Honoring OTB's civility policy in the breach by personally insulting me is just dodging the issue.

The point of this post, and my comments, is that the troops should not be restricted in their mission by politics or politicians with axes to grind. That's it. I think there's plenty of recent history to show the problem with it.

The problem is not that I don't offer a solution, rather that you cannot accept it as a viable alternative (or you just plain can't read).

Your previous post restates your complaints, but it doesn't offer your preferred solution to what you identify as the problem.

Unfortunately, that's the only type of war we're going to get anymore. The alternative being inaction, ingoring a festering problem, and being picked away at in repeated attacks, a la Israel.

Unfortunately, the world is a more crowded place and we are a world power frequently sought after to impose international 'will'. Isolationism simply does not work in a global economy.

And unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more civilian casualties right here in mainland USA to convince people otherwise.

Here's the thing. The Republicans, America's nationalist party, control the executive branch, both houses of Congress and, in terms of party affiliation, the Supreme Court. America's nationalist party has Fox News, most of talk radio and a majority of the top dozen blogs. It enjoys a political predominance that comes only rarely, and isn't likely to come again. It enjoyed for several years public deference as an aftershock of 9/11, including a pretty widespread desire to "fight back."

So if this Administration won't fight the war "the way it needs to be fought," then how likely is it that the American Republic as currently constituted will ever produce a government that will? It seems to me that if you're a hardcore hawk then the political moment just now passing is, as Jack Nicholson had it in that movie, "as good as it gets."

If this administration trimmed its war policy to suit public opinion then one or both of two things would seem to be true: 1) This Administration is a shamefully weak and irresponsible steward of the nation's security; 2) The American people are not suited to sustain a foreign policy that requires sustained counterinsurgency warfare and massive destruction abroad.

In other words, you would appear to have a choice to make: Change American policy to rely less on foreign war and occupation; OR, Change the American political system to one more suited to prosecuting wars "the way they need to be fought." Since you identify the problem as the executive paying too much attention to public opinion, that would seem to mean changing to a system that was less representative and less tolerant of opposition to our rulers, at least when they are conducting foreign wars.

So which do you pick?

>They bolster their credibility by removing the corruption they are plagued with.

>Killing the violent criminals in Baghdad will end the violence. Not talking to them. Not appeasing them.

Of course! If you want to end violence, just kill some people! I mean, look at how well this has worked out over the years for Israel, and they are almost as good at kicking ass as we are.

They mistrust all of them because if they trust unwisely they wind up dead.

A much better chance, and verifiable statistic, of ending up killed by violent criminals than by U.S. troops. This, the result of your propaganda.

Our troops must be held to a very high standard; those in situations like Iraq even more so. I would submit that your position is even more insulting to and less supportive of those troops, since you appear to have a much higher tolerance for those slimeballs that do commit crimes. Wanting those jerks to be held accountable is not anti-trooops or anti-American.

1. They are.
2. If saying they deserve to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (which is as much liberty your type seems to prescribe for the terrorists) is 'tolerance', then I am proud to be guilty.
3. Never said anywhere they should not be accountable. Make sure you know who you are throwing mud at.

Umm… so how would you characterize what Bush has had the military doing for the last 4-5 years?

Pandering to popularity poll idiots. As I said before, we cannot win on popularity, especially when our own media is waging an effective propaganda war to satisfy their political convictions. We should have levelled Sadr City years ago. Now these idiots are talking about what an atrocity Fallujah was. How can we possibly battle this horse-pucky?

I'm not at all for cut and run, but if you guys want to sacrifice our troops by having them stand around taking orders from Iraqis, by having them let the bad guys go repeatedly, then by all means,lets get them home right now.

I read here that the Iraqis, regardless of how unfounded the claim, are justified in distrusting all of our troops because of the actions of a few.

Yes, LJD. They are justified. That's exactly why the actions of a few slimeballs does affect the reputation of the whole group - because after the number of 'bad apples' and tragic incidents reaches a certain tipping point, your reputation goes to sh*t, and Iraqis no longer know, when troops come to their door, if they're getting 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. They mistrust all of them because if they trust unwisely they wind up dead.

Our troops must be held to a very high standard; those in situations like Iraq even more so. I would submit that your position is even more insulting to and less supportive of those troops, since you appear to have a much higher tolerance for those slimeballs that do commit crimes. Wanting those jerks to be held accountable is not anti-trooops or anti-American.

Just in case you couldn’t comprehend from this post what my strategy would be, let me paraphrase:
We ought to be kicking ass and taking names.

Umm... so how would you characterize what Bush has had the military doing for the last 4-5 years?

Keep supporting the troops, you big partriots, you.

We cannot wage the war in Iraq with popularity polls (as we have done in the U.S. with predictable results).

The Iraqi government needs to bolster its own credibility by getting out there and maintaining security. They bolster their credibility by removing the corruption they are plagued with.

As far as phasing the troops out, it’s already in progress. You don’ get credit for a new idea there.

Killing the violent criminals in Baghdad will end the violence. Not talking to them. Not appeasing them.

However I'm glad you brought up the rape again because I forgot to comment on that. My earlier point, and the reason for my scathing comment to Alex was not about the incident or it's affect on the Iraqi people. Rather the way in which it was referenced.

It’s pretty clear that this point that with the exception of Kurdistan, most Iraqis are not happy about the presence of U.S. troops in their country. (And face it, it’s hard to blame them.)

I read here that the Iraqis, regardless of how unfounded the claim, are justified in distrusting all of our troops because of the actions of a few. Perhaps this is my take on a poorly worded sentence, but it does seem to go to the heart of anti-war and anti-american sentiment. I would have expected something more accurate and less inflammatory, for example: Iraqis are not happy with the presence of U.S. troops, in part due to recent rape allegations against them.

He then goes on to say that we ought to use this to our advantage. i.e. drag this out on the nightly news, repeatedly punishing ourselves, wallowing in self-loathing, so that we can highlight our deference to the Iraqi government? Wow. I just don't see that as a posiitve strategy.

Just in case you couldn't comprehend from this post what my strategy would be, let me paraphrase:
We ought to be kicking ass and taking names. Al Sadr is a problem precisely because of our deference, and political unwillingness to deal with him years ago. It seems you want to repeat the same mistake by tying our hands further.

Now please, take my words and turn them into some lame argument about sound bites.

In reality, though, that’s a good thing, and the best thing that the U.S. could do right now to shore up a unified Iraq would be to show deference to the Iraqi government in matters such as this.

I quite agree, Alex. Unfortunately, I cannot imagine that actually happening. Independence is not something this administration has ever valued - the entire philosophy of GW's policy, both foreign and domestic can be summarized as 'dance with who brung ya'. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the WH briefing room these days - I'd wager good money that any 'own opinions' al-Maliki expresses will be seen as spitting in the US' collective face (at least by Bush and Cheney).

O.K. maybe they’re not happy, but it’s not because of one crime by a few soldiers. I would say getting blown up regularly probably goes a little further.

That's brilliant, LJD. Agree with Alex's statement, then make up a completely non-sequitor reason for him to have that opinion, and then insult the reason he has the opinion you agree with. Wow, your brain works funky.

A fight with the Shiites would be a real problem for the US, but allowing al-Sadr's Shiite militia free rein isn't a very good option either. It seems good options are in short supply in Iraq.

You are right about the rape case. It has outraged Muslims throughout the Middle East and hurt the image of Americans as much or more than Abu Ghraib.

LJD offers no answer, only the obligatory shot at the "anti-war left", which is rapidly becoming most of America. "Cut and run" and "stay the course" aren't policies or strategies, but only empty slogans. It's time to figure out a way out of this mess and salvage the best situation we can.

Defer to the iraqis, back down?
Yes, tie our hands a little tighter so more troops can get killed. If we had dealt with Al Sadr before, we wouldn't be having this trouble now.

Yes, it is clear most Iraqis are not happy with the presence of the U.S. Of course they would be that way regardless of our actions. We cannot wage the war in Iraq with popularity polls (as we have done in the U.S. with predictable results). What we do see, though, is that the Iraqi officials are not asking us to leave.

The Iraqi government needs to bolster its own credibility by getting out there and maintaining security. They bolster their credibility by removing the corruption they are plagued with. NOT by telling U.S. troops what to do- especially when it's contrary to the mission. Veto power on operations by the Iraqis is not just dangerous to our troops, its suicidal.

On removing the terrorists' incentive to fight, well as I said before, these killers act pretty much regardless of what we do. As far as phasing the troops out, it's already in progress. You don' get credit for a new idea there.

On American credibility, given all that we have done in the positive, and our own media's take on things, I would say regardless of what touchy-feely program we initiate, they will find something wrong. You cannot fight a war on credibility in the papers, while ham-stringing our boots on the ground.

In the end, the only people who can end the sectarian violence are Iraqis. America can’t do it. At least, not without a brutal, brutal occupation.

That's the most sense you've made all day. We are losing the war of propaganda. Quick decisive action will solve the problems. Killing the violent criminals in Baghdad will end the violence. Not talking to them. Not appeasing them. Perhaps Maliki needs a better understanding of his mortality without U.S. protection.

"False talking points"? I made what folks in my circle called "an argument"--and you never actually demonstrated why my argument was false. By all means, enlighten us with your brilliant military strategy for stabilizing Iraq.

O.K. maybe they’re not happy, but it’s not because of one crime by a few soldiers. I would say getting blown up regularly probably goes a little further.

LJD, if you read an Iraqi blog or two, you would know that the rape by U.S. soldiers that I referred to has pretty much outraged the entire population. And not just in Iraq--in Turkey there was actually a movie about it (in which the evil American soliders were defeated by heroic Turks).

That said, I'm sure that getting blown up all the time doesn't endear us to the population, either.

Finally, I love you comparison of Sun-Tzu and Cut and Run. Actually got a little chuckle out of that one. Do you even know what you’re talking about?

There's a reason why I put "cut and run" in quotes. Look, if we just pulled out our troops now, that would be a disaster. But I think that the best way to stabilize Iraq is to slowly phase out U.S. troops while simultaneously giving operational deference to the Iraqi government while Iraqi forces slowly take the lead.

In the end, the only people who can end the sectarian violence are Iraqis. America can't do it. At least, not without a brutal, brutal occupation.