For me, the idea that if we leave Iraq as anything other than a fully functioning, self-defending “sucess” is a deeply troubling position. As you noted, the tribal/ethnic strife that is present in Iraq has been there, is there, and will still be there.
We can always say “well, let’s just give it a few more years”, and then at the end of the few more years if/when the situation isn’t improved we can say “just a few more”. This war has been phrased that way for the last 5 years — just around the corner, 6 months, another 6 months, a few more, another year tops, etc.
Is it an insult to the troops that have died to leave before that “sucess”? I think that’s debatable, but its certainly a valid position. On the other side though, at what point do you cut your losses as a country? If we lose another thousand soldiers in the next few years, and we haven’t stabilized Iraq yet, then the argument starts reinforcing itself — now, we’ve got even more brave people that “sacrificed in vain”, so stopping then would be even more of an affront to their memory. Queue up the next thousand soldiers? Another thousand after that?
Like I said, I respect the idea that feeling soldiers who lose their lives “for nothing” is something to be avoided is admirable. But at what point should we, as a country, apply that to the soldiers who haven’t been killed?
I’m not saying we need to pull out today — I don’t think that’s a good idea. But I worry that “staying until the job is done” is a dangerous slope, one that may very likely cost more American lives than the final product is worth.

Bush lost both these wars years ago. We’re long past any window of opportunity we might have had to actually spread democracy through the Middle East and at this point are just hemmorhaging resources. How can you ‘win’ a war that costs you hundreds of billions of dollars and only weakens you strategically?

“How can you ‘win’ a war that costs you hundreds of billions of dollars and only weakens you strategically?”

Not much for history, are ya?

Try England after World Waqr II (or the Napoleonic Wars), France after the 7 Years War, Russia after the Sino-Japanese War, …

And Afghanistan was started by Bush? What a maroon.

ed.

Was it Ramsey Clark that voiced this stupid idea on behalf of moonbats everywhere?

This is nonsense simply because we have done nothing to alter the multiple tribes and cultures within Iraq, nor could we, and we have not been able to proof Iraq from the gentle ministrations of Iran, which means that the current Iraqi government will fall apart in a short time once we depart.

Were we to stay longer with a reasonable force, a few years more, however, there would be a better chance of a stable Iraq emerging from the chaos that is just under the surface now. We made the choice to go in; now we are making the choice to go out, I believe, before Iraq can cope effectively with its internal contradictions and external threats.

Going back into Iraq would be nearly impossible to pull off, I suggest, because it would be in the face of Iranian and AQ infiltration, support and threats, which a basically pacifist government would be reluctant to challenge yet again.

What a memorial to our casualties, and especially the deaths, and our lost treasure, in that awful place. It is the retreat that pacifists order, out of totally misguided humanitarianism.

It would appear to me that a renewed insurgency and genocide is just around the corner; say, a day after our last combat troops leave, which day, in some 16 months from now, AQ and others will have marked on their calendar in red and planned for in detail.

Oh, it isn’t our responsibility then, is it? Smacks of how we abandoned Nam,”with honor!”, refused them financial support, and turned our heads away from the communist takeover and genocides that followed in Laos, Cambodia and Nam itself.

That is the false pacifism we practice.

How do you think he will know if it’s too soon?

That’s actually a legitimate question and didn’t deserve such a jerk response. I’m certain (although not positive) Patreus and–God help us–Panetta will provide an assessment on the potential. The question will be if Obama really cares or whether he will leave troops in Iraq if such a potentiality exists. Based on left-wingers from my distant youth, the answer would be he would pull out despite the danger of genocide.

More good stuff later, busy today. No recession in my biz.
Reality check: Your career in IT
Why major in Econ? Mankiw
Brave TV. Ex-Jihadists talk about why.
Did the dinosaurs die out quickly?
The Oprahfication of Obama.
Remembering…

Hey, Einstein, maybe the mass slaughter indicates The One didn’t listen to the JCOS and intelligence services. Reckon?

Ah, well, pardon me for posing the question. So, according to you, the only way to tell if there will be mass slaughter, is if there is mass slaughter. I should have just asked you. Far be it for me to actually ponder what the intelligence services might be looking for to indicate such a thing. You’re really smart. Congratulations on that.

Chuck Tucson Said:
4:40 pm

Hey, Einstein, maybe the mass slaughter indicates The One didn’t listen to the JCOS and intelligence services. Reckon?

I served one year in 2004-2005 in Iraq training the Iraqi army and taking them on combat missions. There was lots of excitement, and I have images I will always remember. I was married and had a beautiful 2 year old daughter at home.

But, i resent my time in Bosnia a lot more. There was no American interest in going there and we were only there because Western Europe can’t get its collective head out of its butt and organize. If I had been killed in Iraq, at least my daughter would someday be able to figure out why. Had I died in Bosnia, nobody ever would have been able to explain what the heck I was doing there.