“Always leave a place and try not to get blown up on the way out?”
Trying not to get blown up while staying isn’t working too well this week.
Bush walks into your house, and while telling you how lucky you are that he’s there, he accidentally spills grape juice on your white carpet. Do you trust him to clean it up without knocking over your china hutch?
If we leave Iraq now, it will embarass the US and the UK, leave many starving and dead, and quite possibly touch off WWIII. That might be our best strategy.
Interesting analogy. But can we just let the stain set while we figure out who has the least clumsy carpet cleaner? Seems like we are trying to tie down the china hutch so it won’t get knocked over because we can’t wrap each piece individually and we can’t afford a new carpet.
Did that make any sense? 
And that is about as disheartening a thing as I can think of.
I don’t know if this is a possibility but what about the coalition of the few leaving on the agreement that they fund the UN to go in and claen up the mess?
Well, I can think of several reasons why we shouldn’t be there.
First off, our guys won. Why are we letting them sit around getting shot at until we turn victory into defeat? The prestige of this nation is at stake and we are letting cowards that never wore the uniform start lame wars. Our forces should not occupy territory anywhere in the age of Nationalism.
Secondly, our aim is to discourage terrorism. Why are we creating more hatred towards us? Why are we making our enemy better by opposing him constantly? We are breeding super terrorists. They will grow stronger. We will too but we have less to gain than they do.
Now that we are there, we cannot leave. The only thing we could do is get other nations involved. That would mean get back with the U.N. but that is against their Neo-Con ideology.
We need to get off oil. Then we could tell the whole Middle East including Israel to go pound sand.
Well leave it to the liberals to not want women in combat. 67-1.
I don’t think anybody wants war but sometimes people just take your land and downright piss you off for centurys.
Someone’s been living under a rock these past three years.
And: Saddam pissed us off for centuries and took our land?
And what’s this have to do with permitting women in combat?
Wasn’t Iraq British at one time? Huh? huh?!
And, according to the ministry of information, Iraq has always been our enemy.
Especially while Sadaam was our CIA patsy.
I think yola’s putting the blame for this war on the evil liberals. Og knows that Bush and Co. did everything they could to keep us out of this war. At gunpoint.
I, as an individual, would be all in favor of something along this line. Whether the UN or an honest-to-Christ coalition (at long last). But as The Highwayman points out, that just ain’t gonna happen with the crowd of happy assholes that are in power right now.
Nor, due to the aforementioned group, are we going to get off oil anytime soon.
For now, I’m still saying that we need to stay and at least try to fix what we fucked up (read: everything). But I wonder how much longer it will be before I say, "Fuck this! Get 'em out!? Time will most assuredly tell.
Waste
Enemies are useful.
Articles like this one should help some of you fence-sitters make up your minds:
In Iraq, efforts to catch militants fuel rage, fear
Then again, you could keep drinking from the fountain of spin:
:rolleyes:
Ah, the old “last-ditch” argument: the harder the enemy is fighting, the closer they must be to defeat. I remember that we were hearing that argument back in August 2003:
How much longer is it going to take us to get across this “last ditch”?
"I think they’re being defeated. And that’s why they continue to fight."
Good old Bushco logic. This ranks right up there with how the lack of WMDs was proof positive that Saddam needed some WMDs, therefore he was going to try to get some WMDs, therefore it was a good thing that we stopped him in time.
Nixon played it right in Vietnam. Instead of “Vietnamization” we’ll try to “Iraqi-ize” the effort.
Declare that the in-country effort rests with the Iraqis, and then leave. Send them aid out the whazoo, but get the hell out of the country.
Americans tend to give a rat’s ass about world opinion anyway, so eating a ton of crow won’t be too difficult.
“We won the Iraqi war!”
See - it’s easy. Declare you won and, hey, you won.
A year ago, George Friedman of Stratfor advocated a plan similar in spirit: withdraw from the cities to defendable positions in the countryside.
Specifically, "To the south and west of the Euphrates River, there is a vast and relatively uninhabited region of Iraq – not very hospitable, but with less shooting than on the other side… A withdrawal from the river basins would allow the United States to carry out its primary mission – maintaining regional pressure – without engaging in an impossible war. Moreover, in the Kurdish regions of the northeast, where U.S. Special Forces have operated for a very long time, U.S. forces could be based – and supplied – in order to maintain a presence on the Iranian border.
Iraq should then be encouraged to develop a Shiite-dominated government, the best guarantor against al Qaeda and the greatest incentive for the Iranians not to destabilize the situation. The fate of the Sunnis will rest in the deal they can negotiate with the Shia and Kurds – and, as they say, that is their problem. "
More:
“The Iraqi government might demand at some point that the United States withdraw, but they would have no way to impose their demand, as they would if U.S. forces could continue to be picked off with improvised explosive devices and sniper fire. …Certainly the land is inhospitable, and serious engineering and logistical efforts would be required to accommodate basing for large numbers of troops. However, large numbers of troops might not be necessary…”