No end to War in sight may take years
 

So we have a grossly underfunded troop base, a cutting of Vets benefits and recruitment way down, causing troops to go over longer and more often than they should.

And yet there is no end in sight. Sounds to me like we'll be seeing a draft real fast. A draft the Right continuously denied would ever be needed, and yet if recruitment falls below reenlistment, or pressure to end the war gains momentum a draft will be necessary.

We were lied to about vets benefits, the reason for war, we were lied to about how long it would last and soon we will be lied to about a draft.

The news for this administration keeps getting worse and all they can do is question Dem patriotism and flatly call Dems. supporters of the terrorists.

Think they'll ever address underfunding and undersupplying troops while Haliburton makes billions?

Think they'll ever come up with a truly good reason why 1/3 of military bases need closed (during a time of war)?

Think they'll ever come up with true reasons why they can't honor Veteran's benefits?

I don't, I think based on their past actions they will continue to question Dem patriotism and flatly call Dems. supporters of the terrorists. And keep "religion and class hatred" on the forefront thinking they'll keep getting elected by them.

I have news, you're closing in on 2,000 US troop deaths, and an admittance of no foreseeable ending, plus all the other things I have above posted....
they better hope the bullying, patriotism quetioning and "religious and class" warfare keeps working.

I didn't know the news that the war would last years is new news. I (and I thought most everyone) was at least under the assumption that troops would be needed in Iraq for at least a decade. When did anyone ever say it would take shorter? Thats one reason there has been no timeline proposed, ever. If anyone thought we'd be out of iraq before 2010 they're fooling themselves.

What scale are you running on here man, War's last for a long fucking time. Lifetimes. And as of right now I see no reason to get all excited about a draft. But what do I know. o wait

A draft is inevitable at this point. This will be another lie to add to the list of lies pushed upon us by this corrupt administration. The American public is finally starting to wake up and see the realities of this war and bush is now getting nervous. He's even going to go on TV tomorrow and try to sell the war yet again, hoping to fool people again with "it's for the security of the US and the world" "We needed to get rid of saddam" "We'll still find those WMD's someday." And the sad part is, that people will actually believe it. It the president on TV!!! "He'd never steer us wrong", "he's looking out for us!" they'll say.

When this draft actually happens, and people start having their children taken away from then and those children actually start dying for nothing, I think that then you'll see a very concerned public about the administrations intentions and their actions.

The administration will avoid the draft at all costs... but will keep at the war as long as it continues to keep them in power.

The american public is not starting to wake up. If anything, they are starting to fall asleep. They think because it has taken longer than a season of TV that its taken too long. Short attention spans dominate.

The 'war' is over.

It is now a police action, dealing with terrorist groups.

I hope we never have US troops out of Iraq. I want big ass air bases and a nice friendly western friendly democratic government.

I thought that after the Saddam's capture, and the election, things would start to fall into place. Instead things have gotten much worse with still no end in sight. We have a real mess to deal with now. I really have no idea what's going to happen. Draft, Pullout, or continue to do the same thing which isn't improving. All options seem bad.

So that means you'll sign up right?

I hear they're looking for doctors...

You just have to love these people who keep wanting their tax cuts and turning blind eyes to what is happening in the war and at home to our soldiers and vets, because of those tax cuts. And then to really cut to the bone say they want this war to last years.

It's our generation's Vietnam. no matter when we leave (and we will have to) the people are going to take control and rule how they want. By us favoring one sect over another is doing nothing to help matters. What we are doing right now in Iraq is promoting hatred and more and more insurgency.

You can only blame the Dems for so much, they aren't the ones in power cutting the benefits, underequipping, undersupplying the troops.

Perhaps, if these neo-cons want the war so bad they would be willing to have their taxes raised to fund this war properly? But I have yet to see one say that they would.

But you can definetly blame them for going along with the war and taking a very weak stance against this administration. If I disagree with Bush should I support what the Democrats are not trying to stop. Democrats are just as guilty in my opinion.

A valid point.

Unfortunately, the sad fact is they have been bullied into submission. If they speak out they have to put up with Rove, Limbaugh, Fox, Robertson's 700 Club and so on telling us all how unpatriotic they are and how they do not support the troops.

And as I linked on another thread, when you have a GOP congressman tell the AF Academy that the GOP withheld benefits because the Dems wanted rules to protect non Christians (i.e. hate crimes) from being harassed in the military, and that congressman gets applause...... something is seriously wrong and we need to find out what.

On the other hand many are starting to come forward and speak out. Hopefully this trend will continue.

But ultimately, the PEOPLE need to speak out and develop a unified stance. It's easy to say, the Dems are just as bad, but if they are being battered by Fox News, Limbaugh, Rove, Pat Robertson's 700 Club and so on and the people who support them remain quiet out of fear, then the ones yelling loudest are going to win.

You can only fight so long and so hard without any support before you start to wonder if anyone even truly cares.

What is important is showing your support. Don't sit and say "what's the point both parties are equally to blame." Instead, show support, physically by going to rallies for people who speak out or by just an e-mail to let them know what they say is appreciated. That support helps those fight and stay strong.

Here, Here!

And throw in a couple DisneyWorlds and Six Flags Baghdad while you're at it!!

The 2012 Olympics in sunny, metropolitan Fallujah!! :thumbsup:

Hey Rush has some new Club Gitmo clothing for sale as some kind of sick joke. Must be a fun place to visit. :hmm:

http://store.rushlimbaugh.com/

Unless there is some major development in either the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts, then there will be no draft. All of this news of hightened tensions between Iran and North Korea is largely created by the media. Bush wouldnt do it even if he wanted to. He knows what he can get away with and this wouldnt fly no matter how you look at it. sO if were past bunkering down for another world war, I fail to see any threat of a draft. Word on the blogs says Canada is ready for war. Thats about all I need, who's with me.

* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

That's 2003.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm

I'm sorry, but a timetable *was* proposed in selling this war. it was not decades.

never let it be said that conservatives are impeded in any way by good taste.

Just be glad we haven't been accoused of being anti-christian!!

This war will continue until the oil dries up and our intersts lie elsewhere. At that time, well pull out and the Middle East will become one of the most peaceful places in history.

I always believed we were supposed to go over take out Saddam train the Iraqis send in diplomats and officials to help them set up a democracy and leave.

Nowhere did I ever hear BEFORE the election that this war would last for years and years. Or that our troops would have to pay for their own gear as Haliburton makes billions and Bush gets billions and billions of funding for the war. Where is the money going?

Are you GOP'ers sending your tax cuts to the troops to buy their gear for them????

The Pentagon has requested the names and addresses from the public schools for all students approaching 18 years of age. It is said this is to give recruiters an better chance at meeting enlistment goals. It sounds like a violation of privacy rights to me, and strikes me as more than a little desparate. I agree with others who have said that reinstituting the draft cannot be sold to the American people. How will the Pentagon maintain the military size needed, if not the draft?

Not going for a tangent, but there is no right to privacy.

I would welcome the tangent, if you would care to explain why there is no right to privacy. But I didn't start this thread, so I will defer to the author of the topic.

Obviously we need to up the incentives. How about better pay, properly equiped soldiers for the field, real veteran's benefits for a start. A draft doesn't make sense (to me at least), just go back to our roots: capitalsim and free markets.

If you up the pay and benefits while being truthful about length of duty, you will have your pick of the litter. If we need more officers, likewise, offer college students or whatever elites we have seious bonuses.

It's silly how we need to recruit but aren't willing to pay for it. Well, we get what we pay for.

How do we pay for it? Clean up Congress. Trim the fat. Any company that beneifts from contracts in Iraq should help defray the costs. Also what happened to all the oil money that was going to pay for the war? Maybe the Defense Department is due for an audit. There has to be waste there.

There is no right to privacy. I know it seems weird but it's nowhere to be found on the Constitution. I think the Founding Fathers at the time were more concerned with property rights, taxes. Also, I'm not sure privacy was a big concept back then, especially given the Puritan (Protestant?) propensity to be involved on one another's affairs. Again, I'm not too sure, but this is what I rememebr from American Government class (a long time ago). I believe it was common for people to peek in on their neighbors and "tattle" if they weren't in church etc. At least in the New England region.

If you would care to point me to the documents which give us a right to privacy, I will happily stand corrected. We NEED a right to privacy, but we do not have one.

i would be interested in seeing how you understand this right to privacy, why it does not exist and what you think should happen, ustwo: could you generate another thread please, should you be so inclined?

To me this seems like a privacy right. I have the right to not be harrassed by the government unless I've suspected of wrong doing. The government asking schools for names and addresses of people under 18 seems like a direct violation of that agreement.

Curious remark from one who invokes the race card when describing the conservative ideology as a whole.

The Pentagon is actually asking for the above names under 18. Adults, legally defined as over 18 years can enter into a contract which is required for entering military service. I think the military recruiting officers are attempting to promote military service to young teens (under 18).

Added: And many thanks to the post on privacy rights. :thumbsup:

What purpose could the above post possibly serve in forwarding this discussion.

None

If you decide to bait anyone else in here.....I will happily give vacation time.

Roachboy was Just as Bad as Powerclown in this


Get with the program guys

Dang, Tecoyah. Another yellow warning, because I am the "above post?" What the hell did I do now?

Can't we be just a little clearer about breaking the rules of etiquette here? :(

Directed towards the powerclown post above you.....and Roachboy above that


I suppose I will begin to use the member names, and call people out

Please point out any negative reference I have made to Powerclown. I don't recall ever making one and I don't find one here.

Sorry, I'm too literal. Wouldn't it be easier to just say..."Bubba" that remark is uncalled for?

The war will last for many years, and there are other posts for privacy.

Any thoughts on the remark about the war taking years and it's implications?

Will, I think we must undo the damage we have done. The mistakes made in this Iraqi adventure are beyond count, but I sincerely believe we need to put in place "something" that prevents a civil war. Spoken like a true Polyanna. :(

It is very much a Constitutional right to privacy.

But the Right in all their zealousness and blindness will throw out any Constitutional rights the administration deems as helping the terrorists. Funny how they scream about the SC ignoring the Constitution but will ignore it themselves if it does not benefit their needs.

Hell, it's just a matter of time before the government starts telling kids if the don't enlist they are helping the terrorists and if their parents tell them not to enlist to turn them over as giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

I see in our future as stated above, enlistment hitting lows, re-enlistment almost forced because voluntary will be low. And the government telling the kids that if they do not enlist they are not true Americans and if their parents tell them not to enlist, to turn their parents in as terrorist accomplices.

I also see the economy and job sector getting worse and worse, so that joining the military is about the only way to earn a living and be able to afford anything (albeit still not very much).

Civil war in Iraq is going to happen the minute we leave, no matter what we do.

I also hear that the Japanese will never accept a republic form of government.

I must have missed that in my reading of the constitution, could you point it where it is?

The 'right' to privacy has been even asserted by courts but there is no such right anywhere to be found in either it or the bill of rights.

Big difference, they attacked us and we won. Plus, after the war we helped them rebuild we didn't destroy their sovereignty at any time.



Really? So the government can tap our phones for no legal reason, have cameras in our homes, can come into our homes at any time and search it without cause, talk to our coworkers and have them spy on us, and so on and we have no right to stop them?

If we pack up and leave Iraq right now, wouldn't that pretty much guarantee that the terrorists will take over? I'm not saying that terrorism will cease to be a problem any time soon. Maybe it never will. But I think that leaving right now, or even announcing a date that the troops will withdraw, would be good for the terrorists and bad for everyone else.

a historian of the japanese reconstruction spoke to my history seminar this fall. he was contacted by some neo-con think tank to talk about how "easy" it would be to reconstruct a country like iraq. he told them (and us) these few little facts.

1. post-war japan was devastated in a way that iraq, even w/ sanctions, never came close to. after the carpet bombing (the conventional munitions and the firebombing even more than the nukes) the average civilian was so damn tired of even thinking about war that resistance ceased. starvation was the only alternative to accepting american rule. does this sound like contemporary iraq?

2. no japanese person was ever charged with harming an american soldier. there are no recorded major incidents of americans being harmed by japanese nationals during reconstruction. does this sound like contemporary iraq?

3. other stuff i forget.

ustwo...i'd like to hear how you think this is an apt comparison. do you think that this history of reconstructing iraq is similar to that of japan? if so, how do you compensate for the serious differences in the situations?

So what's the alternative, staying and waiting for how many more to be killed?

When is enough enough and our turning their country back over to them and letting them handle their own affairs........ perhaps, the Iraqis can handle their own affairs far better without us than with us there threatening and dictating.

That's the reason why they are calling for a fixed withdrawal date.

Do you really think that if we just left Iraq things would get better or do you just not care?

I care when we send thousands over to die, expecting them to pay for their own gear because Halliburton needs the profit.

I care when in all honesty no matter when we withdraw the country is going to be ruled how the Iraqis want NOT how we choose to dictate to them.

I care because we are isolating ourselves from the world and we have no factories here, a severe trade deficit with many countries that dislike us.

I care because eventually the Iraqi people will revolt against us...... not just these so called "insurgents" from other countries.

I care because we are looking at years of massive deficit spendings and a shrinking tax base.

I care because we were lied to about the reasons for this war.

I care because I don't want my children to die overseas in a war I don't believe in.

I care because our partisan politics and the hatreds are leading us to civil war.

I care because we cannot sustain this war for the years the regime in Washington calls for.

I care because that area was the main reason the USSR was driven to bankruptcy and faced its demise and it may very well show to be ours.

I care because we are leaving ourselves open on other fronts.

I care because the cost is not worth the gains.

I could be selfish and naive and say, the war keeps us safe because the terrorists are focused on attacking us in Iraq. But that would be foolish.

I care because no matter how it is sold or how it is spun we are invaders into a culture and a very religious area that our government and people in power have no respect for. We are trying to Christianize them, dictate our beliefs and eventually it will backfire.

To say we are "liberating" or "helping" these people is bull. We are dictating our will against another sovereign nation that did not ask for our help.

At what point do you suggest we leave? If you think we will ever have peace in that region you are sadly fooling yourself.

If you think we will build a model democracy and Christian nation, you are sadly fooling yourself and allowing thousands to die for your pipe dream.

If you think when we pull out there will be this great Iraqi society that feels indebted to us, I truly believe you are sadly mistaken.

In the end, this will be another Vietnam. When we leave, the Iraqis will form the government they want and they will dispise us for our years of control.

You cannot dictate freedom or democracy...... and in the end that is what we are trying to do.

BTW, yes I believe any country can govern themselves better than with an invader dictating their government to them.

What terrorists? The al Qaeda? The ones we almost obliterated in 2001-2002?
The 'insurgents' are not terrorists. They are Iraqis who oppose by force the US invasion. Terrorists, by their modern meaning, are members of a group pushing an adjenda by threatening or using force in order to intimidate or coerce. Wanting not to be invaded is hardly an ideological adgenda.

I see, so foriegn born 'fighers' who blow up civilian targets are 'resisting' the invasion and have no ideological agenda.

I don't know, you tell me does Bush and Company?

The Vietnamese had help from the Chinese, what's your point?

As for insurgents, I believe you listen to too much propaganda from Bushco. Do you really believe that every last Iraqi wants us there? Do you even believe a majority does?

I have a feeling there is far more Iraqi rebellion than we are being led to believe. It somehow makes it better for those on the borderline to be told and to believe that all these insurgents who have never been to Iraq have no idea how to get around in Iraq all of a sudden appear and pull off all these bombings. Far easier to believe in the war propaganda than to believe the Iraqis are the ones rebelling.

Ever see your daughter's legs blown off by a cluster bomb? Ever come home to see your house on fire with thousands of rounds pumped into it? Ever stay in a town because you know that every single road leading out of that town is crawling with kids from another country with itchy trigger fingers? Ever been kidnapped in a group raid on your house and taken to a prison - incommunicato - , despite the fact their is NO evidence that you've ever committed a crime?

They want the US soldiers to leave. It has nothing to do with religion, politics, or any other ideology.

I guess that the analysis of the professional charged by the world's most respected, English language news network has to have it wrong, if you have it right, stevo.

Which will eventually cost more American lives?

Keeping troops there to kill the terrorists.

or...

Leave and let the terrorists inherit a large, populous nation that is (or maybe was) fairly advanced by Middle Eastern standards.

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of invading Iraq. I'm just trying to figure out which of the above options would be better for America in the long run.

i would think that the americans ought to assemble a coalition of other countries--maybe via the un--that would initiate a reconstruction phase ofr iraq, and that the americans should for the most part bow out, as there seems to be no way to seperate american-lead reconstruction from american-led occupation.

i dont see any good options within the current situation.
and i do not think the option "fuck you we're leaving...ingrates..." makes any sense either.

i am sure that the right could find some way to make this tack a requisite point of agreement amongst their flock, if they put there minds to it: they cut their teeth on selling patently false arguments for worthless causes, so trying to sell something that is actually plausible should be a snap.

if the right were to sell this apporach--transnationalizing the reconstruction project--i am sure that in six months you would find every conservative arguing that this had been the idea from the start.

a win-win scenario.

The longer we are there the more it will cost in tax dollars and lives and no matter when we leave there will always bee the risk of terrorists inheriting the country.

However, if we turn it over peacefully, and help them diplomatically, with other nations' help, the turnover maybe smoother and countries along with the Iraqi people maybe more inclined to keep peace and the terrorists out.

I just believe the longer we are there militarily, the more the Iraqis will come to hate us and it won't just be "insurgents" attacking but a full blown civil war in Iraq.

And I am sure Iran, Syria, and so on are watching very closely to see how long we can maintain a good relations with a supposed majority there.

As long as we are shoving our religion and cultures down their throats and going against their religious beliefs, we run the risk of losing what native alliances we may have. The alliances are built on power as it is, and if another outsider can come in and offer more power to oursupposed "allies" I can see them switching sides fast.

This article does a decent job of outlining our exit options:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/070805H.shtml



Experts: No Good Options for Iraq
By Ron Hutcheson
Knight Ridder Newspapers

Thursday 07 July 2005

Washington - In the swirling debate over Iraq, all sides agree on one thing: There's no easy way out.

Every approach to ending U.S. involvement carries the risk that President Bush's ambitious effort to transplant democracy will end in chaos and create an oil-rich haven for terrorists. Even the most hopeful predictions envision a fragile democracy struggling to overcome ruthless insurgents and divisive internal tensions.

"There are no good options," said Christopher Preble, a national security specialist at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "I believe that withdrawal is the least bad of the set of bad options."

Advocates of other strategies, including those who think Bush is on the right track, acknowledge risks in their choices as well.

"There are going to be thousands more casualties and we're going to spend $4 billion to $8 billion a month for some time to come," said national security expert Anthony Cordesman, who backs Bush's plan but accuses the president of downplaying the human and financial toll. "It's going to take years."

The military options under discussion within the administration, in Congress and at various think tanks fall into four broad categories: rapid withdrawal, gradual withdrawal, military escalation and staying the course charted by Bush. Here are some of the pros and cons of each:

Rapid Withdrawal: Advocates of a prompt pullout say it's the fastest way to stop the loss of American life and avoid a Vietnam-style quagmire. It would also force Iraqis to take control of their destiny and silence talk that the United States has imperialist goals for Iraq.

There are about 139,000 U.S. troops in Iraq today.

"By withdrawing militarily from Iraq, the United States will be broadcasting to the world - in particular the Arab and Muslim worlds - that the United States has no plans to take control of Middle East oil or to otherwise impose its will on the people of the region," Preble wrote on Cato's Web site. "Such a message would seriously undermine the terrorists' tortured claims."

Former Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic nominee for president in 1972 who ran on a pledge to get U.S. troops out of Vietnam, said the debate over Iraq is a replay of that earlier controversy.

"Calls to maintain the status quo echo the same rationale used to keep us in Vietnam," McGovern wrote in an opinion piece co-authored by Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. (no relation to the former senator). "We believe that the nation's standing would greatly improve if we demonstrate the judgment to terminate an unwise course."

Opponents of a rapid withdrawal say that the departure of U.S. troops would doom Iraq to chaos, with dangerous long-term consequences.

"You'd have a messy civil war and almost certainly another dictator," said Cordesman, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a conservative think tank.

A power vacuum in Iraq might also invite meddling by Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran and Turkey. Iran has close ties to Iraqi Shiites, and Turkey wants to stamp out any move toward Kurdish self-rule in Iraq that could stir up Turkish Kurds.

Others fear the emergence of a terror state, in the mold of Afghanistan under the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

"I'm not calling for withdrawal because I think withdrawal is a panacea. It's not," Preble said. "There are a lot of risks. I just think the risks are less."

Gradual Withdrawal: Plans for a gradual withdrawal generally include a loose timetable for removing U.S. troops without any firm deadline. The goal is to get the political benefits from withdrawal while minimizing the risks from leaving too soon.

Proponents contend that declaring an intention to leave would undercut the insurgency, increase pressure on Iraqis to take responsibility for their affairs and reassure Americans that the end is in sight.

"By keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, we're asking them to resolve political and social issues that need to be resolved by Iraqis themselves. That's unfair to the troops, their families and the country," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers sponsoring legislation that calls for withdrawal starting in October 2006.

The proposed start date is intended to give Iraqi security forces plenty of time to prepare for the handoff.

"If they can't do it by then," Abercrombie said, "we have to acknowledge that we'll be mired there for a very, very long time."

Others have proposed variations on the idea. Michael O'Hanlon, a national security specialist at the Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank, has suggested reducing the American presence to fewer than 40,000 troops over 18 months to two years.

Steven Clemons, a foreign policy expert at the New America Foundation, a centrist policy-research center, says Bush could announce his intention to pull out, without setting a timetable, as leverage to get European countries and Iraq's Muslim neighbors involved in the reconstruction effort.

Bush adamantly opposes any withdrawal deadline.

"Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission. ... And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is wait us out," he said in a nationally televised June 28 speech.

Cordesman, a stay-the-course advocate, questioned whether a timetable would offer any additional incentive for Iraqi security forces.

"They're already being pushed as hard as they can," he said.

More Troops: A military escalation in Iraq may be a tough sell politically, but it's not a new idea. Weeks before the war's start, Army Gen. Eric Shinseki told a congressional committee that pacifying Iraq would require "several hundred thousand" troops.

His remarks angered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who publicly rebuked him, but some members of Congress think Shinseki was right. In their view, the stakes in Iraq demand an all-out commitment.

"I've always believed we need more troops," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "I think it's one of the major reasons we've had so much difficulty."

Escalation advocates say commanders in Iraq need more troops to stop the infiltration of foreign jihadists and to secure areas that have been temporarily cleared of insurgents.

"I continue to be worried about whether at this moment we have enough troops. ... They take a city, but they don't have enough people to leave either our own coalition forces or the Iraqi security forces to secure it. Then the insurgents, the terrorists, come back," Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said at Senate hearing last month.

But sending more troops may not be a realistic option because the military is already stretched thin. Nearly half of the troops in Iraq are from National Guard and reserve units, and some soldiers are on their third tour of duty. Military recruiters are having a tough time meeting their recruitment goals for the all-volunteer force.

Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said the government would probably have to revive the draft to come up with the 500,000 troops that he estimates it would take to secure Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld have ruled out that option.

To give the Pentagon more flexibility, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have co-sponsored legislation that would increase the overall troop strength of the volunteer military. The Army would get 30,000 additional soldiers, for a total of 532,800; the Marine Corps would get 5,000 more Marines, for a total of 183,000.

Bush says escalation would send the wrong signal to Iraqi security forces and the insurgents.

"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight," Bush said. "And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever."

Other opponents said more troops wouldn't make much difference because defeating the insurgents is as much a political problem as a military one.

Stay the Course: Bush and his supporters point to signs of progress in Iraq as evidence that the operation is on track.

The Iraqi elections in January succeeded beyond expectations, with more than 8 million Iraqis voting. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jafaari says he's confident that a new constitution will be ready by the Aug. 15 target date, paving the way for ratification in October and new national elections in December.

Despite their best efforts, insurgents and terrorists have failed to provoke a civil war between rival Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Sunnis are playing a greater role in the political process, encouraging hopes that they'll turn against the insurgency.

On the security front, U.S. military commanders say they've trained 169,000 Iraqi security forces. (They refuse to say how many of them are ready to fight on their own, though, and independent estimates range from only 2,500 to 40,000. Cordesman, who supports Bush's approach, conceded that Iraqi forces "have major problems with leadership, desertions and effectiveness.")

Administration officials say the only missing ingredients now are time and patience.

"Iraq slowly gets better every day," Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, told a Senate committee last month. "I am more convinced than ever that our mission there is both realistic and achievable."

Many of Bush's Democratic critics have proposed alternatives that are little more than variations of the president's approach. Most call for more international help, but other countries have shown no interest in sending troops to Iraq.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., says Bush should seek the deployment of a 3,000- to 5,000-member NATO force along the Iraq-Syria border and prod other countries to train Iraqi security forces outside Iraq. The tactical details differ from Bush's, but the strategy is basically the same - fight the insurgents, train Iraqis to take over and help Iraqis develop democratic institutions.

While Bush can point to signs of progress, his critics can find plenty of evidence that Iraq is heading in the wrong direction. Foreign extremists continue to pour into the country, the insurgency is as strong as ever and the death toll continues to mount.

Iraq's economy is in a shambles. Unemployment for young men is estimated at 40 percent in Sunni areas, annual per capita income dropped from $137 in 2003 to $77 last year, electricity remains sporadic and only about 37 percent of Iraqi families are connected to a sewage network, down from 75 percent in the 1980s.

While opinions are splintered over how to proceed in Iraq, there's widespread agreement that a victory for the insurgents would be a big blow to American credibility and a boost for the morale of Islamic extremists. No one seems to expect the emergence of a stable, secure American-style democracy anytime soon.

"We can't afford to lose, but we don't know what we're going to win," Reed, the Rhode Island senator, said. "It might be very little."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For More Information:
Christopher Preble's plan for withdrawal is available on the Cato Institute's Web site.

Michael O'Hanlon's call for a withdrawal timetable and Sen. Joseph Biden's critique of Bush's approach are available from the Brookings Institution.

A prewar analysis by the Army War College that called for a "massive commitment" of troops and financial resources.

More information about President Bush's strategy is available on the White House Web site.

Anthony Cordesman's defense of Bush's approach is available from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

I say keep the troops over there. I support the troops., but I don't say, "Bring them home." If they didn't want to go fight for the country, they shouldn't of joined the military. No one got drafted. I would think they would want to be there anyway. I feel bad for the parents and wives/families of the troops, but thats what they wanted to do. Defend freedom and keep America safe.

Its not good over there. Lets face it, whether you like it or not, America is the world police and we have to restore balance in the Middle East. If it last 10 years, then so be it.