I think the civil war is the major problem right now and the insurgency is taking a serious back seat. The insurgents (which are mostly Sunni) are too busy attacking Shi'ite civilians to worry too much about killing Americans.

The Sunni insurgents are the same guys who were blowing up IEDs and assasinating politicians a few months ago. There is no difference in who is doing the killing.

I disagree that by pulling out the violence level would drop. I think the violence level would increase. Why? Because the Iraqi forces cannot fight this problem on their own yet. If the US troops pull out, the mice will play like hell. I think it would degenerate into a genocide, and then you would have the UN blaming the US for pulling out too early and allowing a humanitarian disaster. Guess that would be Bush's fault too in the eyes of many.

I agree that we cannot babysit the Iraqis forever but you must remember that their government was FORMED less than a year ago. That government is not in any position to effectively stand up and resist the insurgency without the US there.

If you want to see another genocide, pull out of Iraq.

Well, that all sounds very dramatic, Rick, but look at the facts: the Kurds have pretty much been the victims of genocide for the past generation. Turkey (a democracy we support) has killed 30,000 of them. Iran has killed thousands of them. Saddam killed hundreds, at least, amd possibly thousands. What did we do? Gave aid to all three governments while they were killing Kurds.

So for us to suddenly grow concern about Sunnis and Sh'ites is a bit hypocritical.

No, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe violence will drop if we leave. The Iraqi military, which has been building up for 3 years, will have to step in. Without having to take the lead, they have been ridiculously slow in building up. They have shown little concern over sacrificing American lives to impose a small degree of order.

The government in place right now may not be the right government to rule Iraq. It has little popular support. So let them work it out. If it takes another military coup and a dictatorship, well, maybe that's what Iraq needs. It seems to work well for Pakistan.

Ok, so I guess if you are ok with the idea of us allowing a genocide to occur once we leave, I can't really argue with that.

Just remember that the next time you call for the US to invervene in Somalia or Sudan or Ethiopia or whatever.

In this case, I think Rick is correct. I think that if America pulls out now, there will be a bloodbath with no rev limiter.

I'm sorry, but I just have to say this: Iraq had no WMD, and were intolerant of Al Queda or any otherinsurgent group or competing power. Saddam and BinLaden were on opposite ends of the religious spectrum, and hated each other's guts. It was a COLOSSAL mistake of gargantuan proportions to do what Dubya did. If we had instead focused our retaliatory efforts in the proper places, I think the ME would be stable, gas prices would be a dollar lower, terrorism would be substantially and semi-permanently in decline and America would be more secure. And most importantly, America would still be fairly respected, at least in the Western Hemisphere. That is not the case today. This is a HUGE mess that will take decades to overcome.

Pat Paulsen would have been a better President.

Rick,
It is the neocons (some have aptly compared this movement as right-wing Bolshevism) who now urge US adventurism wherever they feel it advances their political philosophy. Those curious about the Iraq War should look closely at that movement's roots, agenda and membership. Google & wikipedia are useful starts. Supporters of the Admin's war policies might be unpleasantly suprised when tracing this history.

The fact that Iraq was long targeted for military action, and 9/11 became pretext to initiate action, is at the heart of why our intel community (who are far too wise, experienced & selfish to be political partisans), uniformed military leadership and traditional allies are so disturbed.

My opinion is that we should respect the key distinction between remaking the ME in some idealized image of Western democracy, from neutralizing / eliminating AQ as a direct threat to the US & its people. Not only are they distinct, pursuing a policy that focuses on one problem can in fact hurt prospects for success in the other.

So, do we prefer to defeat specific threats against the US (AQ), or should we engage in "civilizing" the ME as a long-term national security policy via military invasions? And if we prefer the later (perhaps even believing it is the best way to address the the former), shouldn't that policy be asserted in a clear and open national dialog, even leading to Declaration of War, rather than camouflaged and slipped into our international security policy through manipulation of our fears and patriotism by a small group of presidential advisors?

On genocide; it is a crime against humanity, not merely one nation-state. Humanity in toto is responsible for dealing with it. If not the UN, then another trans-national entity. Unless the US supports this approach, then we will be consigned to be mixing our own (& others) short-term political agendas with the transcedent effort of suppressing genocide, everywhere, forever.

"I think that if America pulls out now, there will be a bloodbath with no rev limiter."

I think it is well past time to abandon the "white man's burden" foreign policy model. One sees evidence that in Iraq, our presence merely delays the day when Iraqis will work out their own compelling issues, in their own manner. An Iraqi political leader has stated that there will be a one year long civil war once the US departs - whether we leave in a day or ten years. Perhaps we don't appreciate how Arabs respond to occupation by western powers, regardless of our fine Judeo-Christian values.

Hey, if you guys want to allow genocide in Iraq, I can understand that. But let's be consistent. We should pull all our troops out of areas where they are serving "peacekeeping" roles or under the UN flag. Just let the world go all to hell and then wonder why the Europeans are blaming the US for everything again...

sorry Rick but I think the best way to stop genocide is to do so on a multilateral basis. the best course of action to suppress genocide in Iraq (and I wouldn't convolute sectarian / civil war with genocide, but perhaps you might) would be to push for internationalizing the effort. in fact, that is a great exit strategy - get the UN, Arab League, and/or NATO to take over the nation-rebuilding role from us. US could provide high tech and logistical resources, write checks and focus on special ops against AQ.

but maybe you have a point... we now parse torture, why not genocide? I'm sure the pres would define it appropriately.

we aren't involved in most of the genocidal regions of the world, so that obviously isn't a criteria for the US. Just a happy byproduct or convenient excuse.

Well, your guess is your guess. It isn't what I said.

Without us to fight. I believe there would be less fighting in Iraq. Part of what fuels the civil war is an attempt to foment it as a punishment to the US forces.

If the Iraq government has no choice but to grow a pair, they will build up military and police forces to suppress the fighting.

I think there will be less bloodshed if we leave, not more. Our being there actually has helped incite the internecine warfare you are so concerned about.

Very Interesting Thread.

The premature pull out of US forces would create a regional power vacuum that impacts more than Iraq and the United States.

Would any administration share with the public its classified battle plans, whether strategic or tactical?

Iraq is geographically the foci of the center of gravity in the region.

Say what you want, but if you look at the worldwide effectiveness of Islamic radicals you will see the significant impact for their ability to sustain a multifront conflict, thereby allowing them to be subdued as their former "other region" foes gain power due to the siphoning of assests to the Iraq front.

The enemy does know how to use the US Media for their own PR benefit.

An old common tactic and as old as war itself is to simply attack and occupy the high ground, the most beneficial geographic area with the most tactical and strategic benefit and let the enemy try to knock you off the hill. For those not trained in the dark art of war, this can be compared to killing cockroaches. The roaches are there, they come out at night, they avoid contact with known hard points, choosing to get their food from the easiest and softest target, they are opportunistic. When you turn on the lights you can stomp them out.

Iraq is the strategic and tactical high ground at the center of the Middle East. We occupy it and that is why the enemy is coming to us. All we have to do is show them we will not leave and just keep putting the down until they quit.

I do not neccessarily concur with the "breeding" new terrorists theory, but more so a combination of the roaches pressence being known now that the lights are on and the ability of the roaches to recruit, by force, new victims that are thrown at US forces for the PR value.

It is no different than Viet Nam. Throttle up the damage to the enemy and the enemy will capitualate, I am critical of the current admin for that, but the effectiveness of the US to damage the ability of coordinated attacks is proven. This does not mean that we do not have a long road to go or that earlier situations could have gone better. But remember, always remember that the bad guys will be able to fool us some of the time and inflict damage on us and we will do the same to them, the difference is the persistence of the combatants. Many a victory has been gained by the determined vice the mighty.

Sounds like stay the course, because it is. We are committed and much needs to be done, but determination and exausting the enemy's resources is what needs to be done. Stop a moment and notice the obvious, the attacks by the insurgents are now directed primarily at the civilian population because the PR value in the US is producing results. Attacking US forces produces casulties and saps enemy resouces. It does not take a genious to figure this out.

After reviewing the posts on this thread, it sounds like we have the proverbial

"Tiger by the tail."

Well if increasing the percentage of Iraqi citizens who support shooting occupying forces from a (presumed) zero to 61% isn't proof of our animosity and terrorist-engendering results, I don't know what would be.

Maybe so and a good comparison. But even a tiger can be eaten by the tail, one bite at a time. Persistence goes a long way.

It all is dependent on whose stats or poll numbers you believe in. Its a personal choice, don't believe any of 'em.

You commit to one set of numbers in combat and close off other options, well the results are predictable.

Only history will have the proper focus to say who was correct based on the information. We have to deal with that which is in front of us and we can't wait for all of the data, cause it will be to late.

Yea right. The UN can't do anything useful unless the US leads the force, the Arab League is absolutely incompetent, and the NATO countries will commit as few troops as possible to even mutually-agreed upon, UN-sanctioned efforts like Afghanistan. The reason everybody is so comfortable doing nothing is they know that the US will take care of it.

Unfortunately, the results were the same for the State Department and the U of Maryland, which released the results yesterday. They also coincide with a British study from earlier in the year.

So three studies -- one independent and two government -- get the same results. As you say, you can choose whatever polls you want, but the numbers are the same.

So:

Is this one of those instances when we have the best intelligence "at the time"?

I have heard that somewhere before......

Pretty much so, it is trying to put together the picture with the best available information. Is it always right, no. Remember the choice is to be reactive or anticipatory. You can never have enough good intelligence. Unfortunatly the window to counter an apparent situation that the intelligence is giving you at that time can preclude your ability to take advantage. It is always risky and you are always in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. There is an art, a science and a WAG factor in all situations. You can only do the best with what you have at the time.

For those who have been there, it is apparent that a perfect decission with perfect information that is delivered late, is no decission.

Doesn't matter to me. This information is just that, information and it goes into the pot along with all of the other information, including that from the hot dog vendor. It does not change my previous point.

Food for thought, are these entities not the same that had some influence on the issue of WMD's? Just food for thought.