Redstate

The democrats are obviously divided and can't seem to decide on a plan. Just curious as to what you all think the republican plan for Iraq is. Do they plan to set a more realisic pullout date, maybe 10-15 years from now?

what a great point.  I am totally convinced.

leave that to the Commander in Chief and his designated experts, such as Donald Rumsfeld.

There are a few outliars, so to speak, such as that fellow from Pennsylvania (you know, the one who used to be a prosecutor, and tries to raise the spectre of hearings every time the press asks him something, and is even starting to look like a ghost in his old age).  

The standard position is the President's: wipe out the insurgency to the point where the Iraqis can run things by themselves, and continue the GWOT elsewhere.  That has always been the plan, despite the mewlings from the leftoverists who think it's still 1969 and there's no plan to get out of 'Nam.

...Germany, Italy, Belgium, Japan, and Korea.  D*mned Blackshirt dead-enders holed up in the Appenines.

Once we've extricated ourselves from those last-century quagmires we'll go about extricating ourselves from the current century ones.

--furious

It is a vague set of goals.  How to accomplish those goals, that would be a plan.  

The Iraqi Gov't-proposed peace plan looks a lot like the Kerry/Feingold plan.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2239088,00.html

Thoughts?

Welcome to the team.

Just for fun, though, I'll play along.

The US should remove all our troops from Iraq just as soon as they are removed from Bosnia.

Troll.

...programs aimed at collecting the dots for use

against al Quaeda, the dolts on the Left now demand that we make our strategic battle plans public.

The dolts want us to lose in Iraq.  Their every utterance and action makes that abundantly clear.

NYT must not have a disgruntled mole inside the National Command Authority, hence this transparent and absurd demand.

We don't have to convince you Dems, andyK, we just have to beat you like circus monkeys on election day to keep such profoundly unserious people away from the national security appartus.

--furious

As if we ever disclosed our operation plans in past wars.

Did we telegraph our "left hook" in 1991?

Did we telegraph that we'd have two task forces waiting for Kido Butai off Midway in June, 1942?

Did we even tell Japan we were going to hit Leyte first when we hit the Philippines?

• finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq
• a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds
• offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners

If this is a win then what does a loss look like?

Kerry-Feingold called for the United States withdrawing its troops by next July, regardless of whether or not the Iraqis are prepared.  The Iraqi plan sets a goal of being prepared for our troops to withdraw.

The Iraqi plan accomplishes the goal which Reed-Levin was supposedly designed to provoke, and we didn't need the Dem resolution.

Do you seriously consider that an effective plan,the best that our military has to offer?  I could have come up with that "plan" in five minutes.  I am sure there is a more concrete and well laid out plan, I just wish someone (Rumsfeld maybe) would share it with the American people.  If republicans really want to quiet down the democrats, they need to have their own plan (it doesn't have to include an exit strategy mind you) that calms the hearts and minds of the American people.  I think many people feel that the war is out of control. I think republicans could make significant gains in public opinion if the Administration took some time to explain the current situation on the ground and the SPECIFIC things they are doing/plan on doing to improve it.  I believe that this CAN be done.  I am just waiting for someone to do it.

if the Iraqi government starts pushing this, it changes things. If I were running things in Washington, I'd make sure that we and the Iraqi gov't were more in lock step. I don't know what "winning" looks like exactly. But at some point, the Iraqi government's wishes, if this really is what they want, start to become relevant.

of hiding that, so great that you can consider yourself warned to knock it off.

Don't you think that war plans are inherently more effective if the enemy doesn't know what they are and, if so, don't you think that sharing that plan with 290 million Americans would rather compromise the plan.

The existing plan is on the White House website which, at least to me, lays out the goals we are trying to achieve. DoD submits a quarterly report to Congress, on the DoD website, that lays out where we are in achieving those goals.

What you think the jihadis should know beyond that is anyone's guess.

what the heck makes you think that you are entitled to any information, plans, ect regarding the war?

This does reflect the Reed/Levin amendment more accurately. but either way, this is not the President's "no timetable for withdrawal" policy.

And the question remains, if this really is the position of the Iraqi gov't, how does the U.S. respond?

...he's in remission from cancer.

He also destroyed Anita Hill on cross-examination during the Thomas hearings, and he was the Philly DA who put Mumia on death row.

Yes, but what has he done for us lately?

He's backed the President's judicial nominees in committee and on the floor.

Yes, but isn't he one on the Gang of 14?

True, but he also got Roberts and Alito through Committee and to a Floor Vote while allowing the Judiciary Democrats enough mike time to diminish themselves when compared to the nominees.

But he's calling for HEARINGS!!!

Would you rather have Chairman Leahy or Schumer banging the gavel and issuing subpeonas in his place?

Think long and hard on that last one.

--furious

The CW is that the Dems don't have a plan but you and I know that's not true.  There is a plan.  It is to go back to the old way of thinking; pretending terrorism is not a threat to our way of life, but a mere inconvenience.  It's okay.  You can admit it.  Besides, wouldn't you be happier with the status quo?  You can continue to spout your outrageous, ridiculous lies about how Bush is pure evil and we conservatives can sleep well at night knowing that the grown-ups are doing the heavy lifting.

Oh-and before you decide to argue that the Dems and "progressives" will be vigilant on the GWOT, take a look at what some of your cohorts are saying about the Miami group today:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/23/124627/071

But I'm sure you've seen this particular example today.  You are obviously an enlightened gentleman so I assume you are a regular participant over at Kos.

And that goes for the rest of you fools in this thread that are foolish enough to try to rebuke five years (thirteen if you count the last administration) of evidence of Democrat cowardice and ineptitude.

we will leave when the Iraqis can take care of their own security, and when their political institutions are stable and effective.

our commitment is not utterly open-ended.  we are there until certain things are accomplished.  but we can't set a date right now.  we have to see how things go.

then I suppose I am guilty.

I checked out the Whitehouse site and the plans are adequately detailed. I am still unsure whether they are effective.  Sorry to waste your time.

can constitute that if your opinion is sufficiently exotic.

In this case, if you aren't trolling, you are essentially saying something doesn't exist because you don't know about it.

Not sure which label I'd prefer.

After all the soldiers and policemen that the Iraqi government has lost to IED's, car bombs, bus bombs, gun battles, and other "insurgent" attacks, the Iraqi government (which has only had all its ministers in place for a few weeks now) will probably want to make sure all the "insurgent" strongholds are thoroughly cleaned out before offering an amnesty and asking the American troops to leave.

They, too are more interested in "winning" than finding an immediate exit strategy for American troops. Since it's their country, and they speak the language, the Iraqi government will probably know better than anyone when they finally have the security situation under control. With the current reinforcement and curfews around Baghdad, and the raids on insurgent hideouts, it doesn't seem like they're ready to send the American troops home just yet.

The recent killing of Zarqawi and arrest of many of his goons shows that we are winning, and we will win, and Zarqawi himself admitted that they were losing. The best people to decide when we have won, and can safely pull out, are the military commanders over there who know what's going on, not politicians in Washington.

which andy k demonstrates, is that lots of people in this country are anxious about this plan. When they hear this and see what is supposedly happening on the ground, it translates into an open-ended conflict that doesn't inspire confidence, which public approval ratings demonstrate.

I guess one question is, what is the value of getting the bulk of the public on board? If one decides there is value in that, then the current administration communication stategy isn't really working. It seems like the RS attitude is that getting public approval is less important, it's more important to follow the proscribed policy.

Whether Andy K is a troll or not, this kind of reaction is very predictable given how things are being handled.

I simply asked what it was, and where I could find the specifics.

...and here it is ...

Code-named Operation Run-Baby-Run!.  Oddly fitting and somehow reassuringly familiar, today's Democrats are emulating their elders of 30 years earlier.

--furious

Maliki is either a whole lot smarter than we think or a whole lot dumber.

I think their plan is delusional but it may also be the carrot before the stick. "Here, insurgents, is a plan to get us what all of us want. Don't like it, eh? OK. Well, then here's the hammer - BLAM."

Frankly I don't think they are that clever but I've been wrong in in the past.

say at least once a day

See, that isn't a plan  By: andy k  

It is a vague set of goals.  How to accomplish those goals, that would be a plan.    

read your own posts at least after you post them if reading them beforehand is too big a burden

"The best people to decide when we have won, and can safely pull out, are the military commanders over there who know what's going on, not politicians in Washington."

this kind of thing only feeds the idea that there is no plan. If administration officials are waiting for military commanders to tell them when they've won, that points to a woeful lack of civilian control & strategy over this.

Btw, I don't think this is the case, so I'm basically critiquing your rhetoric, and Bush's as well since he does say this frequently, rather than the actual policy.

Georges Clemenceau: war is too important to be left to generals.

that the White House could do this, I don't agree at all with:

If republicans really want to quiet down the democrats, they need to have their own plan (it doesn't have to include an exit strategy mind you) that calms the hearts and minds of the American people.

for a number of reasons.

1. Why should the Republicans want to quiet down the Democrats, when talking shows who they really are?
   
   
2. There is no way the Republicans can quiet down the Democrats, who are really only mad that they are out of power
   
   
3. If it doesn't include an exit strategy, what is it?
   
   
4. Who wants to calm the hearts and minds of the American people?  I want them mad, and mad at the terrorists and their enablers on the Left.

I didn't know about his cancer.  I hereby eat my words.

if they push hard for this policy, we gotta deal with it. It just kind of screws up the administration narrative.

One frustrating thing about this whole "Iraq debate" is that it is largely about positioning for Nov '06. I would guess the Iraqi gov't is far more interested in solutions to their problem than our politics. Bush's rhetoric tends to paint himself into a corner. If he were to accept the Iraqi plan, even in part, he'd have a face-saving problem. I'd hate to see a meaningful policy pow-wow with the iraqi gov't get sabotaged because of our domestic politics. But if I were to guess, that's what's gonna happen.

But as an earlier poster said, the iraqi gov't has only been in place for a few weeks. Things are guarranteed to change a lot. This is the crunch time, however, so I hope we take it as seriously.

What socrates posted were vague goals.  The plan is on the whitehouse.gov page which I saw after I had replied to socrates.  

I wonder why you are so set on giving me a hard time Streiff?  

from two perspectives.

First, the Iraqi qovernment knows they are riding a couple of tigers right now and even though we are a convenient whipping boy they need us to survive.

Second, if they tell us to leave I don't see the problem is going home.

 The only concern would be the "withdrawal of all foreign troops". How Iraq chooses to deal with its own insurgency issue doesn't matter a whole lot to American interests. It's certainly in their own best interests to reduce the civil unrest and whether they grant amnesty to rebels, criminals, domestic terrorists, or whatever they could be called is of little consequence to the big picture.

 But you have to allow that, perhaps we've been successful in achieving the placement of government leaders who will go along with American policy, but that tactically it is important for those leaders to look independant and perhaps even at odds with the U.S. - important in establishing themselves with the Iraqi people as well as with the insurgent populace that they will want to curtail; the most obvious issue to come out of the gate with a strong position is on withdrawal of foreign troops, even while US/Iraqi leaders are setting up a "mutually acceptable compromise" that might allow the U.S. to continue establishing permanent military bases there.

 That goal, along with the aforementoned establishment of a genuine pro-American government in Iraq (even while they may not look the part for obvious domestic reasons) - a government, non coincidentally, in control of an oil rich nation with whom we would now be able to maintain very favorable trade relations - are what I suspect were the two key outcomes of the Iraq venture that the administration wanted to achieve. The former secures American superiority from a strategic military standpoint, the latter secures American superiority from a strategic economic standpoint. Both of which occur to the detriment of China, who no longer has a chance to exploit Iraq for oil and has one more square on the board to try and plan around lest they ever do decide that their future interests might include expansion outside their borders, as was the case with Soviet Russia.

 So I wouldn't worry yet, unless in fact it becomes apparent that we've failed to establish a sufficiently pro-American regime in Iraq.

"having a different opinion."

Trolling can mean "wasting others' time with rhetoric inspired by messages from space."

e.g., "Haven't you read the research published by the 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth'?  It proves that the 9/11 destruction was caused by the government, not by Muslim terrorists."

i'd set up a false "fight" for the U.S. to have with the Iraqi gov't. This would allow them to establish credibility. We'd give in in whatever way we decided, and then allow them to "lead the way" to victory.

We need to stroke their egos for a while and let ours simmer on the back burner.

viewing your posting record I have real doubts that you are here to contribute or disrupt.

exactly what is underway.

Make no mistake about it, the bad guys of all stripes would much rather fight Iraqis than fight us and the people trying to get on with their lives would much rather have us around than the Iraqis.

I think that is the way this is going.

plan said.

but there are more details involved, and we've also seen a lot of big steps taken toward reaching the goals.

i agree that bush and republicans generally could do a lot more to explain what success means, how much progress we've made, and what remains to be done before we attain full success.  the fact that bush doesn't explain the plan that well, and doesn't do it often enough, is a big problem.

downstream, i.e. setting up a "false fight" which we allow them to win so they establish some cred. If the admin is doing this, I'll be heartened. If they are flying by the seat of their pants, i dunno. There is a lot of chaos and a lot of variables that make this tough to manage or predict. Personally, I don't know which way it's gonna go, but I think we're gonna find out soon enough.

I thought we were in Iraq to bring freedom and democracy (i.e. the placement of government leaders who will go along with American policy) to the poor, oppressed Iraqi people?  

now THAT is trolling. :)

You did clearly ask for a plan on pulling out, and you were obviously frustrated by being given plans for winning. I'd be puzzled, too.

If the administration was on top of this the Iraqis woudn't be parroting Dem talking points.

How does agreeing to a UN managed pullout and amnesty for the head-choppers help the Repubs in November?

 There are many moving parts and there was a risk of failure. Benefits from achieving the two goals, in my opinion, was a sufficient reason for the administration to undertake the risk.

 That said, as our elected leaders, theoretically with the best minds, information, and resources at their disposal, I still expect them to execute and reach those goals once they made the decision to commit. If they fail, I expect them to be held accountable, without excuses about "too many variables", or "we didn't think of...". I'm sure that not everything has gone 100%, but the expectation would be that they thought through the scenarios, weighed the risk/reward ratio, and made the best decision they possibily could with one primary objective in mind, which is securing American superiority and distancing us as the one world superpower. And then, that they successfully execute.

President Bush published the plan for "winning" several months ago on the White House website, and his "rhetoric" is probably better than mine. It basically consists of training and equipping Iraqi soldiers and policemen to be able to take care of security in Iraq, and to provide military support for rooting out terrorists and insurgents until the Iraqi army can do it themselves.

Up until a few weeks ago, there was no Iraqi Defense Minister or Interior Minister, so the Iraqi army and police did not have an agreed-upon leader to whom everyone should be loyal, so this could have caused confusion among the ranks, and President Bush also pointed this out. Now that these ministries have been filled with the consent of the elected Iraqi parliament, there are official leaders with whom American military commanders can coordinate the anti-insurgent efforts.

I didn't intend, by my previous post, to imply that the American commitment is open-ended, or that the President didn't really have a plan. The plan has existed for months, but Bush realizes that it has to be flexible, in order to allow miliary commanders to adapt to military realities on the ground, not some arbitrary dates set by politicians far away.

It's true that the opinion of many Americans has soured against the war in Iraq, based on repeated negative reporting by the MSM, which has largely gone un-rebutted by the White House, and IMHO President Bush is partially to blame for this. The long delay between the parliamentary elections in December 2005 and the establishment of the new Iraqi government in May led to a situation where a "lame-duck" government was trying to run Iraq without knowing who would succeed them, leading some Americans to wonder whether the commitment was "open-ended".

The killing of Zarqawi and the establishment of the new government should help encourage people that we now have the upper hand, and are close to "victory". But President Bush was harshly criticized for his declaration in May 2003 that "major combat operations are over", after which we suffered most of our casualties. He has probably learned his lesson, and will probably wait until all the military commanders are very confident of victory before declaring victory and starting to withdraw the troops.

There has been a plan for victory in Iraq, and part of it has been carried out, with the capture of Saddam, three elections, the killing of Zarqawi, the training of the Iraqi army, and the formation of the permanent Iraqi government. The problem is, complete victory doesn't depend only on Americans, but also on the ability of Iraqi soldiers and police to take command of their country, which is why President Bush can't afford to give dates. This war will end, and we will win, but we don't know when yet.

when your puppet gov't stops obeying orders.  I mean, the Iraqi gov't should really be thinking of how they can help more Republicans get elected in November, not about the daily business of running a nation.

"We don't want to win.  We just want to quit."

Well, if they aren't "obeying orders" I guess they aren't a puppet government.  the contradictions continue.

Wisconsin.

with a semantics issue.  

Why should the Iraqi gov't care at all about getting republicans elected? Even if they should care, should they place "making republicans look good" above running their nation effectively?

amount of doubt that the admin. is really controlling this. When I look at it, I see them flying by the seats of their pants, this peace plan being another case in point. I'm just trying to look at this as to how we could possibly wrestle a satsifactory end to our occupation there.

I hope the Iraqi gov't is effective and can flex its own power soon. And I don't care if they counter republican talking points. What they think is important is important. If we ignore their recipe for success, God help us all.

What point am I avoiding?  I simply pointed out that your comment was dumb and contradictory.  As for the Iraqis electing republicans, the only people mentioning that in this thread seem to be those opposed to the war, Bush and Republicans.  But in any event, I will answer your questions.  

First, Iraqis are interested in their survival, so assuming that they have a grasp on what the two parties stand for in this country, and I believe they do, it would most certainly be in their best interest if Republicans won elections.  The GOP is the party that has stood behind the new regime, not athwart it.

Second, the Iragi government does not have to make such a choice between the two options you lay out because they conicide.  A successful, stable government, which I think we can agree, the Iraqis want is the same goal the GOP has for the country.  Can the Dems say that?  If Iraq is a success, they lose at home.  If it fails, the region and the world become more dangerous, but they regain power at home.  I don't envy the position the Democrat party has staked out for itself.  Do you?

 My position on this, unconventional and perhaps unpopular here as it may be, has been stated before by myself, and credit to the moderators, I've been allowed to engage in dialogue about it. It is the most sensible explanation I have for intepreting the actions of the administration, with the equally unconventional assumption that the administration is a collective that operates as a unit, not one man at the wheel shooting from his hip, and that as a unit, they take seriously their primary objective to secure America's future.

 And with that as a backdrop, if the administration felt this was the right time for this engagement, they had to grapple with how to manage the domestic PR aspect. While I might have personally preferred to hear the real story (or to be fair, the story I speculate is the "real" one), it wouldn't surprise me that the administration concluded that a peace loving nation could probably not be convinced to commit to the engagement: too vague or distant of a threat (future spectre of a Chinese superpower) or the simple inability of most people to understand the nature of the "big game" and what's at stake if we slip into another situation where we are one of two superpowers with a generally diametrical outlook on the way people and nations should be governed..

 So while I found the "threat to the U.S." concept to be stretched, and "liberty and democracy for Iraqis" to be not undesirable yet also not particularly worth the cost in and of itself, I continue to think that an administration with a driving interest in American superiority could have concluded this engagement was worth the risk when taking a long view of the world and where it may be headed into account, and that the PR spin was a requisite, albeit unfortunate necessity.

 That's a little bit of how I make my case for an unconventional, perhaps unpopular viewpoint and apparently this helps me avoid being labelled as a troll. Perhaps if you'd try making your case with a little more thought, a little more reason, and a little less snipe, you'd obtain the same results?

to try to assign domestic political allegiance to a foreign country.

First, Iraqis are interested in their survival, so assuming that they have a grasp on what the two parties stand for in this country, and I believe they do, it would most certainly be in their best interest if Republicans won elections.  The GOP is the party that has stood behind the new regime, not athwart it.

Then why is their proposal exactly COUNTER to what the administration supports, and pretty darn close to the democratic Reed-Levin ammendment?

If anything, this kind of partisan navel-gazing is what's going to kill us.

... messages from space."

Check out the meme developing here at RedState.com to see just how appropriate that statements is!

but not particularly democratic either.

I think Russert should give 30 minutes to Kerry, Kennedy, Feingold, Pelosi, Mutha, Reid, Rangel and others each week until November. That way we can have 20-25 different Iraq cut and run plans from the DEMS before the mid term elections.

They can always talk about Al Qaeda having zero connection with Saddam. Ooops that is no longer true.

They can always talk about Bush lying about WMD. They will have to take a chance that Russert will not play a tape of them saying Saddam was a threat.

We can always play that Kerry windsurfing commercial during the breaks on Russerts show. We could include a running total on how many times he has switched his position on Iraq.

Evil my liberal Grandmother is quoted as saying

"Thank god these people were not around WWII."

The GOP 7 of the 14 are: McCain, Graham, Warner, Snowe and Collins, DeWine, and Linc.

Arlen would have loved to have joined, I'm sure, but he couldn't as chairman and it would probably have violated the deal he made with the Republican Conference to get that job in the first place.

The President said that the United States would offer no timetable, that we would stay as long as the Iraqis needed us.

The Iraqis are setting a goal, a date by which they would like to be ready.  

I'm not streiff, and I can emphatically state that he is more than capable of speaking for himself.

From my perspective: Unless one is honestly contributing to the debate and sincerely making an effort to advance Redstate's published goals, it's simply disingenuous to continually push the envelope and then assume that an editor would not question one's motives.    

From the Redstate Mission Statement:

Welcome to RedState, a Republican community weblog.

RedState is focused on politics, and is dedicated to the construction of a Republican majority in the United States. We hope to unite serious, innovative, and accomplished voices from government, politics, activism, civil society, journalism, and, not least of all, ordinary folks, to participate in this work.

RedState is also dedicated to strengthening the hand of conservatives, and conservatism, in the Republican Party. While we are great believers in the big tent of the Republican Party, we know that Republicans do best -- as candidates and as leaders -- when they stand for, and uphold, conservative principles.

...because helping get Run-Baby-Run! Democrats elected will result in their abandonment to the Salafist monsters and Ba'athist deadenders tormenting Iraq, in the same manner that the Democrat-controlled 94th Congress abandoned the people of Laos, Cambodia and So. Vietnam to the tender mercies of their Communist conquerors.

--furious

I didn't raise the point.  Check the thread.  In regards to "assigning political allegiance to a foreign country" I might agree with you on occassion.  However, when you have one party that is, at the very least, weak-kneed about our efforts in Iraq and at worst, actively working for our defeat (and the Iraqi Government's) then I would say you're wrong.  Besides, there is a long history of foreign governments that had a stock in seeing a particular party win election here and vice versa.  

 

...the Democrats' slots.

Thanks for the straight-setting -- all that Sunday Show-watching comes in handy.

--furious

...a standing Combat Air Patrol over Mesopotamia with single-seat fighters staging out of Okinawa.

I'd really like to hear Murtha's Deep Thoughts on that one.

--furious

soldiers to be shocked when they stop complaining.

As one of my first platoon sergeants taught me, don't pay any attention to what they say so long as their feet ar moving.

When they cease cooperating with us I'll start worrying about what they say.

we don't have to go along. We've created a sovereign state and we have to respect their views and actions, within reason of course.

My dilemma is is the motivation. Is Maliki et al simply grabbing at whatever might work or does he have some ulterior motive (not anti-American motive by the way) and he's 'way smarter than the bad guys.' I can't read it yet.

hasn't given a CAP over Iraqi airspace much thought.  Too busy tucking tail and running while screaming "BushLied."™

Personally, I'd go with CVN-76 if push comes to shove, but that's just my prejudice showing.

I've had enough bad predictions about all this to never know what to think, but how the administration works this stuff out with the Iraqi gov't is gonna turn into the new game in town. At least it better if we're gonna have a chance to pull this thing off.

Saddam Ends Hunger Strike After Skipping One Meal

happy talk that doesn't seem credible. Fair enough, I am a skeptic of much of what has gone on in Iraq. When I look at what's going on, the things that are tallied up as successes appear more like some list a policy wonk wrote up, and then put check marks next to each one.

But I'll give you this: the first real accomplishment has been getting a government stood up. And I also agree that it's only weeks old so we need to give it some time to see how effective it can be. I find their peace plan proposal a great start, not cuz I agree with their prescription (I do), but because they are asserting their existence. I think the game is just starting...

The plan is to turn over Iraq to local control province by province. The first one will go next month. Foreign troops will leave that province, either going home or to another part of Iraq. Eventually all the remaining foreign troops will be in a couple of regional bases.

A peace deal will be announced Sunday, at least the beginnings of the negotiations about it. Everyone, including the insurgents is negotiating it.

Many of the reasons for the Sunni insurgency to fight have gone away, so they are looking to join the government. That will leave only the foreign terrorists to deal with, and Zarqawi is already dead.

Two years ago there was no elected government, and none of the other Iraqi groups fought back against the Sunnis undeclared civil war. It was the best of times for the insurgency. Now there is an elected government which the Sunnis voted for too, so it it tough to say that they are a US puppet, the Shiites are responding with their own guerilla war, and the whole country is getting sick of the Sunnis terror bombing them into the stone age. Basically the Sunnis used to believe that if they fought the US and the government, that Saddam's old regime would come back. Now they know that will never happen.

In my opinion, the Iraq War is too complicated to have one single answer. Should we pull out? There are good points for saying 'yes' as well as for saying 'no.' I think that a lot of people are divided on the war and it has affected a lot of people personally. Thus, creating a wide range of opinions on it. So to say there should one answer doesn't seem realistic.

I knew how to do it.

lots of people in this country are anxious about this plan.

These would be the same people who can tell you who won American Idol (for the record, I don't know or care!) but couldn't tell you who is the Secretary of Defense.

These would be the same people who get all of their opinions from Dan "Forged but accurate" Rather...but cannot find Iraq on a map!

When they hear this and see what is supposedly happening on the ground, it translates into an open-ended conflict that doesn't inspire confidence, which public approval ratings demonstrate.

Supposedly...according to who? The MSM, which reports an agenda-driven, one-sided look at the war? Or Aljazeera, which reports an agenda-driven, one-sided look at the war? Or the Democratic leadership (which IS informed enough to know better) which reports an agenda-driven, one-sided look at the war?

Just out of curiousity...do you see any type of pattern here?

I guess one question is, what is the value of getting the bulk of the public on board?

Seriously now, it would be wonderful to get the bulk of the American people on board. If the President could, or would sidestep the MSM filter that all news goes through before the bulk of the American people hear the news...it might be relatively easy to change public opinion. However, barring an epiphany by the MSM to the fact that they are promoting a left-wing aganda, and have been doing so for the last 30 years, I don't see much hope of that happening.

So, to answer your question directly, there is NO value. The public doesn't make national policy...the President does! If YOU or the public want to change that, you have to get your guy elected.

Since YOUR GUY has a snowballs chance in the netherworld of winning a national election with the anti-American, anti-Military, anti-Winning strategy he/she/they are espousing...taint gonna happen!

AND, spare me the rhetoric about "calling those who disagree with you anti-American."  At this point, I'm totally fed up with you liberals, AND your rhetoric!  And, I've already wasted ten more minutes on your post than it deserves!

of how "Staying the Course" really does work.

i'm trying to talk about the world as it is. The political realities and msm and iraq and congress and american idol and such are all out there.

Flail about, get yourself in a lather, and lash out at me if you want. You are boring me, however. It's much more fun to put all this stuff in a blender and try to see where it's gonna end up, adding in a bit of contentious debate in the process. You are more interested in beating your tribe's drum, so here's a little tip, don't waste any more of your 10 minutes on my posts. Not worth it for me either.

iraq had no chance under saddam.

now it has a chance.  

that chance is not small.

if you look at how far the country has come since we liberated it (only a few years ago!), and then take into account the long totalitarian mass-murdering history of saddam, you might become rather optimistic.

all-powerful dictator to buffoon.

It's the best prelude to his death I could imagine.  Let's hope he keeps it up.