Really, the military says forces could be reduced soon? When have I heard that before? Oh yes, every single year without fail since the start of the war. Most of us have quit falling for it.

Maliki says the Iraqi forces can take care of it themselves and we can leave any time we want. Why don't you believe him? He is the rightful leader of a democratically elected government, no?

Actually, he says that how that was translated wasn't what he meant.

This is a good thing, of course, as only the enemies of America and Iraq, and friends of despots, tyrants and terrorists, have anything to gain through a short-term withdrawal.

Cautiously optimistic. Let's hope for more like this.

Most of us have quit falling for it.

That's cuz you're too stupid to be able to plot a curve of the IA/IP units coming online.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/16/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

This is as likely to be true as the Bush Administration's claims about reducing the deficit by 2009.

Utterly preposterous!

"That's cuz you're too stupid to be able to plot a curve of the IA/IP units coming online."

Does the curve include what IA/IP units are actually partisan militiamen with uniforms? How about which ones will take their guns and run off?

I'm just looking into the past and projecting it into the future here.

It could be stupidity, but so far my prognostication record on Iraq has been pretty good. If I'm wrong, of course, I'll be right here so you can come rub my nose in it.

When this mess started I was all for it. Now I have to ask, what is the point? If we were fighting for oil, fine. If we are trying to kill as many Muslims as possible, ok. If we are trying to destablize the area and change the leadership picture in this twisted part of the world, great. But what is our current goal? I don't think Bush and gang really know.

meanwhile, back in the REAL world:

"Pace: US troops in Iraq could rise

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
16 July 2007

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The U.S. military is weighing new directions for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush's decision.

... "

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=606404&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=7/16/2007

The only victory that the Left wants is a humiliation for the United States. Don't you know our irredeemable arrogance (otherwise known as fighting back) causes the editors of European journals to not love us?

We need unity in the face of a hard and cruel---and lunatic--- foe, not division. Our division is a weakness that the enemy wishes to exploit and Reid and Pelosi follow his playbook.

"Don't you know our irredeemable arrogance (otherwise known as fighting back) causes the editors of European journals to not love us?"

You didn't invade Iraq because you were "fighting back". Some sections of the Iraq population are "Figthing back" against your occupation of their country.

I just thought that we ought to get that straight.

But what is our current goal?

Avoiding genocide? If you're OK with genocides, then maybe that doesn't matter so much...

I'm just looking into the past and projecting it into the future here.

Better click that knob on your time machine about 18 months recent than its set. Its giving a skewed view of the present day.

I didn't bother putting a knob in the time machine. What's the point? It's not like anything ever really changes in Iraq. It's just the same story over and over again:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0710/p07s02-woiq.html

You didn't invade Iraq because you were "fighting back". Some sections of the Iraq population are "Figthing back" against your occupation of their country.

It is to laugh. Rafar, when do I get my planet destroying cheap Iragi oil?

These would be those who bravely drive trucks laden with bombs into public markets, shoot girls becuase they have the temerity to go to school, destroy religious sites of their co-religionists, behead helpless victims on camera while shouting "God is great" and generally violate every norm of civilization and decency.
These are not those fighting an "occupation" but those bent on imposing a sinister and dark ideology. These are also the lunatic SOB's I want destroyed. Pray tell me what justice you see being meted out to these brutes and thugs? A nasty letter threatening a war crimes trial in the Hague?

In any event, what do I know, I actually believe America and her military wear the white hats so that automatically puts me [proudly] in the "redneck boob" category.

"It is to laugh. Rafar, when do I get my planet destroying cheap Iragi oil?"

You don't, any more than Texan oil makes you rich.

"These would be those who bravely drive trucks laden with bombs into public markets, shoot girls becuase they have the temerity to go to school, destroy religious sites of their co-religionists, behead helpless victims on camera while shouting "God is great" and generally violate every norm of civilization and decency."

Where did I say that they were good guys? I just pointed out that they (and it is worth remembering that the vast majority of attacks in Iraq are against coalition forces and government forces) are the ones fighting back against something. The US wasn't "fighting back" against anything when it invaded Iraq.

"Pray tell me what justice you see being meted out to these brutes and thugs?"

I see no justice in Iraq at all I am afraid.

"In any event, what do I know, I actually believe America and her military wear the white hats so that automatically puts me [proudly] in the "redneck boob" category."

Believe what you like, I'm just pointing out that the US wasn't fighting back against anyone when they invaded Iraq as nobody from Iraq was fighting against them in the first place.

Rafar,

Saddam Hussein signed an armistice in 1991 with terms he broke for 10 years, including attempts to shoot down the US forces air flights maintaining the air restrictions which were a part of the armistice terms. He was still deemed not in compliance when we invaded.

I think that fits into the category of resumption of war or, as is being argued here, fighting back by Iraq which we countered by then fighting back against his fighting back.

"Saddam Hussein signed an armistice in 1991 with terms he broke for 10 years, including attempts to shoot down the US forces air flights maintaining the air restrictions which were a part of the armistice terms. He was still deemed not in compliance when we invaded."

Yeah, OK, you're right. Saddam Hussein was a real danger to the US, and was actively trying to militarily engage you in a way that required you to strike him back.

You carry on with that if it makes you feel better.

Rafar:

In Iraq we are "fighting back" against a sick Totalitarian ideology. Iraq is a theater in a global war; and, presently the main one. The reason for invasion, among others, was to destroy an enabler regime. That went off remarkably well. It has been what has followed which has been so difficult. However, the Iranians and Syrians boasted at the time of invasion that they would fight us using the Lebanon playbook, which they have. The playbook calls for incipent terrorist violence in urban areas, atomization of the populance into ethnic enclaves and overall insecurity. The playbook calls for this to be done until America is pulled down by war weariness and defeatism.

The best part for the thugs in Tehren and Damascus is that they have dupes on the Left ever willing to concede that "insurgents" are always justified in what they do because the USA (despoiler of humanity) is evil, and really, what does one expect from Arabs except grisly violence.

"In Iraq we are "fighting back" against a sick Totalitarian ideology."

Which never attacked you, I would note. Sure, say that you're fighting groups that you think are worth fighting, but neither Saddam Hussein, nor the Iraqis ever attacked you.

"The reason for invasion, among others, was to destroy an enabler regime."

The reason was to destroy a regime that was not cooperative with US goals. If you were out to fight totalitarian enabler regimes (by which I assume you mean enabling terrorism) then surely Saudi Arabia would be the better target.

"It has been what has followed which has been so difficult."

What inevitably followed has indeed been difficult but it was an obvious and predictable follow on from the initial invasion. To pretend otherwise is simply wishful thinking of which there was plenty before the invasion.

"However, the Iranians and Syrians boasted at the time of invasion that they would fight us using the Lebanon playbook, which they have."

Did they? I would like to see them announcing that, if you have any links.

"The playbook calls for incipent terrorist violence in urban areas, atomization of the populance into ethnic enclaves and overall insecurity."

I'm sure that it does, but Iran is supporting the groups in Iraq who represent the government, not the ones who are against the government. They are certainly not supporting the Salafi Jihadists of Al-Q in Iraq. It would be very odd if they were supporting Sunni insurgents at all, given that they both oppose the Iranian friendly government in Iraq and represent the hated enemy that fought a long and brutal war against them.

By way of actual evidence, (1) Look into where the current Iraqi government parties resided during the Saddam years, (2) look at the numbers of foreigners captured in Iraq and compare the countries of origin of those foreigners.

"The best part for the thugs in Tehren and Damascus is that they have dupes on the Left ever willing to concede that "insurgents" are always justified in what they do because the USA (despoiler of humanity) is evil, and really, what does one expect from Arabs except grisly violence."

I'm not justifying anyone's actions, and thought that we had long ago dealt with these sorts of silly accusations.

I am just pointing out that Iraqi insurgents are fighting back against an ongoing brutal occupation of their country, whereas the US invasion was not fighting back against anything. Americans simply aren't the victims in this matter.

Thank you for acknowledging that your fundamental point -- Iraq wasn't fighting us in the first place -- is wrong.

Dear purple,

I don't think much of genocide. But then I don't think that the world's problems are all mine and my countries. Are we in Iraq to prevent two factions of Islam from killing each other? If so, that is a fairly stupid thing to do as there is no end to our involvement. These people have been trying to kill each other for about 1400 years. If that is what turns them on then who cares? I certainly do not want my son involved in such a rediculous endeavor. For that matter, I see no reason to be trying to establish "Democracy" in Iraq. This is particularly a sticking point as I don't think we have the best of freedom here since 1860. It is about that time that the lower social orders began to rise and enslave those of us who produce.

"Thank you for acknowledging that your fundamental point -- Iraq wasn't fighting us in the first place -- is wrong."

I didn't.

Are we in Iraq to prevent two factions of Islam from killing each other? If so, that is a fairly stupid thing to do as there is no end to our involvement.

This is a good argument for the US not getting involved in any UN peacekeeping deployments.

Rafar:

As to "Lebanon" strategy please see: http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/04/iraq_a_new_lebanon.html

There are other articles in 2004 discussing this and even quoting Assad about it, but I do not have time to review the entire Google cache. If you are an intrepid truthseeker, take a look. Might even find things from NYT or BBC.

As to an "ongoing brutal occupation" please clarify what brutal activity the United States and her allies have been engaging in.

"As to an "ongoing brutal occupation" please clarify what brutal activity the United States and her allies have been engaging in."

Erm. The one which these soldiers were involved in;

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges

If you notice, they aren't acting as monsters, they aren't acting as anything other that human beings in very stressful situations.

But the result is a brutal occupation.

I have to nip off now, but I note one interesting fact from the piece you quoted;

"One of the most remarkable aspects of this similarity is the omnipresence of the Lebanese Shia terrorist group Hizbullah in Iraq —— Hizbullah opened two offices there last April. "

Hizbullah in Iraq is a completely different organisation to the one in Leb, it just shares the "Party of God" moniker. This has been a common mistake.

Obviously this is only a cursory look, but that article looked long on claims and short on sources. I was looking for Syria actually saying something rather than claims that they may be doing something.

You said;

"However, the Iranians and Syrians boasted at the time of invasion that they would fight us using the Lebanon playbook, which they have."

I was looking for the boasts, not for more claims.

"Yeah, OK, you're right. Saddam Hussein was a real danger to the US, and was actively trying to militarily engage you in a way that required you to strike him back."

So, you quote my first paragraph acknowledging Saddam's breaking of the armistice, respond that I am right in the point, and add a confirming conclusion that he was actively engaging us militarily and now you say you didn't acknowledge it.

I understand the snarkiness of your response but all that implies is that the argument is about whether the tipping point for the US going back to war should be based on your criteria or ours, and not whether he initiated it or not, which you did indeed acknowledge he did.

"Pelosi-led Congress and Reid-led Senate--deliberative bodies with roughly as many major legislative accomplishments as the Iraqi Parliament they criticize"

Of the many ways I could think to identify this Congress you have simply nailed it with your statement. This Democratic Congress is no more effective thus far than the Iraqi's, amazing and great verbiage on your part:-)

"By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 50 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - Dozens of Shiite villagers in the north were massacred by Sunni extremists, two officials said Tuesday, while a car bomb exploded across the street from the Iranian Embassy in the heart of Baghdad and killed four civilians. "

The AP reports a massacre! There it is Neo-con. Are you happy now?
SUNNI EXTREMISTS. That's who did it. And why do Sunni extremists exist? Because of the idiotic American de-Baatification order which was, of course, perceived as anti-Sunni because it was, in effect, anti-Sunni since so many Sunnis, as members of the Baath party, were working peacefully for the Iraqi government before the Americans came and destroyed what was working, igniting the insurgency by outlawing Baathists.
I know, Neo-Cons want Sunnis to be called "al-Qaeda". As if that somehow makes the continuing occupation of Iraq 'justifiable' or 'necessary'. The war was originally supposed to be about WMD and how 'evil' Saddam Hussein was. The search for WMD was over a long time ago and Saddam is now dead. But Neo-Cons still want to occupy and fight. Why? Who knows? But in the benighted mind of the frustrated Neo-Con, a new REASON for occupation must be supplied.......al Qaeda! Aha! If al-Qaeda, goes the logic of the simpleton Neo-Con, then war=necessary/justifiable. Because......well, because al-Qaeda did 9/11.
The reality is that al-Qaeda only came to Iraq because the US invaded Iraq. If the US HAD NOT invaded, the Iraqi people would still be living in peace and not in terror. Its time to admit that the American war has failed and is harmful to all Iraqi people except the Kurds. The American military has produced death and destruction and turned Americans servicemen into ruthless dog-killers..

The Nation magazine

"So we get started on this day, this one in particular," recalled Spc. Philip Chrystal, 23, of Reno, who said he raided between twenty and thirty Iraqi homes during an eleven-month tour in Kirkuk and Hawija that ended in October 2005, serving with the Third Battalion, 116th Cavalry Brigade.
"And we were approaching this one house," he said. "In this farming area, they're, like, built up into little courtyards. So they have, like, the main house, common area. They have, like, a kitchen and then they have a storage shed-type deal. And we're approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, 'cause it's doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it. And he didn't--motherfucker--he shot it and it went in the jaw and exited out. So I see this dog--I'm a huge animal lover; I love animals--and this dog has, like, these eyes on it and he's running around spraying blood all over the place. And like, you know, What the hell is going on? The family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad, horrified. And I'm at a loss for words. And so, I yell at him. I'm, like, What the fuck are you doing? And so the dog's yelping. It's crying out without a jaw. And I'm looking at the family, and they're just, you know, dead scared. And so I told them, I was like, Fucking shoot it, you know? At least kill it, because that can't be fixed.... "

I know, Neo-Cons want Sunnis to be called "al-Qaeda".

Yet you're the only pimping that. Curious.

Banned - Your statement that "If the US HAD NOT invaded, the Iraqi people would still be living in peace and not in terror" makes me wonder if you just arrived here from a moronic convergence.

Saddam gassing his own people, his rape and torture rooms, the mass graves and such all did not exist in your world. It surely was all sweetness and light, for the Sunnis, under Saddam.

It's apparent you don't get outside your progressive bubble very much.

Rafar:

This commentary from your Nation link says it all:
"The war the vets described is a dark and even depraved enterprise, one that bears a powerful resemblance to other misguided and brutal colonial wars and occupations, from the French occupation of Algeria to the American war in Vietnam and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory."

The thing I detest about your garden variety Leftist is the dogma that he/she/it was born not with Original Sin but Original Virtue. The subtext being: if you were just on my moral plane, you could be sagacious like me.

News Flash: War is HELL. You cannot refine it. War of itself is a dark and depraved enterprise for it involves the abnegation of charity, love and understanding but is instead, violent, dirty, and unclean. In war, the victor imposes his will on the vanquished, for that is victory.

And for the Left, in its view of history, Vietnam equals just desserts for a "misguided" and corrupt republic. The heroes of that war are not the troops, but the protesters.

The Left needs for Iraq to be Vietnam so the boomers can relive their youthful rebellion, but also so the "Movement" can be reignited so that the benighted are enlightened and lead to nirvana by those of Original Virtue.

However, Vietnam to the America's enemies is a signal lesson that division can be exploited for gain. Assad and the Mullahs know this and are playing the Left like a fiddle.

The one which these soldiers were involved in...

Ohhh, a small self selected sample greatly assisted by the IVAW. Very representative and convincing....not.

Purple:

Of course, we are the devil because some dips**t shoots a dog showing off our lack of cultural finesse, while thugs and brutes murder little kids, shoot up and bomb markets and holy places and generally cause wanton destruction and mayhem in the name of a sick ideology. However, because they oppose our "brutal occupation" they get a pass as liberators combatting the colonizers bent on stealing resources.

If this was WWII or the Cold War Hitler and Stalin would have no need for a propaganda ministry because these twits would already have done the work for them.
Of course, if this was WWI President Wilson would already have these American citizens jailed and busting rocks on charges of sedition and treason, but we shouldn't mention authoritarianism on the Left because it disturbs the narrative that Bushitler McChimpyHalliburton has destroyed civil liberties in this country.

Great, whatever it takes to get the troops home. Bush is a hero, the war wasn't a ridiculously colossal mistake that will cost us in treasure, people and diplomatic capital. Can they come home now?

Gus:

By "bringing them home" now and leaving the field to our sworn enemy you make their sacrifice meaningless. You may be able to live with that, but I cannot.

The troops come home and then what? We either destroy this sick ideology and its adherents here and now or we deal with it ever more.

As for loss of diplomatic capital, to paraphrase FDR, I welcome their hate of me. We are who we are and the risble will always hate us for our political choices.

"The thing I detest about your garden variety Leftist is the dogma that he/she/it was born not with Original Sin but Original Virtue. The subtext being: if you were just on my moral plane, you could be sagacious like me."

What on Earth are you talking about? I don't think of people with original sin or original virtue, whatever you mean by those phrases. I think of people as people, doing the things that people tend to do.

"War is HELL. You cannot refine it. War of itself is a dark and depraved enterprise for it involves the abnegation of charity, love and understanding but is instead, violent, dirty, and unclean. In war, the victor imposes his will on the vanquished, for that is victory."

Yes, that's my point. War is Hell for the soldiers involved, but doubly so for the civilian population involved as they have no real means to protect themselves from the Hell that surrounds them.

You did note that I didn't think that those stories described monsters, just people doing what people do.

"However, Vietnam to the America's enemies is a signal lesson that division can be exploited for gain. Assad and the Mullahs know this and are playing the Left like a fiddle."

Yes, it should have been such a lesson, for the US as well. It should have taught that, if you are going to have a war of choice, it needs to be run in the most ethical way possible, and it need to be as short as possible. 4GW theory is pretty clear on this point.

Put it this way. You know that your population will renounce the war withing a couple of years unless it is obvious to all that it is an existention war. Therefore you need to either fight only existential wars, or you need to fight short wars of limited scope to prevent the population drifting away from supporting it. In Iraq you have done neither, and so the populace has turned against the war and you have lost it. All the whining about "Lefties" in the world will not change that.

Doing what you are doing is like trying to organise airstrikes without an airforce.

"Ohhh, a small self selected sample greatly assisted by the IVAW. Very representative and convincing....not."

Feel free to read accounts of raids by Iraqis. Feel free to read about the detention centers. Feel free to read (or even view the videos) of how US forces drive about in Iraq.

I'm not accusuing them of being monsters, just of being an occupying force in a hostile country. Being an occupation force in a hostile country involves brutality. It always has and it always will.

"Of course, we are the devil because some dips**t shoots a dog showing off our lack of cultural finesse, while thugs and brutes murder little kids, shoot up and bomb markets and holy places and generally cause wanton destruction and mayhem in the name of a sick ideology. However, because they oppose our "brutal occupation" they get a pass as liberators combatting the colonizers bent on stealing resources."

Who's giving them a pass? Do I have to print a boiler plate at the top of every post saying that I believe the insurgents to be murdering scum, bent not on freedom but on power? Do I have to remind you that I despise AlQ and all they stand for? CanI just get a signature created to say this for me to save on this nonsense?

And you're not devils. You are an occupying force in a hostile land. The game is basically, can you get enough support for both yourselves and the government in place in order to minimise support for the insurgents and create stability, or can they succeed in destabalising the country and keeping it that way.

"if this was WWI President Wilson would already have these American citizens jailed and busting rocks on charges of sedition and treason"

Which citizens? Do you think that would be a good thing?

Rafar:

The military forces of the United States are subject to the The Uniform Code of Military Justice which incorporates our treaty obligations under the laws of war. However, being men and not angels, there will be those who act contrary to that code and contrary to the values of the country. HOWEVER, there are consequences visited on those who violate the Code. What other way than the present way would present a means of running a military campaign the most "ethical way possible"?

Here is my thesis: there are two general political affiliations in this country. The first is the Secular Progressive Moral Relativist position. The second is the Traditional Moral Code position. A bright line divide that illuminates the difference of which camp you are in is the abortion issue. SPMR's favor or are indifferent to abortion; TMC folks oppose or have a dim view of abortion.

Generally, if you are SPMR your perception of the world is one where those not of your ideology do not understand that they live unnecessarily constrained lives which do not push the bounds of human liberty (TMC's). In fact, their constraints cause them to support policies that are perceived as racist, sexist, homophobic,etc. A SPMR will view the history of the world as a catalogue of oppression, misery, and class exploitation. The antidote to this are statist policies and transnational institutions. They also believe that judging others is generally wrong. They are also convinced that utopia is possible if just the right policies are adopted and the right persons are in charge. They are big on centralization of power. A Metrosexual would fall in with this crowd. To a SPMR a most important value is to "feel" for the oppressed.

TMC's on the other hand believe that adherence to religious faith and the traditional values of liberalism (set forth, somewhat, in the Bill of Rights), individuality and self reliance are what make for a happy life. They are Okies from Muskogee who like living right and being free. They are unabashedly and unashamedly patriotic, and believe in American exceptionalism. They distrust government of all kinds (particularly transnational organizations), want decentralization of power and usually own and know how to use a firearm. They believe that history shows the country's blemishes, but that overall, we ain't doing too bad. Making judgments is not frowned upon because they strive to live by a moral code and therefore character counts for something (including your own). They do not believe in utopia but do believe in heaven. Overall, they do not take kindly to being forced into anything: Give me liberty; or give me death. From what I can discern, CY falls in with this crowd.

Now, I've put all this forward to make this point. The country is roughly 50:50 in both camps of what makes up la dolce vita (judging by Presidential election results). What that means,then, today, is that because the TMC's are deemed to be in control of the war agenda SPMR's cannot abide by it. To support that agenda is to support that ideology which certain SPMR's ,in fact, believe is evil. Of course, because a TMC like Bush is president it reinforces their bias that the country is messed-up and that only their values can clean up the mess. Case in point, the "comedy" of Bill Maher who plays it up to this echo chamber crowd.

Consequently, there is a sizable proportion of the country who are disaffected by this war, but that was inevitable. The disaffection of these folks is a weakness exploitable by a cunning foe. The North Vietnamese discovered this. The Jihadis are depending on it. It is the only way they can win.

That is why, Rafar, talk of withdrawal and defeat burns my ears. War distilled is a contest of will. You may think the President a rube and boob, but I believe he understands that point and the talk of Reid and Pelosi of the struggle being "lost" is not helpful, even, if they honestly believe it (dubious). I also believe our military leaders understand that point, particularly those who served in Vietnam. Insurgencies rely on war weariness to succeed.

Most respectfully, we have not lost in Iraq. We can only lose by giving up.

On the "What brutal occupation" question, take 4 minutes to watch this. You may say "But that's biased" but the raw footage is obviously accurate and it features an embed and lots of US troops talking, so it isn't just faked up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1knqJ5QS_g

Now, they aren't out there killing Iraqis for fun. I never said that they were. but I challenge you to say that if soldiers from another country who didn't speak your language were doing what they are doing in your town, you wouldn't consider it a brutal occupation.

"HOWEVER, there are consequences visited on those who violate the Code."

I'm not talking about violating the code. I am talking about the reality of the war the troops on the ground act in relation to the general population. They aren't breaking the code when they shoot a car speeding towards them, but they are being brutal. They aren't violating the code when they terrify a granny, but they are being brutal. It is normal that an occupaition be brutal, and the US occupation is certainly a lot less brutal than most.

"Most respectfully, we have not lost in Iraq. We can only lose by giving up."

But see, tht's the point. You have given up and so you have lost. A solid majority of Americans want this war over in pretty short order.

Obviously, even if everything turns around, the Iraqi government magically transforms into something that can actually governand the Shiite militias in the police and army, the Sunni tribesmen and the Kurdish nationalists all come together to build a stable society and the lunatics with the truck bombs all find their way to Paradise leaving the Iraqis with some hope of normality to try to pick up their shattered country and build it back into somewhere to live and raise then next sheelshocked generation in peace, even if all that comes to pass, it is going to take 5-10 years in the dream scenario.

There is no way that the American public are going to support this war that long. It is no good complaining about it and reminding people that wars are about will, it is already way too late.

As for the, frankly, extremely patronising division of the world into SPMRs and TMCs (I assume that you allow that that is only one axis of differentiation, and that it can, at best, only be a graded scale between the two. I mean, where's the room for libertarians in that scale for example?

And what's more, if that is true then the division of Pro and Anti War opinion would imply that the population is shifting from one to the other when that is patently a false impression.

Rafar:

Your response is just pathetic.

If your fictional war time clock exists, it should mean then that we should be dropping the "big one" because we don't have a stomach to fight.

You prove my very point in your reply with this logic: we are occupying Iraq; our occupation is met with "resistance"; the "resistance" is met with "brutality"; we cannot win because our "brutality" only creates more "resistance".

The flaw is the "resistance" part. Who are these "resisters"? Thugs, brutes, Baathist holdovers, Al-Quaida and assorted moron allies, or some combination of all the above.

How can this resistance win? Break our will. How? At home. How at home? Create havoc and then propagandize. Who will consume the propaganda? The gullible who will believe it. Why will they believe it? It fits and reinforces their narrative of America's character.And, these latter were the easy sell because America is the devil (except for them).

Ask yourself this: how much of the discomfort of the Iraq war is based our "brutal" occupation and how much is based on perception that we are not in it to win it. I'd expect that a sizable portion of your "bug out" coalition is predicated on us not being harder and more "brutal" with our enemies, not less.