That is why you need to pacify the country with US troops first. Just training Iraqis and hoping that they’re on our side is rather, um, optimistic. In light of the experience of the past few years, one could call it naive.

The problem in Iraq is not the will to win, it is a strategy to win. The country was strongly behind the war in the first two to three years. In that time, things went straight to hell. So it is the strategy that is failing.

As to my personal feelings, I think that winning in Iraq would be great, but I don’t see a realistic way for that to happen. The US went in with too few troops (as Shinseki predicted), made huge mistakes (disbanding the police and the army, playing loose with Iraqi civilian lives, bringing in Iraqi expatriates with axes to grind, not doing much reconstruction …) and has refused to admit that things were not going well (first step to fixing a problem is admitting that it exists). But I certainly agree that the US shouldn’t leave Iraq. Hell, it shouldn’t be allowed to. As Powell said before the invasion “you break it, you fix it”. So more American troops need to go to Iraq, and the retreat to large megabases needs to be reversed (force protection isn’t why we’re there) in favour of a much closer engagement with both friends and enemies. A long-term commitment has to be made as clear and binding as possible: the US could sign a treaty with the Iraqi government, pledging to maintain this elevated troop strength for at least 10 years. It may need to reintroduce the draft to enable the army to do this, or increase pay and benefits for military personnel to significantly increase its size. It should reinstate the old standards for recruits, perhaps even strengthening them (there’s anecdotal evidence that some gangs are sending foot soldiers to the army for the training and the experience). It needs to commit more funds to rebuilding Iraq, engage Iran constructively and actively try to improve ties with muslims worldwide.

Do I think that this is going to happen? Not really, Bush didn’t have the guts to ask for it when he could, and he no longer can. It will be very, very expensive, but then that should have been clear at the outset. The next president might do it, but that’s two years off, and things get worse by the day. Maybe if Bush buys the farm, Cheney could push it through. I want this disaster to be contained as much as possible. How do you think it can be won?

“But the root problem was that militarily, it was a stalemate for far too long and at too high a cost.”

The stalemate wasn’t caused by the military, it was caused by political decisions.

“Arguably, Iraq is different, in that the US seems to be actually losing this one militarily (it’s not a stalemate since things are deteriorating, and the army can’t increase its effort anymore).”

I disagree with this statement. Also, if we are training Iraqis why do we need to increase our forces? If you look at all the Iraqi units trained and added to the current force, there has been an increase in troops. They may not be as well trained as US forces, but they aren’t “nothing” either.

“That’s simply BS. If you don’t like to hear the other side of a debate, that’s fine, bail on the debate. But don’t try to stop it.”

Who’s stopping the debate? How have YOU been stifled in speaking out against the war or Administration? I want to see our troops and our country win in Iraq. An important component is the will to win and I will do all I can to show our troops that we do have the will to win.

In Vietnam, the will to win took a hammering and we decided to get out - at the cost of millions of lives in SE Asia. Why would we want to do this again?

What about you? All policy issues aside, do you want us to win in Iraq?

You can call of the god squad. I do my own praying, thank you very much. I’ld include you in mine, but I don’t believe that that works. But your thought is appreciated.

I agree that Vietnam was lost politically, in some sense. But the root problem was that militarily, it was a stalemate for far too long and at too high a cost. As long as retreat is a real option, it will - eventually - be chosen. One can call that a political defeat, but it is an inevitable consequence of a military stalemate. Arguably, Iraq is different, in that the US seems to be actually losing this one militarily (it’s not a stalemate since things are deteriorating, and the army can’t increase its effort anymore).

The idea that the Iraqi insurgents need to hear from Americans that they are winning or justified seems farfetched. They know the score - they see the carnage they inflict on US and Iraqi forces. They see the bodybags fly out - even if Americans do not. They see how afraid the Iraqi government is. I am sure they do follow the news, especially the army reports on its casualties, army newspaper stories on how many vehicles have been destroyed, and how big the backlog is for repairs. I’m sure they carefully follow DoD discussions on how to keep the current force strength up, and how much all of this is costing. I’m sure they’re heartened when they hear that some troopers refused deployment, and that army recruiting has become so difficult that the army lowers its standards. But I’m sure that they don’t need to hear Ted speak in order to know that they might have some valid reasons to hate the US, or a shot at defeating it. That’s simply BS. If you don’t like to hear the other side of a debate, that’s fine, bail on the debate. But don’t try to stop it.

As to who gives AQ most of what they want, that’s easy. The US is bleeding financially, its army is under heavy strain, its reputation is blown to bits, its vestigial democracy is creaking under the pressure from the presidential power grab. I’m not sure what more AQ could want. It knows from experience that it can take a decade before a major power admits defeat. I don’t think that they’re in a rush. As long as the cost of the war remains high, they just have to bide their time.

Jonathan, explain why it’s okay for American kids to go to religious schools that can teach whatever they want, no matter how retarded it is. For that matter, explain why kids can be “taught” at home. Do you know the single greatest reason why people join Unitarian Universalist churches? Because they want their kids to be able to answer when they’re asked “what church do you guys attend?”.

Gee, if I were to rephrase your sentence mocking non-Christian schools would that start more riots?

As for your distaste of my comments about the war, tough. We made some political decisions that have produced an end result not necessarily in our favor, one example being how we handled Sadr. Those decisions are made for political and cultural reasons and I’m not required to like them.

Vietnam was lost politically, not militarily. For political and cultural reasons, the military was limited in what they could do. When our troops are put in harms way, we need to be extremely selective in when we hold them back.

When I speak of cultural issues, I include the culture of people like Ted Turner and the Democrats and the liberals that constantly decry our efforts and embolden our enemies to hold on a little longer - just as the North Vietnamese did.

Of the demands and pronouncments Al Qaeda has made, which approach to the GWOT (Dems or Repubs) will give AQ most of what they want?

Your thinly veiled hatred of Christianity doesn’t help progress conversation. All I really have to say on that subject is, on those nights where you don’t sleep well and are restless, it’s probably because some Christian somewhere is praying for you.

Jonathan, explain why it’s okay for American kids to go to religious schools that can teach whatever they want, no matter how retarded it is. For that matter, explain why kids can be “taught” at home. Do you know the single greatest reason why people join Unitarian Universalist churches? Because they want their kids to be able to answer when they’re asked “what church do you guys attend?”.

Incidentally, France has a large muslim population, has historical ties to muslim populations, and - like everyone else in western europe - is geographically close to major muslim power centers. Not to mention that they will be in reach of Iranian nukes. The US has it easy, comparatively.

SouthernRoots. You say: “I think that in both Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. got too caught up in the “multilateralism” demands and instead of going in with overwhelming force and finishing the job decisively, we wanted to prove we weren’t conquerers or occupationists, so we backed off for political and “cultural sensitivity” reasons.”. Too multilateral, too sensitive? What should they have done, go in with less than one ally? Should they just have napalmed the entire country and let god sort them out, or make like An Coulter and force them to convert to christianity? Can you send me some of the stuff you’re smoking? I realise it’s not the flag, but it sure has some toxic fumes….

I think that in both Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. got too caught up in the “multilateralism” demands and instead of going in with overwhelming force and finishing the job decisively, we wanted to prove we weren’t conquerers or occupationists, so we backed off for political and “cultural sensitivity” reasons.

France as the right way to approach Jihadists? TR and Jonathom are right. How many weeks of riots were there? How many cars were torched? How many windows of businesses were smashed? How much of that has occurred here in the U.S.?

I don’t believe that the US has the best approach to organizing civil society. Its central authority is weak and pathologically afraid of religion.

Well, if that’s your starting reference, no wonder there are so many things you don’t understand about this country. Freedom of speech, though good, does has its drawbacks if you want absolute civility.

What personal freedoms have you lost? Look at the PC movement around the nation. Look at the overly litigious society that, because of the fear of lawsuits, stifles far more freedoms than any law passed by congress.

As for the flag - burn it all you want (but, if you can, use common sense as to where you burn it). I explained why I would not.

Holy shizit…did he just ask us to use France as a model of dealing with Islamic jihadists?? That has to rank right up there with one of the absolute stupidest things I’ve heard from endo…even more so than “Bubba’s North Korea nuke giveaway was a smashing success”!

France? Slouching towards dhimmitude and we should model ourselves after them?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

Oh yes, France is a shining example.

As to alternatives, here are some ideas. Going to war in Afghanistan was premature: more forces were needed there, and the result is that AQ and the Taliban were not definitively defeated - and are poised to win in the end. Iraq was irrelevant in this entire matter, and it could have become an ally in containing Iran. In stead Iraq completely ties down what’s left of the army, and it is set to become an even more resounding defeat than Vietnam. Withdrawing from Saudi-Arabia would not have caused any military problems for the US, while removing a major incentive for AQ’s Jihad. And we don’t have to support Israel with a blindfold on and our noses held. Especially when a genocidal murderer such as Sharon (Sabra/Shatillah) rules it.

If you want to look for a nation that deals with militant Islam resolutely, if perhaps overzealously, look at France. If you want one that simply does what militant islamists what they want, look at the US.

I don’t believe that the US has the best approach to organizing civil society. Its central authority is weak and pathologically afraid of religion. Especially the Republicans are entirely spineless on the matter. But be that as it may, within the framework of the American Idealism, there is no place for cowardice such as Bush’s. It is simply unacceptable for a US president to trade personal freedoms for vague promises of safety, and reject any form of accountability for that “tradeoff”. Bush has declared many ancient freedoms and rights to be inappropriate (”quaint”) for this day and age, and has refused to justify that or have it properly checked. Bush does not believe at all in the very idea behind the US. Why else would he believe that killing a few thousand Americans would matter? Hundreds of thousands died for the creation of this country. How can anyone believe that 9/11 would make any difference? Have Americans grown that cowardly? Are they all just Republican pussies? If they have, then perhaps the American Idea simply isn’t worth fighting for. If Bush is right, the US isn’t worth dying for.

Similarly, if you think that burning a flag is going to hurt the US, you didn’t really believe in the American Idea all that much. If Freedom really means that much to you, you shouldn’t be willing to trade even an inch of it for a vague promise of security.