[jyl]

The problem is, we're not simply trying to "destroy an enemy". Of course we have lots of military power. We could surround any Iraqi city, drive all the civilians from their homes, imprison anyone who might be a terrorist (kinda hard to tell once they've hidden their guns, so how about "all males from 16 to 60"), kill everyone left inside, leave only smoking ashes, all the women and children get to live in relocation camps . . .

But we're not trying to destroy the country. We're trying to build a (1) democratic country that (2) is friendly (or at least not hostile) to us. (1) means the people choose their leaders. (2) means they choose leaders who are pro-American (or at least moderates who don't want to kill us).

So, suppose we do the smoking ashes bit on three or four Iraqi cities. Everybody in Iraq hears about their uncle who was killed, their second cousin who was imprisoned, their neighbor's nephews who lost their homes. Then we hold elections in January. How do you think Iraqis will vote? Think a moderate candidate who favors sensible policies will win? Get serious. The radical, Jihadist, "death to America" candidates will take power.

Then they kick us out. The US government breathes a sigh of relief - finally, a face-saving way to declare victory and get the hell out of Iraq. We removed Saddam, established a democratic government, now it's "Mission Accomplished 2" and the troops come home. Pity about the WMD, but that was never the point.

So what gets left behind in Iraq? A violently, passionately anti-American country. Tens of thousands of experienced fighters and terrorists. Not much law and order, or central infrastructure. A whole country for Al-Qaeda and other terrorists to hide in, train in, make money in, build bombs in. Oil money. Room for Iran, Syria, and other neighbors to move in and assert control. In short, a bigger, nastier version of Afghanistan under the Taliban, but even closer to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In a couple years we'll be saying "WTF? 2,000 GIs dead and $150 billion spent, and we got this? Why, this is worse than Saddam!"

Alternatively, we could rig the election so that a moderate, US-friendly government wins. Cite security concerns to cancel voting in any city or region that isn't under decent control. So, no voting in the entire center of the country, nor big parts of the north, maybe not in the slums of Baghdad either.

So now a government that we like "wins". Maybe the existing governing council, that would be handy. But it didn't really win, is seen as a US puppet, so it can't actually govern. The insurgency and terrorism continues. Hastily-trained Iraqi troops can't control the situation, so US troops have to stay. How long? The Pentagon is now planning for up to 100,000 troops in 2006. The 2,000th GI dies, then the 3,000th. Another $100 billion, then another. In a couple years, we're not so happy under this scenario either.

That is why the US Army can't take the macho "Dirty Harry" approach that some on this board suggest. Like it or not, Iraq is now ours. We broke it, now we own it (Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule of foreign policy). We can't fix it by smashing its cities to bits.