"Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate.  The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.  Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay.  This reality was the genesis of a rift that goes back to the Gulf War itself, when neoconservatives were vocal in their calls for "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad." Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq's regime but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.

The connotations of "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad" show how inapt the comparison is.  Our occupation forces never set foot inside Japan until the emperor had formally surrendered and prepared Japanese citizens for our arrival.  Nor did MacArthur destroy the Japanese government when he took over as proconsul after World War II.  Instead, he was careful to work his changes through it, and took pains to preserve the integrity of Japan's imperial family.  Nor is Japanese culture in any way similar to Iraq's.  The Japanese are a homogeneous people who place a high premium on respect, and they fully cooperated with MacArthur's forces after having been ordered to do so by the emperor.  The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S.  occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam.  Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War."

Jim Webb, September 2002

Class Warrior, D.C: '...we should never, EVER again fight and die for people (Koreans, Vietnamese or Iraqis) who care less about their freedom and security than we do. That should be the Lesson We FINALLY Larn about Foreign Wars....'

Come ON, Class Warrior !!
Do you really think we give a damn about the Iraqi people ?
About their 'democracy' ?
About their 'freedom'
We had an embargo on them that ended up killing 100K ?
200K, 300K ? Iraqi CHILDREN !
When asked if the children's deaths were 'worth it'..
Clinton supporter, Madeline Albright said 'YES'

We don't give a damn about Iraqis, Palestinians, Vietnamese, Cubans, Guatemalans or Iranians

It's just all part of the American Empire scam
Just stealing the resources
'The road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad'...
Or some other equally cynical lie.....

Wonder how McCain will take this? Apparently the surge is like his campagin........Mission Impossible!
Couldn't have come at a better time when he's out there "reinventing" himself! (Watch the news for his temper tantrum)

'...On the call, part of an effort by the Win Without War Coalition, Gard stressed Iraqis have failed to assume responsibility...'

It's those DAMN IRAQIS
Why did we let them make us invade ?

Everybody hates America !!
And we just want to help !!

(sob, sob)

As you guys failed to post my last comment about this I'll try again.

As long as the Iraq problem is called a "war" and not what it truly is, a "policing action", then McCain and his surge proponents will continue to be able to pull the wool over people's eyes. McCain states we can win this war. I beg to differ on two counts. One, this is not a war. It is a policing action where our troops are being used to try and stem criminal activity among and between the Iraqi citizens. Secondly, you cannot "win" a policing action. You can experience an ebb and flow at times between an  increase in violence versus a decrase in violence, but the criminal activity will be permanent just as we have permanent criminal activity in the US. And if a permanent condition then how can someone like McCain or his supporters define winning when there is no such animal possible in a policing action. Just as our own police in the US can battle crime they will never completely win a war against crime and if you pulled them off the streets there would be an increase in crime. Except for the level of criminal activity and the severity of the criminal behavior in Iraq our troops are being asked to act as Iraq's policemen/women. They are not fighting a war as they have been trained.

Two conditions why this is a mistake:

1) we do not have the number of troops to act as policemen/women across all of Iraq or the dollars to fund a permanent US police force for Iraq and 2) many people in Iraq do not have a single-minded purpose or objective to obey laws, but rather wish to crweate and participate in crimes against one another based on their religious beliefs and loyalties. Therefore, any form of "winning" no matter how one defines it can only come from Iraqi's obeying laws and that can only be achieved by Iraqis when they garnish a single-minded purpose to do so. It cannot be forced or enforced by a handful of US troops.  

Republicans cannot grasp this because it's beyond a three word slogan, like the one you know they will use in response: "cut and run".

New book out called: The Three Trillion Dollar War (that's 12 zeros). Could that have anything to do with the recession?

there will never be any 'power sharing' in iraq, they will be fighting till end of days, our leaders are stupid for even entertaining any other conclusion

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
Is there anybody left besides McCain and HRC too stupid to see that this is nothing but civil war in Iraq?

The question to the people who support this:  How long do we stay?  If the answer is as long as it takes---then we need a draft period.  We need to put the onus of this debacle on everyones shoulders.

The occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan will break our country like the occupation of Afganistan broke the Soviets. We MUST change our foreign policy or suffer miserably here at home. (Crumbling infrastructure, schools, collapsing economy.....
John McCain would be disastrous.
Barack would put us on a course of recovery, healing.
To me, Hillary is more of an "unknown" here. She took more campaign contributions from defense contractors than ANY other candidate, Repub or Dem.
And frankly, I don't trust that she's telling the truth now about what she would do. If faced with the choice of Hillary or McCain I would choose her as the lesser of two evils. I'm praying for America's well being.
Obama '08

As stated before...

McCain is trying to group wars of nations together with a war on terror and no clear opposition.  If you don't know the difference, it's really military on military vs military on culture and beliefs (radical or not).  This war on terror is ironically very similar to a war Mr. McCain should know all too well (Vietnam).  

I say this because in both Vietnam and Iraq, we aren't fighting a military opposition and our troops are sometimes shaking hands with an opponent in the day and shooting at him at night.  

In this war, we are fighting a religious belief and in both cases... we aren't WANTED by the people.  

In Korea and Germany, the people wanted us there and JOINT efforts from allies shared the burden.  What McCain is attempting to do is put war in a pot and color it all the same.  In Kuwait for example, the people wanted us in there to hold Sadaam in check and chase the Iraqi military back into Baghdad.  Again... military vs military-- a clear opposition.  

This war on terror, we put our military men and women in a war where we have no military faction...

Who's the opponent?  The US still can't describe an Al-Queida cell, how in the world can the military defeat one?  

We can't afford this war - period.

We're mortgaging this country and our kid's futures.

Enough already.

But I thought old gasbag mccain said the surge was working! It's working in the sence that it is filling the war profiteers pockets full of our tax dollars! The reason "we" are not resolving the core power sharing issues is because the Iraqui's have to do it, and they will never do anything as long as we keep sending them 12 billion dollars a month for nothing and babysitting their lazy useless non government!

Sierra, SF: We left Vietnam, and...they rolled over.  What do you think would happen in Korea if we left? Iraq, too.  Yes, we like to rule the world. I'm not saying BUSH believes in all that bs about dying for their freedom...I'm saying that's the lie he's telling, and we should NEVER believe it again, keep our money and our troops in our country.  Because once we start believing 1.) we should die for the Koreans' Vietnamese, or Iraqis' freedom and 2.) the above-mentioned care about their freedom, then we let crazed emperor wannabes like Bush and Mcwars talk us into forever commitments of our hard-earned money and our kids.

Johnny U,

What is Obama going to heal?  He'll put a few black racists in his cabinet, this will be a new era of AA and political correctness, the "Typical White Person" must pay..  Thats what this man's agenda is...

Some great intelligent posts here.  Thanks to Webb, Sierra, Diane, CA, Pat, Johnny U, and Ya know.  Good to know that there are people like you out there.  keep up the good work.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):