If he had an exit strategy from Germany and Japan in January of 1942 we wouldn't still have our troops tied down there today. It is still a quagmire.

An "exit strategy" is a plan for conflict termination and getting our troops home. It's easy in the case of a traditional military operation--get Saddam's forces out of Kuwait, force him to sign a peace treaty, and go home--but not so easy in a stabilization operation. At what point do we say our goals are accomplished and we can withdraw our forces?

I don't disagree. But what, precisely, constitutes victory here? The regime has been changed. How stable do things have to get before we've won?

You must be kidding, do you really believe Iraq has a chance of stabilization what so ever?

I'm not against regime change but we blew it. Every nation in that area is subtly contributing to a return of a non-secular state. It's going to be a free for all money pit. It's going to show to be just as intense as Vietnam with an international effect 10 times that of Vietnam.
Only with less casualties as I'm sorry to say that that has been the Only (yet not perfected) evolved concept of war.

I don't think the Dems portray a true reflection of the matter.

It's hard to believe but I feel our only objective here was to create chaos on top of the chaos that would normally occur, therby giving us the upper hand on knowing which direction the chaos would go in the long run.

Their will be no peace in Iraq.
The only enemy we are really fighting is the evolution of sophisticated strategic warfare.
Which is very intentional

The role of the military at this point is to provide tactical support to the politicians and diplomats as they try to craft a situation in Iraq that will play politically as complete victory -- even though military victory was achieved months ago.

I think in broad terms the conditions necessary for a politically acceptable exit have been laid out. That those conditions don't meet the standards of everyone else in D.C. means only that those conditions don't meet the standards of everyone else in D.C.

Steam: It's hard to believe but I feel our only objective here was to create chaos on top of the chaos that would normally occur, therby giving us the upper hand on knowing which direction the chaos would go in the long run.

By definition chaos doesn't go in any predictable direction. If what we've done in Iraq is create a predictable direction for events, then chaos has been diminished.

pigeonhold on semantics?

chaos is extremly controlable, that is universal,
chaos means many things at one time, in this case overtly dispelling the wondering eye and establishing the cost of interfernce to the internationally interested parties i.e. the entire middle east,

a cruel war was the whole idea, this obviously could not benifit anyone, remember the cold war, this is not new

might I suggest you get your self a mental bowflex McGehee, cause you ain't hard enough to accept ReAlity bay-Bee, oh yeah

How did we "blow it?" By implementing regime change in the wrong manner? What, in your opinion, would be the correct manner?

Did we "blow it" by implementing regime change *period?* Had we not gone into Iraq, what outcomes would have been better than those existing at present (other than the noble deaths of our military members)?

Nothing in the comment from which I quoted or any of your subsequent ones explains how we "blew it." Bowflex time, perhaps?

I did Indeed explain my position; Every nation in that area is subtly contributing to a return of a non-secular state. I think we went about it in the wrong manner but I also think we went about it in the exact manner our administration had in mind.

BTW I'm glad someone liked the blowflex comment. I was proud of it, I thought of it myself, It was not a direct shot at McGehee, he was just in the area of fire

no I am not this steve plonk person

I am a blogger who has been cheated recognition of my brillance and influence on the blogosphere

I am 100% aware that what I say isn't what you would normally hear, now that doesn't make you less intellegent, just unfamiliar. and when you age respectivly to grasp my strength you will have long forgotten my name, hence no need for a true identity and no chance of blog rip offs of my ideas

That's failed intel.