Redstate

Do you want to pull US troops out as soon as possible no matter what the situation is in Iraq? If no, then you have nothing to worry about.

We've all had various degrees of frustration with the military effort in Iraq. But the vast majority of us (us here at Redstate, that is) want to see this thing through and done right.

You don't pull a cake out of the oven until it's finished baking, or else you have a total mess. Same thing goes for pulling out of wars.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

-- to stretch the metaphor -- is that the cake is amenable to baking. But what if it is not? What if no amount of heat or time in the finest oven will result in an edible pastry?

What if, in short, it is not within our power to transform an Islamic nation into a sane democracy?

This possibility has to be considered.

____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

I also wonder if it's worth paying the price for 9 years (as suggested by General Patraeus)to find out.

At what point, is it appropriate to stop thinking in terms of victory or surrender and instead, think about what is the best practical solution?

If the stated policy of this administration, backed by the Republican party is that we need to have troops at the current level engaged in the sort of fighting we have going on now for 9 more years, then you might as well hand the entire government over to the Democrats right now.

At best for those who think we are on the right course, January 2009 will change that course in Iraq one way or the other. If we are stuck on the current path that the President has set in Iraq, and no immeasurable progress has been made by the Iraqi government to stand on it's own two feet fairly soon, then there is no doubt in mind that the American public will say "enough".

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

it's been four years, but under only one strategy. how many strategies did lincoln try before winning the civil war?

we shouldn't even be considering retreat at this point. four or five strategies and five years later, maybe we can reassess the cost.

3500 dead and four years of stupidity doesn't support giving up - esp. not when highly capable men like frederick kagan and gen. petraeus are on the job.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

If you are going to use the Civil War analogy, consider how many times federal troops retreated from a battlefield. Consider how many times Washington retreated. Or consider Dunkirk or the the Soviet retreat at the start of WWII or our defeat in the Philippines etc.

Is Iraq the entire WOT? Can we leave there without the US becoming a Muslim country? Can we lick our wounds, use what we have learned & fight another day?

You agree with the reasons we went to war? I support staying there now because it has become the front against terrorism, but the reasons we went to war turned out to be false (or exaggerated).

The extent to which Iraq possessed WMD turned out to be exaggerated. But that was not "the reason" we went to war, contrary to what was put forth for UN consumption.

There were a number of reasons, IMO, we went to war:

1) Iraq was violating the truce terms that we ended Gulf War I on- on this basis we had an obligation to end that Truce.

2) We knew Iraq had a history of pursuing WMD and that they were not cooperating with weapons inspectors, and further that they had a history of supporting terrorism and had been making multiple contacts with Al Qaeda, which although they hadn't yielded any action, could not be ignored. We ignored the writing on the wall with Afghanistan and couldn't afford to ignore the same with Iraq.

3) Unlike Iran and North Korea, we had the ability to quickly attack and defeat the Iraqi regime because their military had been weakend by sanctions and we had forces positioned to attack out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

4) Attacking Iraq would allow us to encircle and hopefully contain Iran, who would be much more difficult to invade.

5) Saudi Arabia wanted us out after 9/11 and we could not leave with Saddam in power. We should have finished the job in Gulf War I, but our hand was forced with the need to leave Saudi Arabia.

6) There was no doubt we were going to have it out with Al Qaeda after 9/11. But they wanted to have the showdown on their home turf in Afghanistan where they could hide in the mountain caves they knew well. It was a big gamble to double down and force the showdown in Iraq where the stakes would be higher and A.Q. would have less of a home field advantage, but it was a militarily rational gamble. And people who focus on the 3,500 dead US troops in Iraq ignore the fact that a number much closer than that would have died in Afghanistan if we only went in there. Iraq sucked the A.Q. oxygen out of Afghanistan.

I still believe these were all valid reasons to go into Iraq. It was a big risk, but one that we had to undertake given the circumstances.

and that is that rollback of middle eastern tyrannies and the establishment of moderate regimes would, in the long term, would destroy the terrorists in the long run without battles. the terrorists are able to recruit largely because the regimes under which they live are corrupt and oppressive.

this is a big part of why we are unseating tyrants in the middle east, perhaps the biggest part.

this rationale is certainly open to challenge, but it tries to get to the root of terrorism instead of putting a band-aid on the problem for another few years until the next attack.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

Those are all good reasons NOW, but I suspect you give this administration too much credit. You expect me to believe a leadership that couldn't even foresee events that might happen in the wars aftermath (insurgency, rebuilding problems, etc) to be keen enough to position us there for the reasons you outlined?

I have to say I am skeptical.

but I believed all those reasons in 2002-2003, I expect many others on this site did as well. All those considerations I note were apparent prior to going into Iraq.

But we don't start wars based on what misc people happen to believe. I supported the war, as many Americans did, based on the premise that Saddam was a threat (to us and Israel) because of WMD. If I thought there was not WMD there, I would not have supported it.

I know we need to stay now, but the case that was made was in retrospect, really weak.

Yes, it turned out that WMD wasn't there in any great quantity. (Whether it was there at all is still an open question). But, there were plenty of indicators before the war that it WAS there. Hence, we had to assume Saddam had it...and then ask if we wanted to risk living with a WMD-equipped Saddam.

We've been through all of this before. To say now that the case was "really weak" is pretty lame.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

To make the WMD claim on very little evidence was "lame" too.

Rudy would be one of the very last to give up on Iraq. For all his faults, John McCain would likely be there to the bitter end or close to it as well. Mitt, I don't know enough about to say. Fred would be very unlikely to give up any time soon either.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

I think the only way that we're going to have a Republican President on the afternoon of Inauguration Day, 2009, is if the eventually nominee adopts the Sarkozy strategy -- distance yourself from the incumbent President, despite the fact that he's of your own party.

In terms of the Iraq War, I think the line has to be that, "we're in a mess, the strategies used so far have abjectly failed or are too little too late, and we have to put in place a exit strategy that gets our troops out while leaving a stable, pro-Western Iraqi government in place. Because if we don't have a stable government when we leave, then in five to ten years we'll be back, and potentially ten times as many of our children will have to die as a result." Note, that this is kind of the message that Eisenhower had in terms of the Korean War, minus the back-in-ten-years part. It doesn't mean that we didn't leave a stable government behind in Seoul. But, aside from the bases that were left there, most of our troops got out.

I think that is the only strategy that works in the Presidential election. And notice, John McCain is the only major Republican candidate who has openly gotten behind the surge. I can easily see Rudy, Mitt or Thompson shifting from this position to the one they're at currently.

I just don't the anyone with an "R" beside their name is going to win the '08 Prez election as long as they support the Iraq war.

If this is the case, what do you fear more: The increased possibility of future terrorist attacks on American soil or a medium to long term Democrat majority?

...as it is fully acknowleding that the post-invasion period has failed, and saying that we need to find a way to get out while obtaining what we really need: a stable, pro-Western, Iraqi government. Because if we don't, we'll potentially be back in five to ten years, under deadlier circumstances. The left will accuse us of fear-mongering, but ultimately, it's the cold truth.

(What we really should have done from the beginning is put a strong, Pinochet-type leader in Saddam's place and acknowledge what Jeane Kirkpatrick understood so well: that right-wing authoritarian regimes eventually morph into stable democracies. Along with what I think should have been obvious things, like acknowledging that leaving three ethnic groups alone with no strong central authority could lead to a Yugoslav-type situation, not dismantling the entire army, sealing the borders so Iran and Syria have less opportunity to meddle, etc. I give Bush credit for getting the big picture largely right but the consistent short-comings on the details is disturbing. But it's too late for all that.)

In terms of your question, I fear the latter more, because I think under today's MoveOn-influenced Democratic Party, it potentially leads to the former.

Some things are too important to worry about political games.

I agree. The question is whether those "some things" consist of continued presence in Iraq, or everything else conservatives want to fight for.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

and gains a foothold there with control of the oil reserves, everything else the conservatives fight for will be in jeopardy.

Is this it? We surrender to Al Qaeda?

Maintaining our presence in Iraq, and fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here, is more important than short term political goals.

Some times you just have to take the heat and do what is right.

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

Let us say that things pan out as I have predicted. That would mean substantial withdrawal by sometime in the ballpark of March of 2008. Now let us suppose that the Republicans in question decide, in this hypothetical alternate universe, that they are going to summarily ignore the polls and stand behind the President in favor of an indefinite future presence in Iraq. In this hypothetical alternate universe, we don't get an additional 9 years, or even 2 or 3 years, of this troop level on the ground. We get nine months - from March 2008 to January 2009 - when a Democrat assumes control of the White House and pulls us out immediately.

If anyone thinks that any Republican candidate pushing for a continued presence in Iraq during the honest-to-Gosh election heat-up next October has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election, I suggest that you've either foreseen some completely unforeseeable event happening in Iraq, or that you're not connected to political reality right now.

I'm just stating what I see as reality. THe choice is not between having a chance at winning the 2008 elections and 3 or 4 more years in Iraq, it's between having a chance at winning the 2008 elections and 9 more months in Iraq. So I guess the question is whether we will be able to accomplish enough within those 9 months to make it worth it.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Who said that this is the choice Republicans have to make? The surge is temporary, and is intended to bring more security to the capitol so that a political solution is more possible. Also important is working along side the Iraqi army in order to train them to take over more responsibility.

This current strategy has just started and we have troops in the middle of a major offensive. Is it too much to ask to have the Senators wait 2 (two) TWO months to see how the strategy is working? At that point we can see how things are and decide how to move forward.

I do not support an indefinite future presence in Iraq, but I think it is irresponsible to declare the surge a failure before it has a chance to get going. I also thing some thought must be given to the consequences of pulling out too quickly and what it would mean to the country.

And when the bombs start going off here, nightly, in 2009, let the Dems explain how pulling all of our forces out of the Middle East and Afghanistan was a good idea.

Sometimes, you have to lose one election so you can win the next 10.

If Republican fingerprints are anywhere on withdrawing from Iraq, I think this Party will never be viable again.

I, for one, will no longer be a member if it continues to play out the way it's been playing out...

If the Republican Senate caves on Iraq, and the terrorist network takes over that country for use as a staging ground for exporting their terrorism, the Democrats will have succeeded once again in giving themselves cover to abandon Iraq. The MSM will blame Bush and the Senate Republicans who caved. It will be a very long time before we have a majority in the Senate again, no matter what other conservative principles and ideas we campaign on.

Worse, our friends and allies around the world will never again trust us to stay the course, or even to begin one. Why should they?

Let's see what Senators are willing to put their principles, for which they voted to go into Iraq, ahead of their polital ambitions in the next election. As you said, sometimes, you have to lose one election so you can win the next 10.

By most counts there are a few thousand AQ fighters in Iraq. But let's assume it's at least 500 times more than that which would presumably be the minimum they would need to control the oil fields and divert the money away from Iraqi needs towards their Jihad against America. How long do you think it would take to bomb the oilfields?

What we need to be concerned about with AQ funding is the heroin crop in Afghanistan which was recently a record crop (thus presumably a record funding year for AQ).

fighters to maintain what they have been doing, begin to infiltrate the government, sow the seeds of dissent among the general Iraqi population, and harken their fellow jihadists into Iraq. And tell me who is going to bomb the Iraqi oil fields. Since our departure, as advocated now by Domenici, Lugar, Warner, and others, would have created this untenable situation, what Senators, let alone the general public, would have the stomach for such bombings. That's just whistling Dixie. These Senators need to examine their conscience and put their ambitions aside, even if it means later defeat at the polls. That would be real leadership.

We lost Rick Santorum last year because he refused to abandon his conservative principles for the sake of an election. He may have made other mistakes in his campaign, but he was true to his conscience. We need more like him in the Senate.

Some people would rather be dead than be under long term Democrat (socialist) majorities.

I'm not a big fan of France... be there done that.

But I'd gladly take France over the graveyard.

I'd rather be free than "safe" personally.

From what I understand, Petraeus expected that he had until September to show progress. It appears now that Domenici doesn't want to wait that long.

Do you think we conservatives should be understanding of Domenici's and Lugar's choice to throw this PR stink bomb now, as our surge is in the midst of full execution?

Personally, I don't. I think Lugar and Domenici richly deserve whatever criticism we throw at them. And, if they really DID do this for domestic political reasons, then may they be primaried and forced from office. IMO.

This is an important discussion to have---is the war in Iraq worth imperiling the overall conservative position in American government? (I hope I've defined that correctly---if not, please clarify). As for me, a retired citizen soldier, the answer is NO. For, if today's conservatism can't survive the strain of a war which, arguably, isn't straining our country very much at all, then today's conservatism is IMO too brittle to be viable.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Ditto for Lugar and "impeach Bush" Hagel.

Getting your Iraq analysis from the front page of the NYT is utterly, absolutely inexcusable for an elected person, and triply so for an elected Republican.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Why did he not do this on May 1st or June 1st. The general thought he had at least until September so he started major operations in mid-June. But now, just when the military gets started on its operations, these guys pop up and pull support from the strategy, pulling the rug out from General Petraeus just as he begins his plan. They knew what his views were. Why did they vote for him, and then turn and stab him in the back just as he leaves the starting line?

Whether you agree with the current strategy or not, the timing of this STINKS!

Some things are too important to worry about political games.

That's the Bush Administration's mistake, thinking politics can be ignored. Winston Churchill knew better, spending much of his time rallying the country behind the troops. The Democrats know better, that's why they spent tens of billions of dollars in a four year campaign to smear the war.

Bush ignored politics, so the Democrats won both house of Congress. Bush continued to ignore politics so now a majority of both houses voted against the war. If he keeps ignoring politics and refuses to defend the war, then he will lose a 2/3 majority, either now or after the next election, when more pro-war politicians are knocked out of power.

How could anyone think a multi-decade "war on terror" could be won without the support of the people?

--

You are 150% correct.

Our history has several examples of "optional wars" that ended due to lack of continued popular suppport.

now, right? Your point is well taken that, so far, we haven't fought the good political fight on behalf of this war.

But that doesn't mean that the President---with support from the rest of us---shouldn't start now.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

a lot of options here. And none of them are good.

I honestly don't think the surge is working. And I've ALWAYS questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq. I think it is clear that Bush and Cheney had no idea of what they were getting into.

Regardless, in a democracy (or republic if you want to be stickers) politicians can only swim against the tide for so long. And a large majority of Americans wanting out of Iraq, so Republicans are simply going to either have to choose between staying in Iraq and surrendering all political power to the Democrats. I don't know about you, but I really don't want the Democrats to hold the Presidency, and the House and have only 39 R senators. If that happens, it will be far worse than just socialized medicine.

I honestly don't think the surge is working. Good for you, Nostradamus. The surge started June 19.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Have you read Michael Yon? He is there on the ground with the troops and he has many positive things to report about the surge. There is a plan and it takes time just like any engagement. To declare the surge a failure after a couple of weeks is ridiculous and irresponsible.

Give it a chance to work and turn security over to the Iraqis.

I think I was pretty clear that I wasn't basing this on anything, and that includes any communication with SSB or other staff, or even staffers for other Senators. He's not discussed the matter with me, nor has anyone else in the campaign, and I've not asked.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

How many times did we hear that in the past year? But now Lugar, Domenici, and others do not want to wait to hear from the generals who are on the ground in Iraq. From the safety of their armchairs in DC, they second guess the general in the field.

They claim they've "studied" the situation in Iraq, but rarely give details of what they've studied. They claim the surge isn't working, but the surge itself is only a few weeks old. The troop buildup to the surge wasn't the military action itself.

I'm old enough to remember the pullout from Vietnam and the shameful pictures of helicopters lifting off from the US Embassy roof in Saigon, with desperate people clinging to the bottom rails. And the Vietnamese who worked with the US either summarily executed or sent to concentration camps for re-education. And Vietnamese refugees crossing the seas in rickety boats, risking Thai pirates and the Communist patrols to get to freedom.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

The previous is from the most recent dispatch from Michael Yon. A must read.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

then "conservatism," as it now stands, is too brittle to stand on its own. Best then for this version to come crashing down, so something stronger can be built to replace it.

Again, more on this later.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

This might shock you, but there are more important things than victory in Iraq (whatever that means).

I don't think that our present poilicy in Iraq has much to do with traditional political conservatism. The American public is not going to spend indefinite amounts of blood and treasure on vague concepts of victory, and Republicans are not going to sacrifice everything to make Bush look competent.

as important as the consequences of failure in Iraq.

Failure would strengthen AQ, the enemy we are fighing.

It would lead to failure in Afganastan

If the region fell into chaos, it would have serious affects on the oil supply from the region and thus the economy of our country and of the world.

This is very serious for the security of this nation and we can not ignore it.

The American public is not going to spend indefinite amounts of blood and treasure on vague concepts of victory.

If you go to the Multinational Forces Iraq website, you won't have to look hard to find what GEN Petraeus defines "victory" as: an Iraq that can govern itself, can protect itself and does not threaten its neighbors. Now, the MNF-I endstate includes other goals for Iraq (e.g., a democratic country, which respects the rights of all its citizens). But, I suspect that if our efforts create an Iraq that can govern itself and doesn't threaten its neighbors, most Americans will view that as an acceptable, and easy-to-comprehend, "victory."

and Republicans are not going to sacrifice everything to make Bush look competent.

Oh please. We're only doing this out of fealty to Dubya. Try harder.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

GEN Petraeus defines "victory" as: an Iraq that can govern itself, can protect itself and does not threaten its neighbors

I reject those goals utterly. They are vague, non-military goals which are Iraq's responsibility, not ours. They have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, the war on terror, or Al Qaeda. They have nothing to do with the defense of the United States of America.

A date should be set, not to withdraw our troops, but to fully turn the defense of Iraq over to the Iraqis. It should be a public date in the near future. Each of the Iraqi factions can do whatever they want, before or after that date, and we will respond however we choose. However, we will once again be fighting only for the United States, not for Iraq. Our military should only be given clear, achievable, military missions.

Whatever happens with Iraqi internal politics, we can handle it. We have dealt with evil dictatorships and enemies torn apart by civil war throughout our history. We gave Iraq a democracy and a chance to defend itself; what they do with it is their problem.

What is allowed to happen in those countries can have a major impact on the security of this nation.

If that country is allowed to descend into chaos and AQ gains a foothold that can have major implications to the security and economy of this country. Like it or not, the stability of that region is vitally important to this nation and to our allies. What happens in that section of the world is not just Iraq's problem.

Is Afghanistan important, or should we leave there as well. Because if AQ sees us run from this fight, then they will follow the same model and push us from Afghanistan.

If it is not worth fighting AQ in Iraq, then why fight them in Afghanistan?

We did leave Afghanistan. The Afghans quickly formed a unified government and we turned most of the fighting over to it. Even during the initial liberation, Afghan groups like the Northern Alliance fought and bled side by side with us. The US turned military support duties for Afghanistan over to NATO.

The Iraqis could have done the same thing, but they chose not to. The Iraqis had exactly the same support that the Afghans did, including US military presence. Yet the Iraqis choose not to unify, and to instead prepare for civil war.

Afghanistan is proof that we are not the solution in Iraq. We did the same thing is both cases. The difference is what the two countries decided to do.

every day thru yesterday since we got there.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

to my son at a fire base somewhere in the Kandahar area. Talked to him this week; people are still shooting at them, and they are shooting back. And you don't even want to get him started on what he thinks of either the Afghan military or our NATO allies.

In Vino Veritas

There's not a single word in your comment that is accurate. Not one. How stunningly pathetic your knowledge of current events is.

Wow. I'd allow my mind to be blown, but would it do any good? I fear that far too many Americans - due in part to the we're-losing-no-matter-what media, and in other part to the communications-challenged administration - are a pathetically ignorant or misguided on Afgh. and Iraq as you are.

As scary as that is.

No one opposes fighting AQ in Iraq. But President Bush changed the goals of the war into the vague nation building that was quoted earlier in this thread. He is trying to use our military to make the Iraqis love each other. The argument is that if keep the peace long enough by standing between the Sunnis and Shiites who are shooting at each other, that eventually the Iraqis might decide they love each other and choose peace.

One of the biggest obstacles to staying in Iraq is pro-military people. They are taking an all or nothing attitude that if change the scope of the war at all, that is "losing". So they won't go back to the original scope of the war, which was to defend the United States, and won't agree to use Special Forces exclusively in Iraq, like we do in other countries.

The result of both sides digging their heels in, arguing for the extreme, is that eventually we might have to pull out of Iraq entirely. That's not what most people want, but it seems like we might never get the option to fix the war.

Sorry Wu, but who's asking you? When you become President, you get to pick the generals.

Read the MNF-I home page---you'll find plenty of concrete and achievable goals. And, if you think Iraq's becoming a failed state won't affect American security, or the security of our interests overseas, then you're (to put it mildly) flat out wrong.

But, go ahead and quit if you want. We'll soldier on without you.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

"GEN Petraeus defines "victory" as: an Iraq that can govern itself, can protect itself and does not threaten its neighbors."

These are political, not military goals. These goals require the complete support of American voters/taxpayers, and the entire U.S. Government, not just the U.S. armed forces. But, even with such U.S. effort, they are un-achievable, without the fullest cooperation of the Iraqis.

At this juncture, there appears some doubts about complete support from either the Americans or Iraqis. Are there any strategies to change this situation?

They are political goals. Both the President and Gen Petraeus have said for a long time that this is not just a military operation, it is also economic and political. Gen Patraeus stressed that the ultimate solution is a political one, but the military portion was vital in order to provide the security necessary in order for the government to stabilize. There was no way for the different factions of the government to come together while there was so much chaos and violence in sections of the country. They are working on the security issue now making sure to train the Iraqis to take over. They were not strong enough as of yet.

There has been movement this week on the hydrocarbon law. We will see if they continue to move forward.

We'll soldier on without you.

No, I don't think so. Our soldiers will be given a military mission or brought home.

Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-
Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-
Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-
Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-
Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-
Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-Blood and Treasure-

I just never get tired of hearing it!

__________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

Does anyone really believe that Al Qaeda could win in Iraq, even if we pulled out entirely? A few dozen rag tag foreign terrorists could control a country of over 25 million people?

AQ is a bunch of losers who don't hold territory any where on earth. Everyone who ever lived under their rule turned against them. AQ has killed some civilians, but so could any criminal or psychopath.

AQ hasn't been able to control the parts of Iraq where they aren't wanted, Shiite and Kurdish turf, so I can't imagine why anyone would think they could conquer the whole of Iraq, or even stay on Sunni soil once they are told to leave.

Especially if we are seen as surrendering to this bunch of losers. They did fine in Afganistan for years. No one threw them out and they used it as a base to attack us.

They also held areas of Iraq using these tactics:

"At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family."

Imagine if we surrender to such people.

If we leave, we leave behind a Shiite majority, armed and trained by the US, funded and supported by Iran against AQ.

AQ is already on the run from Sunni Militias - they only thing keeping them alive is the anti-occupation feeling and the half-measures of our military.

We leave, the Shiite gloves come off and AQ blood will be running in the streets.

turned on Al Qaeda because of efforts of our military and our leaders in those areas. If we leave, they will fear the Shiites and return to Al Qaeda for protection like they did before. If you notice, before we went in and cleaned up areas like Anbar, Al Qaeda was doing just fine.

And their position will be greatly strengthened if they can gloat that they forced us out.

That sounds like a possible scenario.

Ultimately, I think the democratic government will fall apart and there will be civil war until a strong man comes to power.

The story is obviously false. But it does make the point of why this is Iraq's fight, not ours. If the Iraqis were truly so spineless that they didn't fight back even when their children were slaughtered in front of their eyes, then someone would conquer them quickly, even if AQ didn't exist. Survival of the fittest.

I say let's face it: we can't keep fighting Iraq's battles forever. We've already been fighting their fights for four years. Even if we stayed over there another 10 years the day would come when the Iraqis needed to stand up for themselves instead of hiding behind us. Eventually what happens in Iraq will be their choice, not ours.

There have been many gruesome stories coming out of areas once under control of AQ. Many have film footage. So the fight against AQ is strictly an Iraqi fight?

These Iraqi families, women and children were too spineless to fight back? With what? Are these villagers armed and trained to fight armed and trained terrorists. Survival of the fittest? You are cold.

Not of this boy, but of beheaded children? Michael Yon, who borke this story, also posted one about an entire village being wiped out by al Qaeda. He took pictures as the villagers were dug up. Even the animals were slaughtere. Google "Bless the Beasts and Children" and you'll find it.

In Fallujah, they killed children, stuffed the bodies with explosives, and when the parents approached, blew up the bodies and the parents, as a warning to anyone who would oppose them.

because they know that most Americans would not approve of surrendering to such terrorists, so the Americans who want to surrender don't want Al-Qaeda and their crimes mentioned. They want everyone to believe that Iraq is in a big civil war that will end as soon as we leave, that's the same lies they used to defeat us in Vietnam. Nothing the Communists did was ever wrong, everything the American military did was always wrong.

Problems with this story:

Islam forbids cannibalism. Al Qaeda would lose face by defying Allah.

The story says nothing about the families defying or resisting AQ before the murders. This brutality, the murder of an innocent child from an innocent family, would turn Muslims against AQ.

Families and clans are obligated to revenge. A situation like this, where a child was slaughtered without any provocation, would leave no option.

The amazing coincidence that each family had an 11 year old son.

It would take forever for AQ to slaughter the first born of each family in Iraq.

First AQ practices its own form of Islam. Whatever they do is accepted.

Many of the things the Nazis did turned the Jews against the nazis, but they were still slaughtered. Many muslims have been turned against AQ, but when they have the weapons and you don't, they win.

Families and clans are obligated to revenge? How many of those clans exacted revenge against Saddam? Very few, because if they did, they would have been wiped out. If they have the weapons and you don't there is not much you can do.

And no, the story did not say that every family had an 11 year old son. They just need to set examples.

It is from Michael Yon who is actually there on the ground with the troops.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

and he took control of the country and ran it for a long, long time; as the piles of bodies in the mass graves and the rape rooms will attest, even if the MSM will not. So, yes, they can. And from there they will have the oil revenue (sold to the feckless Europeans who are already comprimised) to build the mechanisms to bring their attack here to the mainland. Only by the time the MSM and the Dems figure that out, we'll all have to either worship Allah or meet the beheading squad.

Unlike Al Qaeda, who are foreign invaders, Saddam Hussein was the leader of one of Iraq's clans. He was appointed the second in command by normal processes, and all he did in rising to power was to force the #1 to retire a little earlier than he wanted. There was a long tradition of Sunnis running Iraq, so Saddam took over a military and political machine which was already built, and was ready to serve him.

There is no comparison between that and a few dozen Al Qaeda terrorists sneaking across the border into Iraq.

Al Qaeda is the most overrated military threat in the history of the world. They couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag.

Would you pleas provide a source for that number of al Qaeda currently in Iraq? Thank you.

How many do you think there are? Have hundreds of AQ thugs come across the border? Thousands?

About AQ in Iraq:

"Imposing a severe version of Islamic law, the group installed its own clerics, established an Islamic court and banned the sale of cigarettes, which even this week were nowhere to be found in the humble shops in western Baquba to the consternation of patrolling Iraqi troops.

The fighters raised funds by kidnapping local Iraqis, found accommodations by evicting some residents from their homes and killed with abandon when anyone got in their way, residents say. A small group of bearded black-clad militants took down the Iraqi flag and raised the banner of their self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/world/middleeast/06military.html?_r=1&...

According to the NY times there were between 300 and 500 just in Baquba.

There is a lot more than a few dozen.

Secondly, al AQ did was what Gemany and Japan could not do in WWII; they were able to attack NY and Washington DC and kill 3,000 people.

Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commanding general of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division would not agree with you about AQ being weak. "This is a skilled and determined enemy. He's ruthless. He's got a thirst for blood like I've never seen anywhere in my life." Fil says the enemy's ambush techniques — mine or IED blasts followed by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenade attacks — are sophisticated. He adds, U.S. and Iraqi forces in East Rasheed, a district in southern Baghdad, have encountered a "very strong" Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq cell.

http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGI4YzEwZThkMGY3Y2NkNjRlYjY3MmRjO...

"US general warns against Iraq withdrawal"

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&T...

obviously think they win. Why else would they claim we must leave? How many defeats do our defeatists think this nation can stand? The American military won't be defeated anywhere in the world by Al-Qaeda, only by the same American defeatists who defeated us on behalf of the North Vietnam Communists.

If American surrenders to Al Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan will fall soon after and that will be the last time, America defends itself on foreign soil (IMO). All future defense of this nation will be on American soil by American soldiers who will know they cannot count on the American politicians, and much of the civilian population of America to allow the American troops to win (IMO).

There was no need for the American leftists to defeat US in Vietnam and there is no need for them to defeat US in Iraq. Why are we even thinking of allowing them to defeat the US again?

But ive heard stories from Iraqis who want America to stay. From those I have talked to, our forces are the only thing holding Iraq together and preventing Al Qeada and Iran from over running the place.

Maybe they are wrong...

They are there and I am here. It is the reason I listen to them and people who have gone over in Iraq (soldiers).

I dont trust the media any further than I can throw them - that leaves those who are living in Iraq and those who are on the ground fighting the war.

as a thoughtful student of international security affairs:

- Al Qaeda is "a few dozen rag tag terrorists."
- "AQ is a bunch of losers who don't hold territory any where on earth." Check out Michael Yon's recent story on the town with no inhabitants. (Live ones, that is). AQ held that town, and (along with their jihadhi and other terrorist allies) has held sway over many, many others in Iraq.
- "Everyone who ever lived under their rule turned against them." Unless AQ killed them first. (See last paragraph).
- "AQ has killed some civilians, but so could any criminal or psychopath." IMO, 3000 on 9/11 and who-knows-how-many in Iraq since then counts as more than "some."

OK---enough

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

First of all, although the deaths were tragic, Al Qaeda's 9/11 bombings were simply terrorist attacks. They didn't prove that Al Qaeda was powerful. They just hijacked three airplanes.

Many in America made the mistake of a massive over reaction. Instead of treating them as one of our smallest enemies, Al Qaeda was imagined to be super men, almost our only enemy. There was nothing they were incapable of, some said. Real enemies like Red China and North Korea were forgotten and ignored. Even though they are still just a few dozen fanatics living in tents, it was imagined that AQ could actually threaten the existence of the United States and the entire free world!

As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, like the name implies, it is over 90% Iraqi. It is one of the names the Sunni resistance took as they try to fight their way back into power, opposing American and Shiite rule. Many of those Iraqi Sunnis have now switched away from the AQ in Iraq name.

The real question is whether AQ in Iraq is a threat to the United States. The evidence I have seen, like in the detailed Iraq reports at www.weeklystandard.com, is that the Sunni resistance including AQI is focused on taking control of Iraq, not attacking the continental US or on overseas terrorism. The Shiites are making similar preparations, and the Kurds reinforcing their arms, as they prepare for civil war.

Wethal,

There are several versions of news articles quoting the General, you have to read them all.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070706155533.dp6wox1g&show_artic...

The one linked about tells the same basic story, but includes the tale of what many fear is the real issue in Iraq, the incompetency and failure of the Iraqis to stand on their own two feet.

"Lynch said that Iraqi army divisions were shouldering more of the security burden in the provinces under his control, such as Najaf and Karbala, but that police forces have been largely non-existent, "not competent or corrupt." "

President Bush urges the American people to give the surge more time, but he seems to ignore the fact that the Iraqis are not doing their part and may never be able to.

Pulling completely out of Iraq is not an option, but pulling US forces into defensible positions, concentrating on changing the mission from fighting to training the Iraqi ARMY and on efforts designed to secure the border between Iran and Iraq would make one heck of a lot of sense to me.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

I agree that they are the weak link. Always have been.

What are the "defensible positions"?

are where you sit around and wait to be attacked on the enemies terms.

My question is what happens when those defensible positions are attacked. Do we just sit there and take it, or do we fight back? And if we fight back, aren't we back in combat again?

It was recently said that the best training the Iraqi Army has received has been recently during the surge. They are learning more than ever by fighting along side of our troops in these missions. Of course this training would stop if we pulled all of our troops out of combat.

also places where you are in a strategically offensive position but remain on the tactical defensive. In other words, you put yourself in a place to invite the adversary's attack on ground and terms of your choosing. This posture is usually the only one that can be assumed in a politicized decision making process. It is very difficult under the best of circumstances to muster the political capital and will to go on both the strategic and tactical offensive. That is the great political risk in "The Surge." The US has gone over to the tactical offensive and that can be noisy and bloody. As the chaos and casualties go up, the howls from the Left go up with them and the ever-squishy middle gets very uneasy - even the steadier Right, this one included, starts to get nervous.

This dynamic isn't limited to military decision-making, it applies to almost any initiative a government, especially a Republican government, might mount. It is all but impossible to get a bunch of people who are most focussed on re-election and who got to where they are by being "hail fellows, well met" to do anything at all agressive or controversial. So, if you are going to make changes or do anything that will rouse political opposition, you put yourself in a place that the opposition can't stand for you to be and await their attack. Then you can tell your linguini spined political principals that you're only defending yourself from the nasty, unprovoked attack.

In my twenty plus year tenure at or near decision-making levels in public sector collective bargaining, I can count on my fingers the times I struck first. I'd do something that I knew the unions would hate and would attack me for. They almost never disappointed; they'd file charges or take some job action, and I could keep my political capital intact by taking the point myself so my principals had some cover and just saying over and over that we just had to defend ourselves. It's a bit disingenuous, but if you're going to get anything done in a political system, it is what you have to do.

In Vino Veritas

you can't be in a strategically offensive position if you are prohibited from combat. Then you are just a sitting duck, taking attacks without being able to do anything about it.

He is also painfully aware of the consequences of failure. Al Qaeda has made Iraq the main front in the war on terror. Al Qaeda is there in force. What do we do about them? We just leave and let them win? What consequences would that have for Afganistan and allies we have in the mid east? Al Qaeda just in the last couple of days has said they want to set up an Islamic state in Iraq and overthrow the governments in other more moderate mid east countries. Handing over Iraq would certainly give them momentum. It is about a lot more than nation building, people.

or imperil American interests in the region, and whose success as a stable and democratic country which might set in motion a chain of events that could topple other tyrant regimes in the region (Iran, Syria) is why we're fighting over there.

We're not trying to turn Iraq into a Middle Eastern version of Mayberry N.C. The people directing this war have very practical, and quite possibly achievable goals. They're not jousting at windmills ("nation-building.")

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

There is no military reason for us to be forced out of Iraq. While every US WIA/KIA is tragic, the loss of 3500 in over 3 years can hardly be said to be sufficient to bring a nation of 300 million to its knees militarily.

So the crux of the matter becomes whether we have the political will to remain in Iraq, killing al Qaeda, and disrupting terrorist operations. Or, alternatively, whether we will show them our backs and hand the enemy an enourmous morale and recruitment boost, demonstrating to them that Allah is mightier than the United States. Personally I find this dichotomy to be far more important than 'nation building'.

Where I fault the President and much of the leadership is in accepting Powell's invalid 'pottery barn' analogy for the war. Iraq was broken long before we got there. We won the war. How on Earth did we suddenly start worrying about whether the losers were happy with the outcome? For the first time in history that I know of, the vanquished were handed validation credentials for the winner's victory. If they weren't happy, then we lost the war. And anyone that wasn't happy got a free ticket to the nightly news to complain about it ad nauseum and in detail.

It may be too late to move the goal posts back to reality, but it may be worth a try. Saddam is gone. One of the strongest anti-US militaries in the Middle East has been destroyed. We have troops centrally located in well established bases surrounding Iran and adjacent to Syria. Now if we would stop trying to make Iraqis happy and consolidate those gains, we have a victory by any reasonable judgement.

If the Iraqis want to have a victory as well, then they need to get their act together more than they have to date. We ought to wish them well, support them in reasonable measure, and in the meantime make full use of our bases in Iraq to rain hell on our enemies. We have more than earned the right to do so. Stop getting Americans killed trying to turn Iraq into Iowa, and look at it as what it is -- a forward base.

I completely agree.

If we're going to pull out despite Iraq not being a stable democracy, which I think is inevitable, it should be done now, and not at some arbitrary point when it seems politically astute.

And another point; even assuming Iraq does stabilize, does anyone truly believe it would be a beacon of democracy and moderation in the Muslim world?

Of course not, and rightly so, our standards for "democracy" there are much lower. We would expect elements of islamism, anti-semetism, and anti-americanism even under the best scenarios.

Is that "democracy" worth this cost?

Before you agree with me, the point of my post was not to take issue with Bush on the war in Iraq - I think he is correct and believe that it could be worth it. No one knows what the final outcome will be.

What I hope for, will be a stable government where the citizens have some reasonable voice in governance, that stands against terrorism and is moderately secular. That is all tempered by regional and cultural conditions as it should be - it's thier country, not ours.

Again my initial point was about my concern that Bush will stay just long enough to get more good soldiers killed, and then fold for political reasons. If we get to a point where we legitimately determine there is no way to win because the situation has drastically changed (e.g. the people vote in a hamas type govt), then we leave. We will have tried to the best of our ability and we could not prevail for actual reasons (military, societal, etc.).

Paul precisely describes the cynical democrat positions to end the war, so I won't repeat them. Though both scenarios end result is that we leave Iraq, there is a world of difference between the consequences.

Could someone with the right access fix the dangling italics in the parent comment? Thanks!

Run like Reagan!

I apparently suffer from dangling italics. Who knew?

Now, does that mean I am a victim? Can I get compensation? Which government agency should I contact? Where's the Reverend Al.......

Amen to your comment. Unfortunately Bush has been so erratic during his second term that it is very hard to have confidence in him. And I say that with no joy whatsoever.

NYTimes in Diyali

It lays out the problems-these people haven't trusted each other for decades. They were terrorized, beaten, raped and murdered under Saddam. And we tell them after a few years to basically "Act normal. Trust other people." Tell that to someone who was brutally abused for a quarter of a century.

It just doesn't come that quickly. Not just the military skills, but the trust and respect for legitimate authority, instead of fear of brute force. It needs to be nurtured within the military and police force and in society in general.

and those with the Hard Left will blame every bad thing that happened after the war on those who started and ran the war, and will never admit they have blood on their hands. How many boat people died after Saigon fell? How many Vietnamese were executed? How many tortured?

And the Soviets, perceiving our weakness, expanded their operations across the globe.

The Hard Left is mostly unreachable, but the moderate left and center of the country is still reachable. They actually do want the country to do well, even though they hate the president. They supported the war at first; many of them could be brought back to support it again.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

The President has said that success is when the Iraqis are capable of "standing on their own feet". So progress will be when the US troops have nothing to do in Iraq because qualified Iraqi units have taken their place.

No one doubts the US troops, that when enough of them are in an area they will kill some enemy and keep the peace. But its not our job in the long run. We won't win the war on terror by permanent occupation of dozens of countries.

The only ones who can permanently bring peace to Iraq, and permanently prevent Al Qaeda from establishing bases there are the Iraqis.

"We won't win the war on terror by permanent occupation of dozens of countries."

Why not? We did it in WWII.

Not really a serious reply, but it's hard to take all the "negative waves" in this post seriously. You don't know the first thing about COIN Ops, how to fight an unconventional battle and what it takes to win.

To win you have to provide security, buy space and time for the host government to establish legitamisy, so the people come over to the government and the insurgency withers and dies. In the end the insurgents become a police issue and are viewed by the public as criminals.

This is an incredible oversimplification of COIN Ops, but in one paragraph sums-up why you can't pull-back into enclaves and defend (you can't provide security).

Despite the previous pronouncements this is a military battle and the U.S. armed forces are crucial to it. However, the overall war will be won or lost on the political front either in Washington or Baghdad.

We win, when the Iraqi government convinces the majority of the population to actively support it and has the military power to provide their own security.

They win, when we fail to do any of the above or the linguini spined politicians force us to abandon these goals.

Don't delude yourself into believing we can achieve a "draw" in Iraq. We will win or we will lose. If the latter is our fate we will either fight a bloody retreat to our own "Dunkirk" or "bugout" pell-mell leaving our supporters behind to face the brutal victors like we did in "Saigon".

Me, I'm here to fight, "stop with the negative waves Moriarity, it's a mother beautiful bridge."

"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.

We did it in WWII.

World War II was classic warfare, not counter insurgency or a war on terror. So it is totally irrelevant to Iraq. Occupation had nothing to do with winning WWII. In WWII, the enemy fought us in conventional armies, and totally surrendered before the occupation.

It is impossible for us to occupy dozens of countries because we don't have the troops or equipment. During WWII we had over 15 times as many soldiers in uniform than today.

...so the people come over to the government and the insurgency withers and dies.

That is my point, that local citizens are the ones who decide whether an insurgency lives or dies, not foreign occupiers like the US. It's not our fight to win or lose. All we can do is postpone the decision of the local citizens, not prevent it. Like when we left Vietnam, the local citizens decided in favor of North Vietnam, regardless of what we wanted. (It's important to remember that when our troops pulled out of Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government still controlled its own territory. It didn't fall until years later.) Even if we stayed in Iraq another five years, the Iraqis could do whatever they wanted once we left.

We will win or we will lose.

Like I said, it is not our fight. We can't win or lose because it's not our war.

No one has ever even attempted to give a reason why it is our responsibility to put down the "insurgency" in Iraq. After all, our President declared an end to major hostilities over four years ago. If the insurgency continues to grow against President Musharraf in Pakistan, are we responsible for putting it down too?

Attempting to be the government of Iraq, and taking responsibility for everything that happens there was a massive mistake by President Bush. It has helped Al Qaeda enormously, played right into their hands.

Another reason we can't win or lose is that we've never declared who our enemy is in Iraq, and who our allies are. The US, for good reason, has never formally committed to supporting the Iraqi government with our blood. How could we? Not only is it not our fight, but the Iraqis could elect someone like al Sadr.

In fact right now there is no real "Iraqi" government, just a Shiite government. Should we use the full force of the US military to force the Sunnis to accept the Shiite government? That's not COIN, it is taking sides in a civil war. Sure, some Iraqi Sunnis call themselves "Al Qaeda", but lots of Shiites work closely with Iran. I don't think that's what the US is about, what we stand for, to force one Iraqi faction to accept government by another.

The German and Japanese governments had been destroyed. There was chaos and disorder. We occupied the countries and kept order until new democratic governments could be put into place.

Our responsibility? I don't know about that but many people have given reasons as to why it is in our national interest to put down the insurgency. The Iraqi army and police did not have the numbers, equipment or the organization to handle it on their own. They are working towards that now. Because of the oil reserves, proximity to Iran and the presence of AQ, it is in our interest not to let the region descend into chaos.

All we are saying is that there is a strategy in place and military operations just got under way. Give the plan a couple of months before declaring it a failure and pulling the rug out from under our troops.

Because

Please don't compare WW2 to the Iraqi War, or the Japanese and Germans to the Iraqis.

Very few believe that Iraqi nation-building equates to saving Western Civilization during and after WW2.

We did nation building in Japan and Germany after WWII. No it is not the same situation, but there are things to learn from history.

Japan was a country with no history of democracy. They had to start from scratch with a destroyed country and no experience in that form of government. It took a long time to set it up and we still have troops there. I am not comparing WWII to the Iraqi War. They are different type wars and I realize that, but we did occupy countries and nation build and did it successfully and there is no reason I have to shut up about it. But as said by someone else earlier, there is much more to this than just nation-building. A failed state in Iraq could be a major security problem for us just as the failed German state after WWI became a major security problem.

If the Bushies had learned anything from history, we wouldn't have the current Iraqi predicament. Are we learning from history, or trying to pick and choose historical events to rationalize our actions? I notice that some are resurrecting the old Vietnam Era "Domino Theory" to apply to involvement in Iraq.

I was referring to my own reference to WWII, since it is an example of successful nation building. I don't know if the "Bushies" as the left calls them, learned from the WWII model or not. The fact remains that we did do successful nation building in Germany and Japan and had to occupy the countries and provide protection while they set up governments. That is a fact. No I don't think the Bush administration handled things well, but that is not the point I was trying to make.

I have said nothing about the Domino Theory. If someone has mentioned that AQ will try to overthrow other governments in the region, that has nothing to do with the Domino Theory, that is what AQ has said it is planning on doing on recent tapes that have come out. If it is about the worry that Iraq will fall into chaos and disorder if there is a failed government, that is reasonable to expect looking at what has happened in Lebanon and Gaza.

The rest of us who support this fight won't miss you. Honest.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

I am not quitting. I see the war on terror in danger of being destroyed by a soft, weak approach, so I am working to fix it.

Nothing will be resolved by having our soldiers stand out in the desert as targets while we beg the Iraqis to sign an oil law.

Every war goes through these phases, during which some generals want to try the wrong tactics. Whether we win or lose the war depends on whether we let them or not.

hadn't thought how domenici's move might be nothing more than a bid to appease voters

your reasoning on why it won't work is right on

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

The MSM wants you to think that Domenici's apostasy is a turning point(a tipping point, they're probably saying) where Bush completely lost support, rather than what it is:

The desperate fumblings and cliche'd maneuverings of a past-his-prime hack grasping for one more term (at least) in the Senate and looking at 50% approval ratings. Like many establishment Republican hacks, he thinks turning left on the war will save him. Instead, he will lose Republican support, antiwar types will vote for the Democrat, and Domenici will lose.

All Republican senators who are near elections have "dug themselves holes."

On numerous occasions, I have predicted that many Republicans, will desert Bush, later this year, in order to survive in 2008. They won't advocate a "bug out, " but they will develop an alternate strategy on Iraq.

war by other members of the government

and a plan to educate the country about the region and islam (would it be so hard to hire folks like daniel pipes and other middle eastern experts to have regular public discussions of the history, politics, religion, etc.?)

and taking many other steps to help americans understand and support the war, and get involved with the war program in their own lives

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

gain the support and understanding of the American people for the surge. The problem lies in the last sentence of your post.

The President cannot regain credibility on the war. It was lost over the past four years with endless mistakes, rosy scenarios and wrong predictions and so on. Once you lose credibility on an issue like the war, it is gone.

Fortunately we are not dependent on the President to do this important work. Gen Petraeus is a brilliant soldier who also understands that he needs to gain the support of the people to continue his successful strategy in Iraq. He will use his report on the progress of the war in September to win this support. I suppose he will report to the Senate Armed Services Committee, but I imagine there will be a lot more to it than that.

Contrary to leon's prediction above about the Republican Senators going to the White House after Petraeus' report to tell him the jig is up etc, I predict that these same Senators will be attempting to associate themselves with the General and the war and reminding us of their support. Yes, even the Lugars and Dmoenicis and Reids will be clamoring for photo ops with the General, it will be truly sickening for those of us who have memories.

Why am I so confident in the abilities of Gen Petraeus? Read the reports from Iraq today by Michael Yon on his blog and Michael Gordon in the NY Slimes.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)