1.) Various parties have described the situation in Iraq as one where we can't lose militarily, but also can't win militarily. I submit: Isn't that the definition of a "quagmire?"

2.) Isn't it the case that we must ultimately honor the will of the sovereign Iraqi nation and eventually LEAVE?

3.) Why is it the Democrat's responsibility to find a strategy when the Bush regime obviously has none?

When they ask us to. So far the Iraqi government (such as it is) wants us to stay.

Not saying we should, mind you. I think we should bail tomorrow. Better yet, today.

1. Iraq is a quagmire, to be sure.

2. We 'wiped out' the sovereign Iraqi nation and replaced it with one subservient to us. To say that we should honor the will of the government we set up is absurd. They have no will outside of us. They have no permanence outside of us. If we leave, they won't last two seconds. The government we set up hides within a heavily fortified green zone protected by U.S. military power. For some reason, I don't think they will be asking us to leave anytime soon.

3. The words "Democrat" and "Responsibility" don't go together. They no more have a clue of what to do in Iraq than the Republicans do. They have the same goal as the Republicans, i.e. to "win"

Didn't Bush (again) give the wrong impression when he tried to allay fears of leaving by telling the Iraqi PM that, in no uncertain terms, we are not leaving?

What kind of urgency does that indicate on the part of the U.S. for Iraq to start controlling their own country?

First off, after three years, the situation is worsening and Iraq is no closer to having a force that is able to administer law fairly than they were three years ago.

Its going top be a classic case of one ethnic identity taking back the reins of power and likely it will be the Shia ruling a theocracy. Expect the formerly secular Iraq to only find peace and security under an Islamic hardliner. And he will be both Shia and closely allied with Iran. The extent of suffering that will be brought to bear on the Sunni population is unknown, but it could, and likely is, going to become a bloody civil war that could last a while.

1. A draw. Yes, in war a draw with military action is a quagmire.

2. The Iraqis people, by a majority want us out. Their government doesn't. Yet we hold up Iraq as our new Democracy. By definition, the majority speaks volumes over the few, even IF the few were appointed by Bush.

3. Democrats are only responsible to present their position. Regardless of the fact that the Republicans lack a clear vision and plan, it is convenient of them to turn the table and require it of their opponent, especially when they can't articulate their own. This puts the opposition on the defense, which keeps the Republicans on the offense.



What Democrats need to do is articulate a position and require the same from the Republicans. Obviously the Republicans automatically begin to shoot down the Democrats position, but where the Dem's fail is in attempting to defend their position. Yes, the Dem's are great at defending their defense. But lack a willingness to attack and drop their urge to defend. All it takes is a simple rebut from any Dem to any Republican, "And when you say THE plan, what is it...??? The Mission??? The goal??? Success looks like ...WHAT???" or... "You're the majority party that has the President from your party. It is not up to the Dem's to show you HOW to lead, or is it?"

Yes, but I didn't say "government" I said "nation." I agree that no regime propped up with American rifles will ever ask us to leave. However, the general public wants us out of there.

If they didn't, they would be backing our troops and not bombing them.

According to President Bush, Fox News, and many conservatives (even some right here on POAC), these are just "terrorists", not Iraqis, so they don't count. According to them, the only legitimate Iraqis are the ones that support the U.S. position. Which is yet one more reason why I am rooting for the insurrection.

It is a hybrid insurgency, with many groups with different ultimate objectives, temporarily united against us and the new Iraqi Government.

In my mind, the biggest reason for the stalemate is not in the military arena. It is in the political. Isn't that obvious? The Malaki government has failed. For whatever reason, they do not have the guts to initiate a reconciliation policy, don't have the guts to do something about the terrorists, insurgents and militias. I don't know why the new Iraqi government hasn't done this, but it is the main reason we are spinning our wheels. Perhaps Malaki is afraid that we will leave in the middle of the night on him, leaving him at the mercy of these blood thirsty dogs. Maybe he is secretly attempting to use his posititon to put the Iraqi Shia in a position of permenant power, I don't know. I guess anything is possible.

But to blame this mess on the military is too easy, it is also incorrect.

To say the Iraqi people would be backing us up if they really supported us conveniently leaves out the very real possibility that if the do support us or the new government, they will be killed in the night. Isn't that also possible? You know it is. And again, it is my number one complaint against Rumsfeld, in not sending enough troops to Iraq to establish a safe environment, enough so that the Iraqi people would not fear being kidnapped or murderd by the terrorists.

You can call it a quagmire, call it what you want. And I'll agree with you 100% that we seem to be stuck for the moment, but we can change that too. However, the reason for this quagmire is not due to our military. It is due to our politicians absolutely awful performance in predicting any of the events that have ocurred since the fall of the regime. In their dismal perfomance as international statesman, their less than sterling diplomatic skills, their unwillingness to compromise, their refusal to heed the advice of the military and many more. It is also due to the fact that the new Iraqi Government is not aggresively addressing the nation's ethnic, tribal, and religious sectarian violence.

It almost makes you respect the fact that Bush I left the military planning to the military people, whereas these sticky fingered bastards with no military experience dictate to the men who could really make a difference. I don't blame the military at all, they are following orders, all the blame must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the neo-cons,PNAC ers and every other shit brained Republican who is playing RISK with real peoples lives.

This is not an endorsement of the actions of Abu Ghirab or any blatant atrocity by individual soldiers, but on the whole those brave men and women are doing a job I think few here would ever want to attempt and they deserve our gratitude and respect, not ridicule or blame for the Administrations bumbling approach to a war that never should have happenned.

I 100% respect Bush I's correct decision not to go outside of the mandate of Gulf War I and invade Iraq. That would have been lunacy. But the soft-brained son is eager to go where his wiser, more experienced father thought better of.

I don't think anyone here has blamed the quagmire in Iraq on the U.S. military. Indeed, outside of those soldiers who have murdered, abused, and tortured Iraqis (too many for a civilized nation like the U.S. to be proud of), the U.S. military has done the best they could under very difficult circumstances. I fully acknowledge this. The blame is on the politicians, both those in the White House and PNAC think tanks, and those in the Pentagon.

Excellent observations Happy






Had we left military planning to the military, we very likely would have been out of Iraq 6 months after we too Baghdad.

I agree with all of that. But... if 70% of the Iraqi people supported open-ended occupation, they could roll up the insurgency in a week.