The War Over the War

Boy, isn't it just great!!!! We voted last year to end the war and now Gen P wants us to applaud him and Bush for decreasing our troop levels BACK to where they were WHEN WE VOTED TO GET OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What part of "GET OUT!!", do they not understand???Gil in Tex

That the author believes the administration would view this as a "dream report" reflects the partisan manner in which the author approaches this issue and the level of distrust between the two dominant camps in the Iraq war debate. Those two camps are not believers in any particular strategy or vision. Those two camps are Democrat and Republican. Until people can separate themselves from the partisan bickering, forget about party affiliation and the next election, think about what the threats are to our national security, and how best to address those threats, we will continue this mindless, counterproductive bickering at the expense of our national security and economic prosperity.

Whether or not one labels the testimony as "dream reports" is of no consequence to me. The reports by Petraeus and Crocker are unconvincing.

The figures provided depicting a drop in violence and attacks are a snap shot of a two month period in a four year struggle. The trend line of attacks and violence in Iraq indicates that we can just as easily expect an increase in violence over the next four months as we could a continuation of the present decline.

The assertion that the surge contributed to the new security arrangement in Anbar province does not stand up to scrutiny. The decision by the Sunni's to oust foreign elements is a tactical move to strengthen their own power base. In this effort, they have enlisted the help of the US military. The Sunni's will not accept the status quo for the long term. What is needed in Anbar is electricity, services, and jobs. Without improvements in the living conditions of this province, the security situation will deteriorate.

Recent scholarship on the time it takes to build effective states suggests that the process takes 25-30 years. The current conditions in Iraq could delay things beyond this estimate. A state, in Weberian terms, is one that has a monopoly on the use of legitimate use of physical force in a given territory. Clearly, Iraq's central government is far from achieving the use of legitimate physical force in the country. Many Sunni's reject the legitimacy of the government outright. Hence the rise of shadow governments like the Mahdi Army and various local militia's.

The problem is this: Despite the fact that no real progress is being made, the idea of complete withdrawal of forces is dangerous and ill advised. Like it or not, we do have strategic interests in the region. America cannot afford to walk away and watch Iraq implode. Bear in mind, when this war was launched, 60% of Americans supported it. Regardless of how much people now regret their support, we must deal with the consequences of our actions.

We do not need to endorse an open-ended commitment to Iraq. What we do need is to refocus our efforts on regional diplomacy to secure agreements from Jordan, Syria, Iran, and Turkey that they will either assist in containing the conflict in Iraq or remain neutral. We need a diplomatic surge of international scope to ignite the Iraqi leaders into action. The United Nations, the EU and all regional actors should be approached in this regard.

There will be no "victory" in Iraq. We are occupiers now. The troop strength will remain at 130K until the next president takes office.

David Nicholson's analysis of the lack of a state in Iraq and the inability of its "government" to effect any change, be that positive or negative, seems to me to be right on. However, in advocating a "diplomatic surge to ignite the Iraqi leaders into action" as a major part of his solution, Mr. Nicholson says that we can potentially solve at least part of this problem through encouraging government officials who have ABSOLUTELY no power to influence events on the street. Agreement on an oil law is not going to solve the problems of Iraq, and meeting the governmental benchments will not either. The government is not a government, it is simply a collection of elected officials with no qower other than that which comes from the guns they control, hence the strength of Sadr.

Hate to be one who only points out the negative and does not offer an alternative strategy for fixing things, but there is no fixing things now, although I do applaud Mr. Nicholson for taking a stab at it. The situation is FAR more grim and dire than anyone is being led to believe, and the arming of Sunni warlords has Afghanistan in the 1980's (from whence September 11 actually received its unholy moniker) written all over it.

Petraeus and Crocker couldn't answer the hard question, particularly Sen. Hagel's questions. If Bush's key operatives can answer a simply "what are we doing in Iraq" question, then there is something very wrong.

Bush's IRAQ strategy, if it can called that, is an exercise in vanity, nothing more.

Congress, particularly the House, has the power to change this. It doesn't require legislation - just a refusal to legislate -- unless Bush comes up with an acceptable strategy for withdrawal phased in a way which will minimize the chances of a meltdown in Iraq.

The real issue is whether the Democratic leadership in the House has the guts TO SIMPLY DO NOTHING: to take the President's allowance away until he comes with a more responsible course of action.

Read A Primates Memoir by Robert Sapolsky if you want to know part of the reason we went in there, and why we continue staying there.

The Speakers power to recognize members for business and the ability to schedule all business before the House should not be overlooked. Nor should the power to refer all legislation to committee.

i see,
i see in this reposrt a reproduction against Iran what was made against iraq in 2003,
"the iraq US problem, is that Iran and Syria not work wit US admistration" this is the great idea of gen. Petr and amb. Crocker.
so USA is in the right way but Iran is the problem.... what is this,
i am not american, but the only thing that i like in america is their capacity to said no to wrong ways for their interest....
and now is even this is going away from US politician traditions.
i fear the next war.... this is what we will face if americans don't do their duty to stop this war...

EVERYDAY I COME AND ASK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN IRAQ.MOST OFTEN THE ANSWER IF ANY IS HOW MANY SOLDIERS WERE KILLED BY AN IED.I LISTEN AND WATCH THESE BRAVE AMERICANS DO WHAT OUR POLITICIANS TELL THEM IS RIGHT.THEY SACRIFICE DAILY. I ALSO THINK AND REMEMBER HOW I FELT WHEN AT AGE SIXTEEN I RECEIVED A DRAFT NOTICE FROM THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT . I WAS AFRAID.I DIDNT WANT TO LEAVE HIGHSCHOOL AND GO SOMEWHERE AND DIE IN A FOREIGN LAND.I READ A BOOK WHERE THE AVERAGE LIFE EXPECTANCY FOR A FOOT SOLDIER WAS 6 WEEKS. I HERE PRESIDENT BUSHH AND A LOT OF POLITICIANS TALK ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THE WAR IN IRAQ IS TO OUR SECURITY. THEY TALK AOBURT THE WAR IN IRAQ AS IF WE COULD ALL DIE NEXT WEEK IF WE DIDNT FIGHT THIS WAR. IF THE WAR IN IRAQ IS OF SUCH CONSIQUENCES THEN WE SHOULD BRING BACK THE DRAFT. JUST IMAGINE HOW THESE SAME POLITICIANS WOULD REACT IF THERE SONS AND DAUGHTERS WERE ASKED TO MAKE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. I WOULD BET MY LIFE THAT NOT ONLY WOULD THIS WAR HAVE NOT TAKEN PLACE BUT THE DEFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAR ON TERROR AND THE WAR IN IRAWQ WOULD BE DESTINCT.GOD BLESS OUR BRAVE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN SERVING IN IRAQ. THE BEST WAY TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IS TO BRING THEM HOME. LETS STOP THE WAR IN IRAQ.