It's a really nice idea, that victory in the war on terror.

Won't happen though. Not because of "defeatist lefties" but because throughout the world whenever someone has a grudge against their government and feels they can't do anything about it in a legitimate manner, then they will resort to terrorism. If history has taught us anything it's that there cannot be world peace whilever humans have territory and religion to fight over.

Therefore, by your definition - since I'm assuming you mean "country" by the word 'state' - there can never BE an end to the war on terror because there's always going to be SOMEONE going at it someplace in the world.

I totally, TOTALLY agree with the second definition. I have yet to see Bush agree with it. We can but hope.

Whisper,

Well, that is what President Bush has been saying since March of 2003, actually...

Be that as it may...

While we may always have people who are willing to blow things up to make a political point, the War on Terrorism, properly understood, is a war to force terrorist-sponsoring States out of the game. Lunatics who set off bombs are like the Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army were in the United States back in the early 70's...dangerous and deadly, but of no fundamental threat. Lunatics who have a safe haven to plot and access to resources monetary and physical - they become a threat in the most comprehensive sense of the word.

Victory in Iraq doesn't require there be even a day without a terrorist attack - it just has to be an Iraq which can handle the problem on its own, or at most with some specialised back up from the US (logistical support and Special Forces might be needed in Iraq, at least from time time, for a decade or two). Similarly, victory in the War on Terrorism doesn't require that each individual terrorist be killed or captured - all we need to do is just convince, by one means or another, nations like Iran that sponsoring terrorism is a losing proposition (and this is why, by the way, someone like bin Laden is such an unimportant target for us at the moment - even supposing he is alive (and I don't think he is), killing or capturing him won' solve the problem. It'd be helpful, it'd be a feather in our cap - but the war would go on unabated..

So, Mark, you finally adopted my idea.
:)

For future reference, and to save you from further headaches, I'd put a link to your post over on the left column (where it says "B4B Coverage Of...")so that future lefties can check it out.

Well done. Now rather than being obnoxious, why don't you simply say that you will refer posters to your definition (perhaps posted in an FAQ section) if the question should arise in the future? I know you are not really the un-generous person you sound like in that last paragraph.

Thank you for your definitive answer. Now we can all rest assured that we will be in Iraq forever.

Congratulations! You finally established a standard against which we may all measure the cogency of your arguments.
Re: War on Terrorism: the historical analogy is the piracy threat, in the Caribean and Mediterranean seas, faced by the Europeans and Americans. Piracy combines acts of war with non-state actors, as does terrorism. Both the Europeans and Americans varied in their responses between military action and paying ransoms and protection money. The matter was complicated when the pirates received protection from "states" (e.g.- Barbary) Ultimately, military action ("shores of Tripoli") and a changing political landscape (European Imperialism) ended the piracy menace. I wonder if the same will ever be said about terrorism. Terrorism works when it causes the target to respond- because terrorist acts seek attention for causes that have been suppressed (rightly or wrongly) and to inflict pain on the suppressor (real or imagined). History is rife with examples (Sarajevo-1914; Ireland/Northern Ireland; Boston Tea Party; Gunpowder Plot).
Re: War in Iraq: at what price this victory? Previously I have tried to get you to be honest about the value of this victory. I believe this paraphrases your position: there is no substitute for victory. If so, then do the cost-benefit analysis. You have defined the benefit- victory- now, define the cost necessary to obtain it. Is it 3,300 dead Americans; 20,000 wounded Americans; and $450 billion? Must be because that's what we have paid so far. Do you yet see the light at the end of the tunnel? How much more will it cost? 10,000 dead; 100,000 wounded; a trillion dollars? And if, after all that, victory has not been achieved, how much more? If you can not or will not answer these questions honestly, then you have no credibility on this war.

So it was only about oil. In your scenerio we will be there forever.

How about victory as the Iraqi state government is not a threat to the United States. We should have come home in 2003.

...people who annoy us by continually asking for definitions of victory will be banned or made severe fun of,...

Glad to help out with the "made severe fun of" part, Mark. And I'll keep it clean...

I totally, TOTALLY agree with the second definition. I have yet to see Bush agree with it. We can but hope.

Then maybe I should redefine the size of your brain, Whispa. I said you had a pea-brain; I was wrong. Your brain can be no bigger than a BB.

The reason you have yet to see "Bush agree with it," Whispa, is that your leaders have covinced you, by their words, that Bush has no plan for victory, and they have redefined victory. President Bush has stated the exact definition that Mark posted, numerous times. So why haven't you heard Bush agree with it? Well, you, and others like you, are suffering from BDS, and you don't listen to anything he says. You get your "facts" from the drive-by media or other far-left sources. Any time anyone here provides you with good, hard facts, you counter those facts with propaganda from The Nation, the WaPo, Paul Krugman, et.al. So there's really no sense in debating you, or those like you. Your minds are made up--Bush bad, DemocRAT good. Logic bad, Rosie good.

We're blue in the face, and thanks, Mark, for this thread...

Mark,

I think it is a good thing you've done here since there seems to always be this ambiguous term "victory" a lot of people on both sides talk past each other about.

And while I find your definition reasonable, I'd like to ask that you admit to the reality that (one of) the original definitions of victory as laid out by the administration is (and indeed probably never was) possible: spreading democracy to the region.

Because if my memory serves me right, that has been and still is one of the greatest rhetorical catchphrases used to defend the invasion and occupation of Iraq. “We are there to spread liberty and freedom and to make Iraq the example of democratic governance which will radically transition the Middle East away from a bunch of kingdoms, theocracies, and generally anti-Western quasi-Republics into peaceful and stable states of democratic ideals,” right?

You use the terms "legitimate" and "elected" as conditions for an acceptable victory in Iraq; both concepts which are necessary for even a very loosely-defined "democratic" state. But legitimate and elected are far from sufficient conditions for democracy.

There are numerous “legitimate” and “elected” governments that are far from democratic. Mubarak’s Egypt, Khamenei/Ahmadinejad’s Iran, Hamas’ Palestine, Putin’s Russia, and a host of other governments can all claim to be legitimate and elected, but are far from democratic.

They also do a heck of a job at sustaining themselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So are you saying you will be satisfied if Iraq joins the ranks of these regimes which systematically suppress dissent, coerce election results, and generally trample on personal liberty?

The bar seems to have been lowered away from our grandiose intentions of spreading the Creator’s gift to the globe to a Cold War mentality of real politik national interest stability.

And with state-sponsored terrorism, does that definition of victory apply to us or do we still get to harbor and supply groups like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and the MEK in Iran/Iraq?

One problem with your definition arises with this line, "...by mutual agreement between the United States and Iraq..."
The president has stated that Iraq is a sovereign state and our presence there is by invitation (hence, the "it's not an occupation" argument). If that is the case, we are not in a position to enforce the mutuality you dream of. We are supposedly there only until we are uninvited.
The Congressional proposal you hate actually has provisions for defending the borders of Iraq while they figure out what they are doing.

IT IS NOT.........REPEAT NOT
a war on terror.
Terror is the means that the radical arm of islam has chosen to conquer the west.

we are not fighting the means of battle (terror), we are fighting the cause, which radical islam.

The battle is being waged in their back yard not ours which history will prove to be correct.
With out identifying the REAL and very dangerous enemy (radical islam) by simply say we are fighting "terrorism" is a farce.

well our Sec Of Defense just went to Iraq and told them that the clock is ticking and that support is not open ended. So what happens when the clock runs out and the definition of "victory" has still not been met ?

The Congressional proposal you hate actually has provisions for defending the borders of Iraq while they figure out what they are doing.

This is all fine and dandy, carsick, but what do you think will happen if Bush agreed to this. What really aggrivates me about the Congressional leadership right now is that they unanimously approved of Gen. Patraeus(sp?), leader of the current surge, and then as soon as the surge was implemented, they declared that it wasn't working. All this, before the surge is even at half-strength. So you see, carsick, Bush can't even trust Congress to keep its word.

There are a lot of us here who are very unhappy about how Iraq has turned out. IMHO, "shock and awe" was a popgun blast when it should've been an overwhelming invasion. We should've done more to shut down the country; however, we relied too heavily on other factors that never really panned out. So we're where we are now, and we need to fix it. Having said all that, there are a lot of us here who don't just throw up our hands in surrender, and abandon our troops and leaders. We are not all going to become lemming-parrot lefties just because things didn't go well. When you do heavy lifting, obstacles pop up. You don't overcome obstacles by putting them off for later. That's been occurring for a long time--long before Bush, long before Clinton. It needs to be addressed, now.

When the legitimate, elected Iraqi government is determined - by mutual agreement between the United States and Iraq - to be fully capable of sustaining itself against all of its enemies, foreign and domestic.

Explain to me why the United States should have any say on what sort of government Iraq has. Should we ask the Iranian people if they agree with our form of government?

The fundamental failure of your logic is that you constantly insist you are for democracy - yet you for some reason believe that the United States - specifically Bush - has some sort of dominion over the world and has the right to assert its definition of a government on the rest of the world.

Secondly - while its nice to come up with abstract definitions - thats not good enough. You need a very specific plan in order to achieve it - that deals with at least the 5 points i have brought up in previous posts...WHERE IS IT?

keefer
The problem I see is that the troop escalation is following along the lines of the original invasion in that we still don't have the numbers necessary to accomplish the stated goal. To make it worse we are relying on overextended troops and National Guard as a stop gap with no reinforcements on the horizon.
The second problem is the one addressed by this thread. What is a realistic endgame? I haven't seen a description that isn't easily shot down because it relies on circumstances that aren't existent.
Just as the initial invasion depended upon "If this best case scenario happens then we need this next best case scenario to happen and on and on..." The military always plans contingencies but the administration seems to have disregarded their advice time and time again.
Petreaus may be a good man but even Muhammad Ali at his peak couldn't beat a contender with one arm tied behind his back and the instruction to only evade by going to the right everytime.

By the way, Gates seems to like the cudgel Democrats have given him.
"The debate in Congress . . . has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited," Gates told Pentagon reporters traveling with him in Jordan. "The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

Mark,
Consider keeping those two definitions posted daily in your masthead. A significant part of America, apparently, needs to be told the same thing oh, so many times, before they can get it.

Should we ask the Iranian people if they agree with our form of government?

This is why noone takes you seriously, Dr. Rerun...

So basically your saying that victory in Iraq is defined by when Bush decides its a victory, right?
As long as Iraq is deep in a civil war your definition of victory isn't coming anytime in the near future.
Very clever......

The fundamental failure of your logic is that you constantly insist you are for democracy - yet you for some reason believe that the United States - specifically Bush - has some sort of dominion over the world and has the right to assert its definition of a government on the rest of the world.

Posted by: kblack77 at April 21, 2007 12:24 PM

Yes, kb77, this idea of American democratic supremacy seems to be prevalent among a certain segment of the American population. Their knowledge of the world outside of the U.S., other democracies and how they work, etc. is limited, to say the least.

Miles,

We here at Blogs for Bush don't give a tupenny damn whether you like our definition of victory - we just wanted you to see it so that you'll stop bothering us with inane "how do you define victory" posts.

kblack,

We don't have a say in what sort of government Iraq has - but there is, right now, a legitimate, elected Iraqi government and we will agree with them when it is time for us to go.

Carsick,

Certainly, the Iraqi government can just order us out at their convenience, even if we think there is more to do...but our agreement with Iraq is that we'll stay until they want us to leave, and thus Iraq ordering us out would be "mutual". What wouldn't be mutual is Congress setting a date certain regardless of conditions on the ground or the wishes of the Iraqi government and people, to whom we've given inescapable pledges of support.

Anillo,

Spreading democracy is still a primary goal - which is why it will be the legitimate, elected Iraqi government which will agree with us about when its time to go. Right now, thanks to the American left, the democracy movement which showed so much promise in 2003 and 2004 is stalled - because the democratic forces in the Arab/Moslem world (which count on our support) are unsure if we've got the grit to stick it out.

Until they are fairly certain that when push comes to shove that we'll back them regardless of cost, they will be hesitant to stick their necks out, and the mass of the people who are, due to the nature of things in the Arab/Moslem wrold, fence-sitters will continue to lend tacit support to the dictatorships they groan under. We stick this out and only leave Iraq when it is clear that we are no longer needed there, then the democratic impulse in the Arab/Moslem world will receive a strong impetus - and this is why, among other reasons, Iran and Syria are so determined that the Iraqi experiment in democracy fail...they cannot hold their own people in chains if the Iraqi people are free (it would be like East Germany remaining a tyranny after Hungary decided to liberalise towards the end of the Cold War - it just can't be sustained).

Also, a legitimate government is only legitmate in so far as it adhere to the governing principles of the American Declaration of Independence. We either believe that document is universally correct, or we're just conning ourselves, right? And so -

We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed and that whenever a government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it... (please forgive any errors - I quote from memory as my library is currently disordered due to remodelling the office)

Putin is no longer legitimate because he has suppressed the means by which a genuine consent of the governed in Russia can be ascertained...Syria, Iran, Egypt, etc have never even so much as made a pretence to governing by the consent of the governed, and thus are entirely illegitimate...in the truly American view, the President of Iran doesn't have the authority to issue a parking ticket, let alone build nuclear weapons.

CO,

I know how your democracy works in Canada, and the only thing to say for it is that at least its not non-democracy. The parlaimentary system is just about the worst means you can have without having a dictator. Much better is ours - with its limited powers, clearly defined spheres of authority, rigid terms of office and devolution of power down to the local level.

The parlaimentary (sic) system is just about the worst means you can have without having a dictator

Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 21, 2007 03:10 PM

I do hope you are joking, Mark. Canada is as far away as you can get from being a dictatorship. I am constantly being reminded here of our wuzzy, liberal laws and pussy human rights. Our leader has to go to parliament and answer to the people he represents. Yes, that's right, he is actually there to serve the people who voted for him.

Mark I would like you to try telling the citizens of the Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Italy, India, Germany, and Belgium that their government is just one step above a dictatorship.

If you are holding the U.S. system up as superior example of how a democracy operates, I think you should reconsider in light of the hi-jinx the current administration is putting you all through.

One last thing, Mark. The democratic elected government that the U.S. is supporting in Iraq, well, it is a parliament too. (One step above a dictatorship, according to MN)

"Victory in the War on Terrorism: When no State dares to shelter or support any group which uses terror as a means of attaining political goals.

Victory in Iraq: When the legitimate, elected Iraqi government is determined - by mutual agreement between the United States and Iraq - to be fully capable of sustaining itself against all of its enemies, foreign and domestic.
"

Both of these scenarios seem GREAT!! I would love it if even one of them would happen. Unfortunately, I don't think that either of these will happen in the near future.

That's why I'm Left Wing. And why you're Right Wing (you believe the opposite).

ThELefTYFoOL

I do hope you are joking, Mark. Canada is as far away as you can get from being a dictatorship.

CO, I would disagree with you there.

I would say Norway is.

They have been decided to be the best country to live in by the UN for six years now. Of course, they're ultra-liberal, which shows you how well that works out.

Ahhhh...Now OFF TO OSLO!!

ThELefTYFoOL

Mark Noonan,
Do you even read your own posts. It was a nice quick little answer to say that when they ask us to leave it will be mutual but your post states the mutual agreement that they have attained certain conditions. What if their government ends up primarily Shia is it "legitimate" in our view? What if they ask us to leave Jan. 1 2008 yet we don't think Iraq is "fully capable of sustaining itself against all of its enemies, foreign and domestic".
In other words, the mutual aspects you wrote about aren't about leaving but about whether we think they are secure, legitimate, and stable. And then about leaving.

"We cannot “shorthand” this issue with concepts such as the “democratization of the region” or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to “win,” even as “victory” is not defined or is frequently redefined. … These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board."
- Gen. Jack Sheehan
Sheehan recently declined the post of ‘war czar.’ After making the above comment, The Washington Times then tried to discredit him but if he is unfit for the role, why did the administration ask him in the first place?

As Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction noted, “An individual can’t fix a failed policy. So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong.”

OK, Carsick, tell us where the "failed policy" went wrong, and how to fix it without just up and surrendering as the Defeatocrats want to do. How do we achieve victory?

You would think by the MSM that there is no government in Iraq. That there is complete chaos in the streets. When was the last time ABC, NBC or CBS interviewed an "Active" elected member of that Government? Are they afraid a different message will get out?

tell us where the "failed policy" went wrong, and how to fix it

Posted by: William Teach at April 21, 2007 07:35 PM

The Republican make the mistakes and then they want someone else to come and clean up the mess, just like mummy use to do.

The administration could start by having a true and open dialog with military leaders, Congress and Middle East regional leaders (even adversaries).
It's not going to happen but it would be a start.

I can guarantee you the mess is so bad that the solution will be much longer than can be fit on a bumper stikcer or even a post or comment in this blog.

I should have included ex-military leaders as well because they no longer are in the chain of command and their advice could be less constrained as a result.

The Republican make the mistakes and then they want someone else to come and clean up the mess, just like mummy use to do.
Posted by: Canadian Observer

Hey, we aren't the ones whining and complaining. If you can't do anything else, and have no ideas on how to do better, then just jump in the backseat and let the adults drive.

William Teach
You aren't being forced to extend your deployment. You aren't fighting. You aren't making the decisions on the war policy. So I'll assume you aren't thinking you are one of the adults who will be driving. So what are you doing? Other than not offering any ideas beyond agreeing with anything the president proposes? Abandoning your ability to assess a situation is not an action. It is subjective passivity.

I'm not the one complaining. And, as usual, you libs are bereft of anything other then compaints.

The democrats are doing something. They're winning elections. In our democracy that means something.

Co..surely you jest!! We have been cleaning up Dem messes for decades...Carter,Clinton...

Well, good to know there won't be any messes to clean up after Bush leaves office

Let's face it, this administration rushed this war, then stayed the course, and now has found that they've gotten our country into a quagmire because they didn't listen to Middle East specialists about the the repercussions of a collapsed state in Iraq.

Maybe it's just me, but most of the Hijackers were Sunni's from Saudi Arabia... And now we find ourselves protecting the Sunni's from being wiped out by the Shia... Because they're backed by Iran...

How is this not an absolute catch-22, flustercuck situation that can only be attributed to poor, close-minded planning.

Our problem isn't defining victory... that's always been easy... The problem is how do we define the turning point for withdrawal? How about defining to the American people the risks vs. rewards? If this were a Wall St. transaction we'd get laughed out of the exchange. What do we say to all the soldier's families that die from this day forward? "Well we had little chance of victory, but we kept on trying until we ran out of blood and money."

My family has a long history of Military service. And we're split in many ways on this war. Split in every way except our risk vs. reward. We risked way too much, and we'll be paying for this for decades...

i am a lifelong Republican and i personally cannot wait until 2008, and I would hope the conservative that takes office will know enough to learn from this administration's closed bubble policy blunders.

CO,

It is just a step above a dictatorship - because in most parlaimentary systems, the majority can pretty much do whatever it pleases.

A democratic Republic, on the other hand, puts all sorts of roadblocks up to action by the legislative majority.

First off, the legislative majority is split in two - while a lot of parlaimentary systems have an upper house, most such are nearly or completely powerless. In America, you have to get the very differently functioning House and Senate to agree before you can even move ahead.

Secondly, once you've cobbled together your bicameral legislative majority, you then have to get the agreement of the executive who is not responsible to the legislature; in a parlaimentary system, the head of government is wary of defying the will of the legislature because the legislature can turn him out at will. If the American executive says "no", then the legislature has the immense hurdle of trying to get 2/3 of each house to agree to over-ride.

Supposing the legislature is able to do that, you'll find that a host of local and State governments, as well as individuals and groups, will challenge the provisions of the law by pointing to our rigid Constitution which says over and over again what the legislature may not do. The judiciary is completely independent of both the legislature and the executive and has no qualms about telling either or both to go jump in a lake.

Was there ever really a desire in Canada to be bi-lingual? What I mean by that is was there a demand from Manitoba that everything be done in French and English just to please to fools in Quebec who made that (plus massive welfare payments from the rest of Canada) the price for remaining in the union? There wasn't - but Manitoba got it.

As an aside, and just to annoy you, my doctor referred me for a CAT scan on Friday and I'll probably get it done next week, or the week after...in Manitoba, there's an 8 week wait for a CAT scan. Ah, socialised medicine!

CAT scan? I hope it's nothing serious, Mark. Good luck and God bless.

Freedom,

CAT scan for strange, sharp pains on the top of my head...real weird; don't last long, but they come on real strong. Doctor wants to rule things out.

I also get a colonoscopy and a prostrate exam....oh, the wonders of middle age!

The prostrate exam is really easy - just try to lay as flat as possible and you'll pass with flying colors. ;-)

"The democrats are doing something. They're winning elections. In our democracy that means something."

Well, gee, that solves everything, doesn't it?

Still waiting for you to give us your ideas for Iraq, carsick.

Do you go to your boss and say "hey, everything sucks" and have no better ideas?

As Bush said "a litany of complaints is not a plan."

CAT scan for strange, sharp pains on the top of my head...real weird; don't last long, but they come on real strong. Doctor wants to rule things out.

Try banning CO, Dr. Rerun, tom al-feffie, FOol, Josh Keaton, John Ryan, and Whispa, for one month. I bet those sharp pains would go away...;)

carsick, note that I didn't include your name in the above list, but you're awful close. Especially when your only argument to William Teach is: You aren't being forced to extend your deployment. You aren't fighting. You aren't making the decisions on the war policy. So I'll assume you aren't thinking you are one of the adults who will be driving.

This is the same old "you haven't served" canard. Well, many of you on the left aren't or haven't served, so can I quote some soldiers who want to stay and win this thing, and then tell you that you can't complain because you aren't in the "chain of command?"

Do you go to your boss and say "hey, everything sucks" and have no better ideas?

Anyone who tries this where I work, William, is handed a "complaint form" to fill out. The first line of the "complaint form" reads: "McDonalds's Employment Application..."

Mr. Teach,

The democrats have stated their plans repeatedly, and you keep asking what the plan is...

The solution can only be diplomatic at this point,
although I know how much you like to think Iraq can still be controlled militarily.

And this is not just democratic thought. There are an increasing number of republicans who recognize the futility of trying to "win" with guns.

kblack, aka Doctor Rerun:

As far as the plan, I don't know what it is, just as you don't. Since you don't, you are trained, by your great leaders, Reid-tard and Piglosi, to parrot the rhetoric that there is no plan. So I'm not going to speculate, and be an armchair quarterback.

I will say only one thing: I want Iraq to have a leader/government who does not harbor, support, or participate in terrorism. We don't need another Saddam Hussein, sitting on top of all that oil, training, planning, and financing yet another 9/11...

keefer
I enjoy debate and thinking through my position on issues. I'm under no illusion that I am deciding our policy or implementing it in the Middle East.
William Teach, from my observation, thinks otherwise.
You often are snide and just looking for a fight but you also when pushed will show you are trying to think through your position on issues. I presume you also see yourself as just a guy commenting on a blog and that's why you sometimes play it like a schoolyard game and sometimes approach it like dinner conversation.
William Teach, from my observation, thinks otherwise.

Mark Noonan
You reminded me of an old joke. It goes something like this:
Patient:"Doctor, when I do this (bangs head against wall) I get strange sharp pains on the top of my head. What should I do?"
Doctor:"Stop banging your head against the wall."

Sincerely though, hope all goes well and they find and fix your problem.

Ah, carsick with the "oh, woe is me, William Teach is being mean to me" whine, trying to play the victim.

I am simply, again and again, asking you to provide some sort of idea on how to solve the Iraq issue. Me, I have a little rule: if I cannot give you a better way of doing something, I am not going to ctiticize your way.

Can we do better in Iraq? Sure. Guard the borders of Iraq where they meet Syria and Iran. Broadcast loudly that any one or any vehicle entering Iraq at other then a proscribed zone will be fired upon. Period. Take out folks like Sadr. Just a few ideas. Is it so hard for those on the left?

As I've noted before, Congress has a proposal on the table and it includes troops for protecting the border and continuing to go after al queda. You might want to read it sometime so you can criticize it with some credibility.
al Sadr has an estimated 5 million supporters in Iraq. Among them some of the poorest and most desperate in Iraq, the estimated 2 million residents of Sadr City. Take him out and you better have a plan to deal with the after burn. 165,000 troops doesn't seem like enough to me but I'm no military expert.

Now, am I criticizing your plan without offering my own? Yes. Is your idea valid just because I'm not offering a counter plan? No.
I think you are offering a plan without thinking through the potential results. I think the administration has done the same time and time again.

At least I have ideas. Still waiting for yours. I'm not holding my breath, though.

As Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction noted, “An individual can’t fix a failed policy. So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong.”

Or, to use keefer's words:
"As far as the plan, I don't know what it is, just as you don't. Since you don't, you are trained, by your great leaders... to parrot the rhetoric... So I'm not going to speculate, and be an armchair quarterback."

But you will criticize and condemn, eh?

Isn't calling for pulling out of Iraq before the mission is completed a "plan?"

CO, yeah,
Noonan is freak -- I can't even imagine that we give him our time.

carsick,

Yes, I'm snide, snide to the armchair quarterbacks who think they know more than others do. They're no more than armchair quarterbacks too, and they know it. And some of them keep repeating the same old crap--read CO's posts from the past couple of years, and you'll find nothing new. Dr. Rerun, although new to the blog, is old hat already. Whispa's a kook, tom al-jeff's an idiot. They add nothing to this blog, and would not be here if things weren't going their way...

Mark Noonan
To get this thread back on topic, please explain what happens if the US doesn't agree that:
Iraq's elected government is legitimate;
And, Iraq is fully capable of sustaining itself against all of its enemies, foreign and domestic;

But is asked to leave anyway?

You do realize that sustaining itself against all of its enemies, foreign and domestic means building a competent standing army, air defense, a full police force with intelligence and investigative abilities and doing it all in a way that minimizes the tribal and religious rivalries within those forces.
How long do you think that will take? And what becomes of America's ability to defend its interests in other venues around the world in the meantime?

Mark,
Well, good luck with the CAT scan. Y'know, perhaps keefer is right. Stop reading the lefty posts for a while and your headaches might subside!

j/k
:P

But is asked to leave anyway?

I would say we leave, carsick, and let them slaughter one another, if that's what they finally decide to do. We can always come back later, if asked to do so. Or not.

Screw the oil; we'll just have to pay European prices to put petrol in our motors...

keefer
I see your point but in Mark Noonan's dichotomous world view, leaving means "not victory," and "not victory" means defeat.
The president and Mark Noonan say defeat is not an option.
I see more alternatives to those choices. Looks like you do too.
By the way, the administration has been very clear that this was not about oil so ix-nay any references to the price of oil or gasoline okay?