training mission followed by withdrawal.

That’s what will happen in 2009. And this Administration, for all of American history, will be branded for the incompetent, trigger-happy cowboy chicken-hawks they all were. Just pathetic.

There’s many problems in life with no good solutions– Just bad solutions, and worst solutions. I just said something that a long time ago should have been obvious to all those nuts on the extreme Left, and Right that some how continue to pretend that there most be a solution to the mess Iraq if we just stay a little longer in the case of the Right, or no solution at all, and we most simply pack and go in the case of the extreme left.

To these people I say this. Republican Conservatives (the Right) . You are not looking for a solution, you are looking for an excuse not to be held accountable for your mistakes by trading the blood of our soldiers, for the time you will need not to be looked at as having supported a failure of a President. How much time? As long as it takes to pin the mess on some one else. In fact you are still doing it.

If you were true to your patriotic standards, then long ago you would have realised that the rethoric did not match the mission. That we needed a real all out effort, a National Draft, a ten fold increment of troops, an increase of taxes, a firm diplomatic D-Day to recruit Arab Nations behind us…. But you Repubnlicans were and still are just play acting. Make believe cartoon “patriots” that would have made our forefathers cringe in disgust.

As for the Democratic Extreme Left. The mess in Iraq will spread if we pack and go. That’s about the only thing Bush has said where he makes sence. Never mind that he is only repeating the very same warning that desperate people tried to make him understand before he started the war. We can’t simply pack and go because we would be living behind much more than a failed state. We will be living behind a potential, and very real Regional war that would in no time engulf us all right back in. Only this time with a problem larger than we could possibly handle. So Left extremist, your’s is not a solution– It is madness. It is compounding exponentially the mistakes of the Present Administration and all these misguided patriots that call themselves the Right.

In the end I believe the solution will have to be a loose Federal call- it- what- you- will kind of “Government. There’s some Nations like Spain for example, that have autonomous regions like the Basques in the North East, or Cataluña (Catalan) in the South East. These regions came about after a long and bloody civil war, and in the case of the Basque people is still going on (ETA Separatist)….. But Spain is a prosperous country today, that lives in peace, is united, and has one of the highest standards of living in the planet.

The Basque people have their own language, and culture, and so have the Catalans. If you go to these regions you will find yourself looking at people that not only speaks Spanish as a second language, but you’ll see Spaniards forced to understand Catalan for example because most road signs are in Catalan. But Catalans and Basques do consider themselves 100% Spaniards.

This peaceful coexistence comes with maturity, and maturity comes with time. Our Army can be used to patrol endlessly, and die endlessly, and be used as an al-quaida recruiting tool endlessly— Or it can be used to support this kind of change in a more father-to-son role, rather than the baby sitting role it has now.

So yes, we need to be in Iraq for the duration and support the Iraqi people, but we need to stop our Army from beeing misused as it has so shamelessly been misused. And yes we need to drastically change not only our policies in Iraq, but the way we see the world.

There is no more ignorant people about the world that we the American people, even tough we are the only world’s superpower. That needs to change or we will make the same mistake again with some future “Bush the incurious”— We are going to be paying for his “incuriosity” for a long, long time. Thank you very much Republicans.

We’ll remember it in 2008. Next time pick some one that knows more than to light a good BBQ fire– The Middle East was a very bad place to play with matches guys.

AND WE TOLD YOU SO.

So in your small way, you helped make the mess we are in now.

For Paul and others who have never visited here or who are not that familiar with this site, I have gone over many, many options discussing and debating the pros and cons over the last two years – ever since it became obvious that we had to leave Iraq.

Excellent. Glad to see at least one republican has turned to this page.

The argument I am hearing from some is that because the Iraq War has been one clusterfu**k after another, the current strategy is bound to fail also.

Keep in mind, there is no new strategy. That’s why the current strategy is bound to fail, because it’s more of the same of what has happened all along. Oh, it has some new buzzwords (”the surge”, etc), but you’re forgetting that BushCo has a never-ending supply of new buzzwords (”stay the course”, “stand up/stand down”, etc) to describe the same ‘ol same ‘ol, which has never been different from what came before.

Of course, Bush does in fact have a new strategy, one that Patraeus didn’t go into. It’s to stave off an open admission of failure long enough that he can get out of office and the whole thing can be blamed on a democrat. That is Bush’s singular focus regarding the war.

But the difference over just the last 90 days (and anyone who judges the success or failure of a military strategy after only 3 months is a peawit) is significant enough that at the very least we should give Petraeus and the Iraqi government a chance to continue making progress.

The surge was announced in January and began shortly thereafter. That’s more than 90 days on my calendar.

However, regardless of how long it’s been, if there had been progress, it might be prudent to wait and see where that progress might go. Trouble is, there has not been progress. Patraeus’ claims were nothing more than a bad sales job.

For example, Patraeus was asked why his outlook was so much rosier than the outlook of the GAO and Jones reports. His claim was that those reports did not include August’s numbers.

What were August’s numbers? Well, the Pentagon just came out with a report that noted that “the security environment” took “a notable turn for the worse in August.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Signed-Version-070912.pdf

Can you understand how Patraeus can be called a traitor? The American public are looking to him to provide an unvarnished view of what’s going on in Iraq, and all we get is Bush spin. That is true betrayal.

Granted, it’s reasonable to expect that a military surge would have some positive effects on the level of violence, if only short-term. And if that were the goal of the surge, we might say we’re getting somewhere. But that’s not the goal of the surge. The surge’s goal was to create an environment where political progress could take place. According to Patraeus and Crocker, as well as everyone else, that has not happened, and shows no signs of happening in the foreseeable future. Therefore, by its own standards as set by Bush, the surge is doomed to failure. The sooner we all accept this and do what needs to be done given this reality, the better.

I realize that US prestige and credibility will take a major hit for this. However, Rick, you have to understand that our prestige and credibility are in the toilet as a result of the Iraq disaster. Admitting our mistake and working to rectify the situation will actually enhance our credibility. Holding the Bush Administration accountable will enhance our prestige, and signal to our erstwhile allies that we have returned to sanity and the rule of law, and can now return to the dinner table.

On the other hand, Republican prestige and credibility will be doomed. That is what fuels this argument.

The partition idea may be the quick and dirty solution. It would help Iran the most I guess but I would support it if the humanitarian effects could be minimized.

For Paul and others who have never visited here or who are not that familiar with this site, I have gone over many, many options discussing and debating the pros and cons over the last two years - ever since it became obvious that we had to leave Iraq. The argument I am hearing from some is that because the Iraq War has been one clusterfu**k after another, the current strategy is bound to fail also.

Everyone knows that the surge is taking place in something of a vacuum because of the lack of political progress made by the sectarian gang that runs Iraq at present. But the difference over just the last 90 days (and anyone who judges the success or failure of a military strategy after only 3 months is a peawit) is significant enough that at the very least we should give Petraeus and the Iraqi government a chance to continue making progress.

For the record, I have no illusions about making Iraq anything except a barely functioning state with a chance at survival. It’s not much but I still say it is better than catastrophe - which still might happen but the chance of which would have been reduced.

This is what we are reduced to; staving off total disaster. Anything is better than that including staying in Iraq for another 18-24 if necessary to create the conditions I described above.

This has nothing to do with Bush, with party or ideology. It has everything to do with salvaging something from the huge mistakes and blunders committed over the last 4 years.

What are some of the options? The most obvious is partitioning, although I don’t know if that would really work.

Yes, partition is an option with growing popularity. However, that option wouldn’t necessarily be all puppydogs and roses either. Look at the partition of India, entailing the world’s largest human migration in history and untold nasty bloodshed. That conflict still rages. They’re fighting over beautiful places like Kashmir, which has historically been coveted by India’s rulers. However, the Iraqis would be fighting over oil, which could get a lot nastier.

I’m thinking something short of partition, but a solution where the regions of Iraq have substantial independence, such as the Kurds have had for some years. Ethnic separation between Shia, Sunni and Kurd, and then a centrally-administered government that divides up the oil revenue.

Of course, such a solution would require a lot of agreement in a place where such agreement is pretty hard to come by.

I do agree with most of what you say. Buy you sound angry, and altough God knows you have every right to be angry after the kind of criminal “Leadership” we have had on Iraq—It’s time for focusing on the task of getting our fellow Americans out of Iraq with the honor they deserve.

Agreed on all counts. Yes, I am angry, just as anyone would be when a completely preventable, foreseeable disaster occurs. What makes me angry is that the very culprits of this disaster continue to preen on their abysmal failure as if it were success, and cast their opponents as childish and rash (a claim that requires a complete inability to detect irony).

If the 25%ers in this country can let go of this self-defeating strategy, we can get down to the serious business of cutting our losses and doing what’s right by our military, which has been horribly abused. Not to mention the American and Iraqi people at large.

If our new leader combines these words with deeds, and with a 100 % political commitment so horrible lacking from this administration, there might be a chance yet to salvage some sence of accomplishment from the sad mess Bush made of Iraq.

Yes! And I agree with the direction of your stated solution. It makes me sick that we’re left to squabble over such a collection of bad outcomes, but as a result of 6+ years of republican rule, that’s where we are. Let’s hope our country doesn’t feel the need to repeat this disastrous chapter in our history.

There’s work to be done, and the work will not be done by extremist any more.

That depends on how you look at it. A solution where the US pulls out of Iraq without accomplishing any of the objectives sought by the war’s neoconservative architects (permanent military bases for staging further Middle East conquest, etc) might be considered very extreme by some people. This is not for the timid and will certainly require a fight, to peel the neocon fingers off their coveted prize for which our military has sacrificed so much on their behalf.

However, I agree that extreme, polarizing views need to give way to facts on the ground. For that very reason, the republicans (who have never had much time for the facts when it comes to Iraq) need to be completely marginalized in formulating a new policy.

What are some of the options? The most obvious is partitioning, although I don’t know if that would really work. But if politics around this issue could be diminished, I bet the real experts who understand the region could come up with some interesting ideas.

Unfortunately,both sides are very bitter about the burnt earth politics surrounding this issue. I’m still so pissed off for being called names when I predicted to everybody I could talk to what would and has happened if we invaded Iraq without real planning and true support from the world, that it’s hard for me to be rational about this.

It’s an ugly situation.

I do agree with most of what you say. Buy you sound angry, and altough God knows you have every right to be angry after the kind of criminal “Leadership” we have had on Iraq– It’s time for focusing on the task of getting our fellow Americans out of Iraq with the honor they deserve.

Soon Bush will be just a a bad memory in the history of our country. And I have to tell you, a probable Democratic President will have his/her hands full in Iraq, not to mention the Republicans demanding results (finally) , not talk of progress.

If the next President is wise, he/she will forget the “base” demands, and do the right thing for the American people, but most importantly for the American soldiers. And in my humble opinion, doing the right thing starts from taking responsability and saying “I, the President as your Leader do take upon the task to resolve the problem that was allways a political problem, and therefore for politicians to resolve” “I will not allow the loss of the life of one more American soldier if all politicians American and Iraqi are not fully 110% commited to compromise” And in order for this words not to be just another empty promise, and in order for politicians to for once sit down and do what’s right for their people” I plage that our Army will sit down on the side lines until a compromise is reached” We Americans need to understand the limit of our power, and what can, and can’t be done with our Army”.

If our new leader combines these words with deeds, and with a 100 % political commitment so horrible lacking from this administration, there might be a chance yet to salvage some sence of accomplishment from the sad mess Bush made of Iraq.

There’s work to be done, and the work will not be done by extremist any more.

I think ultimately, the improvement in security will come from political progress – we all know that.

We do? I must have missed a memo. Last I’d heard, a successful political process was meant to come from an improvement in security, not the other way around. Anyhow, it didn’t happen, did it? I can see how moving the goalposts is an irresistible temptation at this point, but it doesn’t do much for your credibility. Just sayin’.

It would be “ok to leave” once the Iraqis are responsible for their own security.

And how would that be determined? I know! How about if we just ask the Iraqis if they want us to leave, and if they say yes, then we’re outta there?

Oh…wait…

btw- I think it more than likely that two years from now, we will have less than 50,000 men in Iraq anyway.

Wait, I know how this song goes. It starts with that line about “greeted as liberators,” goes through a stanza about finding WMDs, mentions something about Iraq paying for the war with oil revenue, and includes a chorus where the insurgents are in their last throes.

In a nutshell, what a republican predicts will happen in Iraq in the future is about the most worthless piece of information available.

As far as numbers of dead, who knows? As few as possible obviously.

Spoken as someone who is certain that none of the dead will be anyone he cares about. Ah, compassionate conservatism, you gotta love it.