And if your position is to be that more force was necessary, then consider the position that spending the "peace dividend" thereby dismantling a goodly chunk of the greatest military on earth has put us into. When the Soviet union fell over years ago the left in this country decided that that money that was used to support the military could suddenly be used to support socialist programs.

Rephrased slightly; if you're going to complain that we went into Iraq on the cheap, you might as well admit to why.

Seriously dude, you can't be that simple. The US military crushed Saddam's military. Everything that can be done in Iraq with military force has been done. Our forces were more then up to the task.

The problem is cultural and political, not military.

And hell yes, more force was necessary. It was stupid to go in at all, but if you are going to go, go all out.

If anyone out there can see a road that leads to a good conclusion of the Iraq war, I for one would love to hear it. I just don’t see it from where I sit. Failure to go in with sufficient force to secure the country has left us with a no-win scenario.

But who was it responsible for that condition?
Do the words 'peace dividend' mean anything to you? We tore down the best military in the world to pay for social programs. THen, the same people complaining about not enough being spent on social programs, then complain we had to go after Iraq on the cheap.

And what would you commentary have been had we actually spent more on it, and sent more troops? Can you tell us with a straight face you'd not have been complaining?

Mr. Konop’s (1) and (2) don’t seem compatible. The Sunnis aren’t sitting on any oil — isn’t that the problem?

The federal system on that resource seems a reasonable answer.

Anybody speak Bithead? I need a translator.

What's arong, Anderson? Doesn't match your worldview?

Of course I can, Bithead, because I don’t live in a fantasy world where Saddam had anything to do with sponsoring or supporting al-Qaeda.

I said nothing about him sponsoring AQ, Anderson, though the proof is in that he at least had contact with them. (I've posted links to that effect previously. Did you miss them?)

But even, in spite of the evdience to the contrary, we assume as you do that Saddam had nothing at all to do with AQ, do you really consider that AQ wasn't using Iraq covertly, or that they would not be doing so had we restricted our activity to Afghanistan?

Remember, please that AQ considers itself to be above mere national boundries. A Saddam ruled Iraq would at least be viewed as a resource to use.

So if we split Iraq, how do we "ensure" that the Sunnis get oil revenues? The Kurds & the Shiites say "hell no, they oppressed us for years, let 'em eat cake." What exactly are we supposed to do about that?

Now that I think about it, an impoverished Sunni rump state, with the bells & whistles of sovereignty, would be a natural Qaeda hangout. Another argument against partition, though like Mr. Konop, I doubt we have much choice any more.

I appreciate your well reasoned post. It is pleasure to see people take the time to convey ideas in the proper way rather than just throw insults and snide remarks.

Items 3 & 4 of your list of steps to take concern me.

First, can we expect our efforts for a two state solution to work with the Palestinians as dysfunctional as they are?

Second, can we expect energy independence in a political climate that forbids offshore drilling and locks up ANWR from the minimal impacts of drilling and production? It seems one of the first steps to energy independence is higher domestic production.

Alternative energy sources sound good but are proven to be too expensive and in many cases energy inefficient. Hard choices need to be made but can we make them?

Anyone who questions the lack of a realistic and comprehensive Iraq strategy is labeled a friend of fascism by the Republican leadership. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said, “I wonder if [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.” Republicans are paralyzed with the fear of being thought ineffective on national security and the war.

Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership cannot seem to accept that—regardless of how we got there—we are in Iraq. They have not made a convincing case that an arbitrary phased or date-certain troop withdrawal is in the best long-term interest of the United States. Rather, they seem to think that withdrawal will undo the decision to have gone to war. Rubbing President Bush’s nose in Iraq’s difficulties is also a priority.

This political food fight is stifling the desperately needed public discussion about a meaningful resolution to the fire fight. Most Americans know Iraq is going badly. And they know the best path lies somewhere between “stay the course” and “get out now”.

Some Truths

1) Iraq is having a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Kurds will certainly join, if attacked. It may not look like a civil war, because they don’t have tanks, helicopters, and infantry; but they are fighting with what they have.

2) Vast oil revenues are a significant factor behind the fighting. Yes, there are religious and cultural differences—but concerns about how the oil revenue will be split among the three groups make the problem worse.

3) Most Iraqis support partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. (Their current arrangement resulted from a pen stroke during the British occupation, not some organic alignment.)

4) Most citizens of the Middle East who support groups that kill and terrorize civilians—such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or al Qaeda—in part because of their aggressive stance against Israel and the United States, but also because they provide much needed social services, such as building schools.

5) Both Republican and Democratic administrations have spent decades doing business with the tyrants who run the Middle East in exchange for oil and cheap labor. This has been the one of the rallying calls of Bin Laden and Hezbollah—that we support tyrants who abuse people for profits. In fact, our latest trade deals with Oman and Jordan actually promote child and slave labor; it’s so bad the State Department had to issue warnings about rampant child trafficking in those countries.

6) Iran is using the instability in Iraq to enhance its political stature in the region. Leaving Iraq without a government that can stand up to Iran would be very destabilizing to the region and the world.

From the U.S. perspective, this is all mostly about energy. As things stand, a serious oil supply disruption would devastate our economy, threaten our security, and jeopardize our ability to provide for our children.

New Directions

Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must:

1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population.

2) Allow each group to have a much stronger role in self government by creating three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting.

3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights.

4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cuba’s off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies.

Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region.

We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics aside and put together an honest and reasonable plan that the American understand.

Of course I can, Bithead, because I don't live in a fantasy world where Saddam had anything to do with sponsoring or supporting al-Qaeda.

I mean, that sentence would have to go in the Bithead top 10, if anyone were cruel enough to compile one.

Do you really think that our killing pawns in Iraq will somehow keep Al Queda leadership from using a nuke on us should they obtain one?

I think that our actions in Iraq, and Afghanistan, while clearly beyond your logic, are directly responsible for keeping Al Queda in check. Can you, for example imagine containing Al Queda with Saddam still in power?

Do you really think that our killing pawns in Iraq will somehow keep Al Queda leadership from using a nuke on us should they obtain one?

I mean, do you really think that?

We will keep you safe. Our ‘enemies’ will be defeated using good old fashioned American diplomacy, law enforcement, police investigations, border protection and international cooperation.

Of course... it worked so well, before.

Bithead, what are you so afraid of? Do you really believe that propaganda conservatives have been spewing about the so called ‘war-on-terror’ and the ‘islamofascist jihad’?

So, am I to assume you don't consider the Jihadists a threat?

I don't think I'll comment on this one, other than to point it up.

I mean, they destroyed the WTC, they attacked the Pentagon, and we are pretty sure they were going after the White House. How much friggin’ bolder can you get?

I'd say a nuke or two would qualify, though I suppose I'll get lip on that one, too.