OK, here's the deal: We are where we are in Iraq. We can debate all day long about the why's, wherefore's, and how-come's. All that is pointless, and fit only for the armchair generals whose hindsight is a miraculous 20/20, anyway. I can tell you for a fact that you NEVER go in knowing all you want to know, and truth be told, knowing all you NEED to know. But let's let that lie for a moment, and look at the here and now.

I would like to know this: Since it seems that the average American (and Canadian, and French, and everyone else in the world) obviously has access to far better intelligence than does the President, Congress, the CIA, DIA, OSI, etc. etc..,.

Just what is it that we SHOULD do now?

We stay, we suck because we're an "invading, occupying force."

We leave, we suck because we "left the job undone," and nature abhors a vacuum.

It's easy to sit here in our safe homes and criticize. Heaven knows I've done it, both from my safe home AND from a ditch in some godforsaken cesspool.

But really, what's the option? All I hear are complaints. If there's one thing I EVER taught my men (during peacetime), it's "don't you DARE come to me with a problem unless you've got some sort of solution." It didn't have to be the best one, or even a good one. Just wanted them to show me they'd actually THOUGHT about the problem, and it's options.

Gimme some options, folks.

DK

China has been trading NUKE secrets to Iran for oil. Russia would love to just walk in and take the oil. We need the oil or we can't fight Russia or China for long should they decide they want to. The solution? Split the oil with China for 300 million Chinese troops to whoop the tar out of Iran and Russia... once and for all. I think war is the New, New American past time. Lets make it an event to remember. Let's kick everybodies asses, now!

DK

Much of my support for the war was based on broken promises that I thought needed rectifying . I am revering to the horrible decision in my view of President GHW Bush's decision during Desert Storm to incite the Kurds and Shia population to revolt .When they did ,we sat there with troops on the ground and sufficient air cover to deal with Saddam's military and did nothing while he flew his helicopters and rolled out his Republican Guard (who were conveniently spared for the occasion when we "called off the dogs" and clocked out after 100 hrs of ground combat) to slaughter the rebellion.

I think that has weighed heavily in the distrust we have seen by the Iraqis . We have slowly won a lot of the trust back as I pointed out to Excon yesterday .Al Qaeda's new enemy -- Iraqis - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-kagan10jun10,0,1196899.story?coll=la-opinion-center)
I feel strongly based on what I read and hear from Iraq that to a large extent the current surge strategy is yielding results. I still think the Iraqis are as enthusiastic of self rule as the Albanians and Kosovans.Nation & World | Albanians throw a lovefest for 8-hour Bush visit | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003742909_albania11.html)

That being said ;I have for some time been saying that the exit strategy is a road that leads through Tehran and possibly Damascus. The evidence is not refutable that much of the so called insurgency is fueled and supported by the Mulocracy and the lunatic Ahmamadjihad (the Mahdi-hatter ) in Iran . Yesterday Sen Joe Lieberman (no neocon) advanced to idea of cross border attacks into Iran .

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."The Connecticut Post Online - Lieberman urges Iran air strike (http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_6112740)

For all those folks who prefer diplomacy I say that I never question the utility of jawboning . However ; if it is perceived that we have taken military options off the table then it seriously undermines our efforts . For all those who think there is a quick exit I would argue that there is none besides defeat ;and that I believe is an unacceptable option.

Hey Dennis,

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Mark Levine (and other conservative radio talk-show hosts, but Mark was first) have been saying pretty much the same thing as you have for a while now. "You (liberals) don't like the way Bush is handling the war on terror, you think that our presence in Iraq is a bad idea. Okay, fine. I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. But what is your alternative solution. What is your answer to fighting terrorism if it is not to fight the terrorists in Iraq? If we don't fight them in Iraq, where do we fight them? If you feel that we need to 'redeploy', then where should we redeploy to that will a) help the Iraqi people recover from the "damage" we have supposedly caused them, and b) improve our position in the war on terror and c) keep America from being attacked again? What is your solution?"

Mark and company have been asking this of liberals every time they come on their shows to bash "Bush's war", and to date there has not been one single viable solution offered. The bottom line is that the liberals who bash the war don't have an alternative solution to preventing terrorism. They ignore the fact that Bush's policies and handling of the war on terror have prevented a single successful terrorist attack from taking place inside the USA for 2,099 days (as of this positing). By comparison, between 1960 and 2001, there were an average of 1-2 terrorist attacks on US soil every year. But not one has taken place in almost six years since. To me, nothing proves success like success. And for 6 years we have seen success.

If you want to argue that thee is a better way to stop terrorism, I'm willing to listen. I'll always take any ideas for stopping terrorism seriously. But don't tell me that Bush's policies are a failure when they obviously are not, and then fail to come up with a viable alternative. That's not productive, that's politics.

Elliot

Hello Dennis:

You guys ask a lot of good questions. Cool. I've got the answers.

But first, I think we need some clarification of the English language. I'm not dumb, but I don't understand what "victory" would look like. I know what you THOUGHT it would look like, but they didn't welcome us with rose petals. So, what is your new version of victory?? I really don't know. Peace?? Maybe just a few carbombs?? One state or three?? Kind of like Korea (since Bush mentioned it)?? Really?? You don't know either, do you?

So, if you don't know what "victory" looks like, I highly doubt that you can describe the "disaster" that awaits us if we leave. To me, it wouldn't be a disaster at all, if we stopped losing our soldiers. Plus, we happen to be in the middle of the disaster that you're worried about. So, if you can't describe the “disaster” any better than you can “victory”, then they're just hollow words. I don't think we should give up one more American life based on hollow words.

If we leave, where do we go?? Afghanistan because we never finished it. Al Qaeda is taking over Pakistan - and they've got the bomb. While we've been losing our a$$ in Iraq, our REAL enemy is getting stronger – lots stronger!

For the first time in my life, I'm worried about my children's welfare. Bush has endangered us and our way of life in unbelievable ways. I look forward to discussing them in the near future.

excon

Dennis,

What really annoys me about this - besides the relentless pressure and propaganda driving the discontent from the left and their media cohorts - is how willing the very people whining about Darfur (and rightly so), alleged American torture and the body count, are willing to leave the Iraqis at the mercy of the "insurgents" and to kill each other.

These people are so obsessed with hating Bush that they're OK with pulling back and watching the slaughter. Michael Moore said:


If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn’t much you can do ‘til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

My favorite local liberal, William H. Seewald said this on Friday:


It's time to face reality and plan an orderly, determined withdrawal. There'll be no resolution in Iraq until the civil war plays itself out. The situation will certainly deteriorate more once American forces pull back.

There you have it, the left's solution is to pull back and watch the bloodshed. I see it as approving one genocide (Iraq) while disapproving of another (Sudan), how do they choose?

And where is the UN? Why aren't these same people clamoring for the UN - not that they could ever be effective - to jump in and solve the problem of Iraq? Oh that's right, we broke it, we bought it. Funny though, the UN is launching a five year Compact (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/note6078.doc.htm) to restore peace and security while the critics of the war are bellyaching over the thought of a long-term US commitment.

So you're right, we suck if we stay and we suck if we leave. Everyone knows this will take time and resolve but they aren't willing to give us and the Iraqis that time. Meanwhile, the Islamic genocide against blacks in Darfur continues and we suck because we aren't solving that problem, while the Mahdi-Hatter, Syria and al Qaeda - known threats to the United States - get a pass to continue their mayhem. I don't get it.

Steve