Michael, you know I am a big fan and supporter of you, but that headline was hardly conducive to rational, moderate discourse.

I won’t name names, but is sure reminds me of the type of wording that I have strenuously objected to from one of the front page posters who is leftist.

Things we know:

1) The current gov’t there has been totally unable to make headway with our full support. After 4 years order is not restored even in the capital, and basic services are a joke. If anything, it seems less in control of national interests than ever.

2) The ongoing conflict is taking a tremendous toll on Iraq in lives and suffering. It is taking a smaller toll in lives on the US, but a staggering amount of money to maintain

3) No one has an answer as to when our ongoing efforts there will produce the stable secular democracy that the US would like to see in control of Iraq.

Things we think are likely:

1) The Maliki gov’t will not last long after we leave. The ensuing struggle for power will be even more viscous that the one already going on that takes roughly 2,000-3,000 live a month in Iraq.

2) All of the successor grps are brutal militant theocrats. The Shiites are likely to have ties to Iran, the Sunni’s possibly to Al-queda. None are friendly to the US and our interests.

So basically we are asked to “stay the course” in hopes that Maliki et al can get a handle on the situation. However they have had years to do so and as mentioned seem to have less control than ever. Maybe someone who knows more about history can point me to a situation where a gov’t has had this much time to get their house in order, failed to do it, and still turned things around. I have read a fair amount of history for someone who didn’t major in it, but I don’t think there are any cases that fit that description. I can think of several that point the opposite direction.

So at what point is the ongoing effort going to take a higher toll than just leaving and letting the bloodbath happen? What if all we are doing is staying there adding to the body count before realizing that we have to exit and let it happen anyways? Is it 10 years? 15? In addition to the dead are the displaced and an economy that can not get going without law and order of some kind, even that of a despot. Until there is an actual gov’t in Iraq, one that controls and represents Iraq as a whole, outside nations and even we are stuck pretending to deal with those who in reality don’t call the shots.

Proceeding as we have been for an indefinite time seems rediculous to me. Such efforts are the legacies of leaders counted as failures.

If we had some sort of magical wand we could wave to get everyone in Iraq to support the government of Iraq 100%…we’d end up with a Shia theocracy that was dominated by Iran. Good plan. At least we wouldn’t have to worry about al Qaeda, because I’m sure there would be plenty of ethnic cleansing^W^Wterrorist fighting done by the Iraqi government on the Sunnis.

Of course, I’m sure Saudi Arabia would step in to do something about that. It would be real fun to watch the US rationalize not stopping that.

Meanwhile, we’re arming Sunni strongmen who promise to only kill Sunni religious fanatics like al Qaeda and not Shia in general. I know the perfect guy for that, plus he has experience in running Iraq by exactly those rules, and he was a US ally in the past for exactly those reasons, but sadly he was executed recently, ironically in Iraq, because he killed a bunch of people. (Well, it was ‘a bunch’ then, like five thousand. Not really looking like that many now.)

The question isn’t ‘Will the US’s plan work?’, it’s ‘What the hell is the plan, anyway?’ What is the supposed endpoint, and what are the steps that could even possibly lead to that point.

The fact the current plan is cannot get past step 1, ‘Stop the violence’, is masking the fact there is not actually any sort of step 2.

Terrible at waging war.

Terrible at solving the problems they have caused.

But fantastic at name-calling!

You go with what you’ve got, I guess.

Some, people have the courage to see the situation as it is rather than what they would like it to be, and they do so in the face of tremendous pressure from the powers that be.

I would call those people heroes.

Of course, maybe the ‘cowards’ epither was used only to demosntrate to Shaun how a a properly phrased post should be written. I’m not complainng, BTW. I’m used to pots and kettles calling each other black.

CATO has writen held seminars on the strawman that we can’t leave and many will be slaughtered. At this time we have Shia on Shia violence in a battle for power. Should we pick sides in that battle also?

If you guys think the war should go on, maybe you should sign up. I hear that the army is having trouble finding good recruits.

We ended the war in Iraq too soon, before we secured the borders and eliminated the enemy, and before we even came close to delivering on our promise of a stable democracy for the people of Iraq.

About the only part of this statement that makes sense is the part about securing the borders. Just who is the enemy we should have eliminated in 2003? A vast majority of the country wants us gone, and supports violence against our troops. Does it then follow that we should have wiped out the Iraqis? Or maybe just the Sunnis, or the Shiites?

And how is our military responsible for creating democracy in Iraq. Are we supposed to put a gun to the head of everyone who doesn’t our idea support representative government?

The idea that we ended the war too soon is a comfortable one, and would fit well into a campaign slogan, but that’s about all.