And btw, I don't care how wordy or verbose you get. Honest points of view are the point!

If the terrorists continue to be effective in Iraq it will not make a difference when we leave they will continue to attack the Iraqi forces and police the same way they attach our forces. I doubt that the Iraq forces will EVER be as effective in a military sense as our forces.

The only way to defeat the terrorists is if the Iraqi people stop supporting them. There are 25 Million people in Iraq and they can stop the terrorism if they want to badely enough. That is why it is time for the U S to set a date when they must be willing to stop the terrorism. The radical factions in Iraq and in the Moslem world will continue to battle the West just because they do not want a non Moslem Army occupying a Moslem country. We are providing the radical Moslem factions with the means to get more Moslems to join them in fighting the infadels. That is why the Iraq War has NOT made America safer from another 9/11.

I think that Bush has one idea, but the Iraqis have a different one.  And woe be unto Bush if he does not live up to his statement that we will leave when asked!  So I think 12 months is more like it, with complete withdrawal perhaps in 3 years.  I think the Iraqis are still rough, but then most new armies are.  We have given them a lot of training, and the rest is experience.

As far as what happens when we do?  I dont see much of a change.  But I see most of the violence being Sunni on Shiite and vice versa.  most of the Terrorists will then start attacking other Arab nations trying to get to us.

As far as what happens when we do? I dont see much of a change.

I'd have to agree. History doesn't speak well of the politics of that area of the world. From kingdoms, to Sheikdoms, colonial rule to dictatorships. Not a real good track record. With a society that has no memory of self rule, a democracy seems to be pie in the sky. I see a new Iraqi government comming to a fairly rapid and unfortunately bloody end when we do withdraw.

That is why the Iraq War has NOT made America safer from another 9/11.

It does sort of make one wonder if the occupation is just diverting terrorist attacks here and abroad. I shudder to think of all the "veteran" terrorists being created there. Did we bust up all the smaller terroist training camps, just to create one large one?

I see a new Iraqi government comming to a fairly rapid and unfortunately bloody end when we do withdraw.

I dont. I see the bloody part, but I think the democracy will hang on, at least for a dozen years or so. Before some tinpot declares martial law, and viola. But I think it will take more time than 'fairly rapid'.

I see a new Iraqi government comming to a fairly rapid and unfortunately bloody end when we do withdraw.

Along the lines of the fall of Saigon.

Before some tinpot declares martial law, and viola. But I think it will take more time than 'fairly rapid'.

I have a suspicion it'll be a move towards a Theocracy like Iran. I suppose it depends on your definition of "rapid", but all the players are in place to convince the government at the point of the sword to comply or die.

suppose it depends on your definition of "rapid",

True, and that is why I said a dozen years (just a swag) to indicate I dont think it will be soon. ANd it may not happen. But when and if it does occur, I dont see a theocracy. Iraq is not Iran. But another Saddam? Possible.

but I think the democracy will hang on, at least for a dozen years or so

One could argue that South Vietnam did as well...as long as we were there. The Iraqi Army's new incarnation seems to be awfully similar. Corrupt and willing to change sides to whomever has the power at the time. Isn't it a bit arrogant of us to assume we can impart and instill the values it took this country over 200 years to attain, and that after hundreds of years of European common law? I mention the Iraqi Army under the assumption it would be called upon to defend the new government of Iraq. When a U.S. soldier takes the oath of enlistment, he at least has a vague idea of what the constitution and our principals of freedom stand for. I doubt very much Private Ahmad will or does.

Iraq is not Iran. But another Saddam? Possible

Agreed, however I do believe that it was Saddam that kept a Theocracy from happening, just as the Shah did until his overthrow. We currently fill the vacuum created by Saddams removal. When we are gone the strongest group will be Islamic fundamentalism, backed by the insurgents/terrorists (also self proclaimed fundamentalists).

I don't think total, complete withdrawl was ever our intention. I expect in the back of the Pentagon's mind was the hope we would end up with a situation like Germany and Japan, where we had "strategic interests" for decades. A jumping off point would be highly valuable in the region, especially since things didn't go so well in Saudi Arabia.

That said, the only way we can do that safely is to crush the insurgency, and until the Iraqi people are tired of seeing their peers blown up we can't. It's a supreme lack of sympathy on their part that is the problem. The people who hide al qaeda don't mind seeing people in other areas blown up. Baathists don't mind seeing shiite mosques attacked. The shiites don't mind the US wreaking havoc in sunni areas.

If the people harboring these terrorists would one day look at the carnage after a bombing, and say "I don't care if I personally don't like those people, this has to stop", the insurgency would be over. The places these people live have neighbors who know they are there. Those neighbors have neighbors. Until Iraqis align themselves with Iraq as a whole instead of terrorists and subgroups, this won't end.

I'm afraid that there is a lot of dirty work to be done, frankly. I expect when we leave for there to be a Stalinesque "purge" that will either cement the new government or destroy it. Put simply there are people in Iraq that will not tolerate peace under these terms, and until they are somehow convinced or purged from the society, there won't be peace.

That said, you can have a stable nation without it. Israel has withstood these kinds of attacks for years without the need of a occupying force. I don't think we can be out in six months, but I don't think the next President will be managing their affairs. Expect a strategic base to be eventually set up, probably in Northern Iraq, and for our forces to be use it for many years to come, though.

Expect a strategic base to be eventually set up, probably in Northern Iraq

I think that's a given, considering the situation with Iran and to a lesser extent with Turkey and Syria. I think "outpost" may be a more accurate description however!

Iraq government officials have said that they need about a year and a half to get their infrastructure up to the point where they would be able to do without foriegn troops.

Prs. Bush has said that we will have troops in Iraq until their government asks us to leave. Since their government has made their assessments, I think we should continue to help them until that time.

We also need to keep in mind that war is not a static situation. Missions and operations change and so do areas of emphasis. So any assessment of continued need must be based on those changes.


I think anything less would be abandoning them in the worst of ways.

I think anything less would be abandoning them in the worst of ways.

Although I agree with that from a moral perspective, it does beg the question, "Who invited us in the first place?"

We also need to keep in mind that war is not a static situation. Missions and operations change and so do areas of emphasis. So any assessment of continued need must be based on those changes.

From experience in that business, I do understand the concept of the dynamic nature of warfare. However assesment and reassesment are symptoms of an unclear set of goals. If an end point is not spelled out, if not initially at least at some point, we have the proverbial viscious circle. I think that may well be why public opinion is not as supportive as when the war began.

Prs. Bush has said that we will have troops in Iraq until their government asks us to leave.

Understood. But you have to ask, "when will that be?" Why would a government, any government be in a hurry to assume responsibility for it's own security, or the monetary and human costs of it when it's underwritten by another nation? The one thing I don't see discussed openly by our government or media is remuneration for services rendered. That may be cold hearted, but I would like to know what we're getting for our blood, sweat, and tax dollars. Or are we morally responsible to suck it up? I've heard "...their government asks us to leave" from another Texan. It did'nt work then either.