I don't agree with all points, but all points are a very good start. I like your thinking it is very creative and is very workable at least as a start. Just love intelligent discussion. You have given me some good food for thought.

Thanks for the comments. Agree this thread has been one of the best on Pelican. Dan, your earlier posts especially helped clarify these ideas. Reardon, I don't typically support nationalization either, but think it important in this case to make the resource and revenue transparent and as free as possible from the regular ME conspiracies. It is limited for ten years and foreign investments could be made through bonds that would give investors some kind of priority in the stock sale.

Prime importance is to take US Military out of the "Big Bad Daddy" role in Baghdad. US can't just be seen as "the guys who kick in the doors and make us feel inadequate in front of our women".

Scott, you have put forth some really good ideas. Thank you.

I hope that this doesn't sound like just more bitc*ing, but that is precisely the kind of discussion and diplomacy that was required before the invasion. That type of planning would have required patience and compromise, neither one of which is in large supply in the Bush administration.

Unfortunately, your ideas are long since past the expiration date. We have neither the time nor the international support to even begin implementation.

I hope that there are smarter people than me to figure this out, but in my mind our next move is one that is harmful to our national interests. That is precisely why people find it difficult to accept. We need to get out of country, and quickly. We need to do the best we can to maintain a presence in the region to discourage the most blatant power grabs by Iran and others, but otherwise leave Iraq to govern and protect itself.

This will be damaging to America, I do not pretend otherwise.

The only policy more damaging would be to stay.

Rodeo,

I don't think that the situation was taken lightly going in. Some stuff could have been executed better, but that is another discussion. But for the sack of discussion lets assume it was, that is hypothetically (at least for me), but it is so I can illustrate my point. If in fact we made a mistake of going in too quick, to pull out thoughtlessly would be to make the same mistake twice??? Anyway I saw we get out when the job is done and you say we get out now, but lets both consider that the exit must be carefully considered. And just like the entry, it could have things go wrong as well. Afterall the enemy will show us what they want and do all they can to use their strengths against us, and vice versa. But lets not move without a plan. There are a lot of international and Iraqi strings attached as well as US troops lives at stake.

I think that staying forever is not the plan, and concur that would be a mistake, but the administration as well as the rest of the world and least of all Iraq needs us to live up to our commitment and not leave to early.

Keep it comin' good discussion good exchange.

When 6 of 10 Iraqis believe it's ok to kill American soldiers, I don't think it's "too early" to leave.

And it's not just the Iraqi "street," it's the leadership. The Parliament speaker thinks those that kill Americans should have monuments built for them, the Prime Minister calls the Iranian president his "brother," and the most powerful man in the country, al Sadr, is a violent anti-American that was once wanted "dead or alive" by the American military.

Even if we had unlimited resources, and could maintain our readiness while "staying the course," I think it would be a mistake to stay. But the fact is, we are destroying America's military readiness. We are a strong country, but our strength is not unlimited.

Sometimes you have to concede a battle to win the war. This is one of those times.

How do you figure?
Premature withdrawal from Iraq will inarguably lead to more sectarian violence in Iraq* (perhaps civil war) AND a public relations coup for jihadists, even greater than that achieved from the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

This is the worst possible outcome. How can you argue that we should "concede" this battle?


* Even the New York Times states that the current situation will get worse if American forces leave.

can we "win" it?

It's not the "worst possible outcome."

Not by a long shot.

Cause and effect
 

"An anti-American operative in Iraq appealed for help from al Qaeda leaders to help spark a sectarian war between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in an effort to drive the U.S. out of the country, a newspaper reported Monday."

Source: CBS News

So al Qaeda gets the ball rolling by bombing the Golden Mosque, and we get...

Cause
BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed 34 people and wounded 35 others -- many badly burned -- in Baghdad's Shi'ite slum of Sadr City, police said.
(Sunni sectarian violence, they like car bombs)

BAGHDAD - Police recovered a total of 35 bodies, mostly bound and tortured, in Baghdad in the 24 hours to Wednesday evening, police and Interior Ministry sources said.
(Shiite sectarian violence, they like torture followed by execution)


Effect
"Sometimes you have to concede a battle to win the war. This is one of those times."

And more seriously, the various Democratic proposals to <s>cut and run</s> withdraw before the Iraqi government has a chance to succeed.

If you are trying to say that I favor withdrawal because Iraq is a violent place, you completely misunderstand my position. Completely.

I appreciate debate about this, I think it is the most important issue facing our country, and it deserves debate.

If you want to debate, please speak to the points I have made, not the points you make up so you can knock them down.

I'll assume you are referring to
this poll. It's slightly more comforting to know that only 27% strongly support attacks against US troops. This is probably related to a natural nationalistic opposition to a foreign occupation. The poll does show that a majority of Iraqis want the US to leave within the next year. It is important to note that the poll shows increasing confidence in both their government and their security forces. And they believe that a US withdrawal would further strengthen their government. I don't know if this is tough love or false nationalistic pride. But it does explain the troubling figure you cite.

Also, one shouldn't overlook the fact that the poll shows a majority of Iraqis support the continuing US training of Iraqi security forces and the US help in community development.


The Iraqi politicians are politicians. They say what they think their constituency wants to hear. Do you think John McCain really means it when he says nice things about Jerry Falwell? It's all about deeds, not words. There is nothing wrong with the Iraqi PM trying to make nice with Iran. It sure would help his cause if Iran stopped its part in fueling the violence.

Only 45% of Shias (and very few Sunnis and Kurds) say that Iran is having a positive influence in Iraq.

Al-Sadr is not the "most powerful man in the country" (Sistani is). PM Maliki is viewed more favorably than al-Sadr by Shia, Sunni, and Kurds.

Reardon,

You have put it very succinctly. Rodeo, your questions are a very good catalyst for this discussion and although I don’t agree with your points, your arguments are paramount to all of the issues, seen and unseen, that are required to better understand what is going on.

I think that all of these later discussions do hit all points that must be understood prior to perfecting a true picture of what is actually happening. Reardon has made some extremely accurate observations of the information that is out there and the last thing, I mean the last thing, is the accuracy of the media. I don’t discount the media topics as drivel (well the majority of them) but you have to consider the source and the motivation for all media. First of all they are a business, no more, no less. I like to say the media is the only constitutionally protected business in the country (flame me, I know this is an oversimplification). But it does illustrate the point. If you have ever dealt with the media on complicated issues, they can really get it wrong, and quite frankly it doesn’t matter to them anyway. But regardless of the media’s ignorance of the intricacies of an issue if those in the know can’t address the issues it is a cause for great concern to the public. It is unnerving if a leader cannot divulge information that is needed for the public to better understand a situation, but sometimes you cannot for fear that the other guys are listening as well, and of course they are.

Rodeo, I made the point earlier that the enemy is attempting to subvert American public opinion and you have perfectly illustrated my point by the information that you are basing your argument on. This goes back to a change in tactics by the enemy, who realize that they will not and are incapable of winning the combat. They have changed to the tactics of fear. Compare that to the Lebanon issues over that past decades and how the Israeli’s finally overcame it (yeah it is not done) but the death of Arafat was one of the best things that ever happened in the region. Look what happened after his death, the Israeli’s compromised on stuff that was previously non-negotiable and things changed dramatically. Now we have this turd in Iran trying to stir things up like Arafat and I think that the Israeli’s showed him that, just as in Arafat’s case, these tactics will illicit the same response. The Lebanese people are also sick and tired of war, and that was instrumental in changing the political environment in that region that allowed moderate Lebanese to rise up and work out a plan, that included Lebanon in a Lebanese solution.

If anything that can be learned from the Israeli’s it is that you need to not back down, or there is no chance of a reasonable solution. These are not winner take all games, there can only be a hope of liberty when there is a win-win situation. Take Lebanon’s current situation. Moderates are tolerant. But a ruthless enemy with a separate agenda, in this case Hezbollah and Iran and the other Militant Islamic organizations are not and will take any advantage the can, they do not compromise. They were able to take advantage of the moderates and take control, through a democratic Lebanese election. Could that have happened with Arafat in the scene? Check into Hezbollah’s (I think it was them) dealings years ago with Jordan. Well, the Jordanians learned quickly that these guys (Hezbollah) were out to overthrow the Jordanian government and the Jordanians threw them out. Syria on the other had, seems to me to have seriously been impacted by the militant Islamic movement, I really do not know the history of Syria as well as I should, but it is my observation that the Syrian’s are considering the impacts of protecting these radicals. Same with Pakistan.

Anyway, I think Reardon makes a good number of points. That is not to say Rodeo that the points you make should not be addressed as well. I hope you are learning as much as I am from this exchange. Thanks and with that said, I gotta go install and MSD system on a 911.