http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx The White House is passing around this quote press secretary Tony Snow, who returns to work today, made this morning on ABC: "Of course people want to be out of the war. On the other hand, do people want to adopt a strategy that is going to weaken theen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174861Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:39:34 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174861Dave M., Miamisburg, OH'We're going to give you a timetable for withdrawal,' knowing that that strengthens the hands of the enemy?… If you frame it that way, I’d love to see the poll results. I think the poll results will be no different. By that, I mean, the American People will say, even when the question is framed in this way, that "It's time to get out. Set your schedule and find a way to do it that's least dangerous to our troops." I think the public's fatigue level with the Bush Administration's use of fear to get what they want reached its saturation point months ago. I can see why the Republican "inside the beltway" wonks would think these words in the hands of Tony Snow will be a winning argument. However, I don't see it playing out that way.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174883Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:49:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174883mikeeg,abdn,waThe iraq goverment is purging military and police officials along party lines much like bush does with prosicuting attorneys under gonzales. Maybe we need a better example for the iraqs.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174892Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:54:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174892Still Crazy After All These Years"And I ain't no communist And I ain't no capitalist And I ain't no socialist And I ain'tno imperalist and I ain't no democrat and I ain't no republican I only know one party And it is freedom."-I Am a Patriot-Jackson Brownehttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174910Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:08:54 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174910Steven in WisconsinThe Bush Administration used lies and distortions of truth to get us into this war to begin with. These propaganda tactics by this group of thugs is nothing new. They are experts at distorting the truth in order to achieve their goals and Rove is amazingly efficient at coordinating distortions and mistruths among their political allies in order to attain maximum effect in their favor.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174911Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:08:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174911Herschel Ducker, Melbourne,AR Also on ABC,Condi Rice answering Geo. S. said in answer to "the imminent problem" that continues to dog. '... The question is: are we in a stronger position today than we would be tomorrow... the President made the assessment to go ahead..?' The parallels between Sec. Rice's statement and one from some time ago, Mr. Rumsfelds's, '...Do we go in with the army we have or the one we wish we had..?' reflect an Administration on it's heels (strategically speaking) ever since the "Mission Accomplished" statement aboard the Abe Lincoln. To base a decision to go to war due in part to Saddam referring to Kuwait as "a province of Iraq" and considering the above; if Snow's comments on polling were indeed taken, I agree. I don't see it playing out that way. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174944Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:26:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174944jerry/corpus christi texasyes we have candidates that are clean, spend $400 on haircuts, use fax machines when they are not supposed to and fly private jets at $10,000 a pop and talk about doing something about global warming. I guess that would be the better example.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174945Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:26:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174945Steve Turner Cedar Falls IowaThe Repblicans have yet to give me their definition of 'Victory'. If it still means an American-Style Democracy in Iraq, the definition they began with, then they are truly out of touch and 'Lost'. On the other hand, any definition other than that, is inconcievable to me as well as most people who wonder what we are there for. Is a Corporate Payoff the answer?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174952Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:35:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174952Gary Schear, Bozeman MontanaQuoting here..."but Republican base voters continue to see a conflict that is going reasonably well, with a decent chance of military success." Could any of the republican voters that contribute to this blog help me understand this? I see the United States bogged down in an ill advised, ill executed text book example of military adventurism with no gain that is worth the cost. I know, as Bob Novak does, that there are many horrified "paleo-conservatives" that feel the same way about this war. Explain to me what we will gain from stretching our military to the breaking point. Explain to me what justifies 3rd and 4th tours that are then extended. Explain to me how this is worth turning the National Guard into a back door draft. You often call the Democratic Congress out for not having the courage of their convictions. Explain to me why the administration doesn't have the courage to reinstate the Draft for this "life or death" defense of America in Iraq. Do you have any answers? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174953Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:36:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174953Susan, NebraskaYou are right Jerry/corpus christi THOSE ARE THIS ISSUES THAT hover over this nation right now. The republicans have the market cornered on honesty, distinction, disgression and morality. Pick up a paper, even a conservative one if you must, and THOSE will NOT be the headlines. The mockery your party has made of this country WILL BE. OWN IT!!! One more time Jerry, what does "victory" in Iraq mean to you. I know you wont answer, it is only the 15th time I ask, but I am trying to make a point that your arguments lack substance.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174955Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:37:11 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174955mikeeg,abdn,waI would like to see one good example of the bush plan.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174963Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:42:53 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174963JOHNNY JUSTICE ANYWHERE USA***********END THE WAR TODAY*********http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174964Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:43:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174964Amy B Portland, MEI watched Senator Biden on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday and I must say, I felt I was finally hearing the truth about where we stand with Iraq. Boy, you really sense the difference when someone in the know is straight with you about the war vs Rice, Cheney, Guiliani and Bush's spin, spin, spin.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174965Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:43:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174965Robert Catalano, Salem, ORYeah, Jerry, what about WMD's, the famous "mushroom Cloud" statement, "Mission Accomplished", diagnosing Terry Schiavo from far away, humiliating a wife and children by carrying on with a girlfriend in public, getting drunk while hunting and shooting someone in the face, leaking a CIA agent's identity, et. etc. etc. etc. It is amazing how truly miopic supporters of this administration can be. Let's just blame everything on Bill Clinton and leave it at that.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174972Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:48:19 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174972Herschel Ducker, Melbourne, AR I've heard numerous definitions of "Victory". We will avoid a mushroom cloud, getting hit with WMD, we would keep terroists from creating a base in Iraq, of course the purple-thumbed democracy, ad nauseum. The one thing I dislike perhaps most about this whole thing is likely due to Mr Cheney's remark about "the Iraqi's throwing flower petals in the path of the American liberators". I don't know how I'll afford a dozen roses for Mom, I mean the Iraqis are buying up all the flowers.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174985Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:00:00 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174985Greg R, Spokane, WAYeah Tony, it's all about the phrasing. I might suggest that if you frame the poll question the way Tony suggests, by the time "the Base" figures out the question the war wil be over.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#174992Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:07:06 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:174992Ryan, MichiganI believe that the U.S. Military has defined "victory in Iraq" this way: "Iraq at peace with its neighbors, with a representative government that respects the human rights of all Iraqis, and security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and to deny Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists". This is posted outside of an admirals office in Iraq. I consider this a rather good defintion and an achieveable one if the American people want it to be. As a weekend editorial in the Washington Post pointed out if the American people want us to lose in Iraq then we will lose, if they want us to win then we will win. I think that is a rather fair assesment, it,s up to us. Judging by recent poll numbers it seems as though a majority of Americans wouldn't mind if we lost.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175005Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:14:42 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175005PeepsRobert in Salem - Not to be picky, but it's "myopic".http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175015Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:18:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175015Lee in MVBob Novak is nothing but a BushCo shill - how he disgraces his profession. Hey Bob? Any Republicans "repelled" by Bush's "personal assault" on the Constitution? We all know you're OK with it. You media brown shirts are enough to make a maggot gag.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175022Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:24:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175022R.MerrellSpin it, ask it anyway you want Tony S., but the american people have had it with this adminstration, this war, the lies and "I don't recall's". You've all fouled out and no amount of wordsmithing is going to provide justification for the damage to democracy done by Bush and Co. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175027Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:26:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175027zzzzzzzzzzzzzzToday's Liberals would have supported Martin Luther King, but not his mission. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175028Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:27:17 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175028Independent, TexasRyan Michigan: I agree with that if we (the people) wanted to "win" Iraq we could. However, the problem is who is leading the forces. I certainly agree with the goal although I have some doubt about whether the Iraqi's agree with it. However, the point is: This military action ISN'T working!! The military approach is wrong. Conventional warfare techniques are not applicable to this situation. I want our troops home because this administration and the cherry-picked military leaders are failing. The military leaders who disagreed with this administration and proposed alternatives were replaced. That is the problem: The "who" that is making decisions about the "how". Not whether the effort "can" be won. I would have supported this with a full heart if I thought that this administration would listen to the people who knew how to deal with it. I have to admit, from the beginning I declared this an illegal act but I could have been convinced because I am naive enough to want to believe that our presidents really do want what's best for the country. This administration has all but destroyed my naivete in that regard. The other part is the contrast between the administration's passionate assertions that our efforts in Iraq are so important but the hypocritical way of conducting it. If it is so important then, dammit, formally declare war. Institute the draft. Put the country under the war acts. If this administration is not (and never has been) willing to go for that, then they don't truly believe what they are saying about its importance. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175034Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:30:57 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175034Amy B Portland, MERyan, is it really possible for the United States to constuct a completely new nation? I'm asking, I don't know. Can the US take complete control of the Iraqi government, separate the warring factions, disarm the populace, somehow prevent suicide bombers and the planting of IEDs? Seriously, is it possible for us to control another population in this way? Because it seems to me this is your definition of 'winning'. Is such a victory even possible and what would it take from the American people? I have heard it said that Reagan bankrupted the USSR by escalating the arms race. Considering the Iraw war has cost us one billion dollars so far are we perhaps going down that road?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175037Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:32:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175037Desmond"Some call you the elite, I call you my base"-President George Bushhttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175039Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:33:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175039mikeeg,abdn,waryan if anyone actually beleives your definition of victory is achivable they need to speak up loud and clear and give definite axamples of how to do just that(other than to play "whacko mole strategy"). However very few folks seem to accept your definition of win/lose. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175045Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:36:10 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175045Butch, Pine, Colorado"Wouldn't mind if we lost?" So what's the alternative plan? We keep doing what we're doing until every American between the ages of 18 and 35 has been killed or wounded? There is a way to "win" but it isn't solely militarily, and we won't get there until the administration drops its opposition to negotiating with the "bad guys."http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175056Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:39:50 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175056Dave M., Miamisburg, OHRyan, I'm glad the Admiral has the ability to state the war's objective. It's a shame our Political Leaders, who are responsible for selling this war to the public, can't seem to find the succint, eloquence that this Admiral possesses. Now the difficult part. The Admiral has defined it well. The next question, "Achieving it at what price?" Is it worth it? And, will the U.S. public sign on for the sacrifice of further lives and expending of additional resources given the way both have been squandered over the past three years? On these questions, I believe the U.S. citizenry will say, "Enough is enough. NO more."http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175074Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:46:24 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175074jtbJohnny: absolutely. end the fighting RIGHT NOW... and the Sunnis, and Shias, and Kurds, and Iranians and all those Iraqis who voted in their last elections...you remember... the ones with the ink-stained fingers who voted in larger percentages than WE did in our last "MANDATE" election, will all live happily ever after, respecting each others' political, religious, gender, civil, and personal rights. Oh, Lordy, peace at last, peace at last!!! http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175080Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:48:46 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175080Lisa Fort Worth TXRyan, it's not just as simple as "if Americans want us to win we will". This administration wasn't able to "win" when Congress gave the executive branch everything it asked for. As for the definition of "winning", if we can't prevent terrorists from entering or operating in our own country, how can we hope to make Iraq a terrorist-free country? I don't believe we should just give up on pursuing terrorists, I just believe we need more than a single-minded military-only approach we have been using in Iraq. I've heard both dems and reps voice ideas, but is anyone listening?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175104Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:07:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175104Susan, NebraskaThank you Ryan for being able to form an articulate argument and actually put into words what your, and it sounds like from your post an admiral's opinion of what "victory" means in this situation. So my question to you after reading your post is this; at what point and at what cost do any of the things you listed become our responsibility to foster? Yes Sadaam was a tyrant. There is no question about that. But now we have awakened a hornets nest and are all getting stung. So do we run for water or do we continue to stop on the nest? When do we pull the plug and stop trying to play a referee in a civil war that has been waged for YEARS before we got there and will be for YEARS after we leave. WE CAN'T MAKE THESE PEOPLE GET ALONG. Just like the palestinians and the israeli's. This goes back a long time. And why are we so arrogant to believe that we are the ones to step in and "fix" it. Shouldn't our efforts have been placed in places like Darfur where we would be fighting for those who aren't able to fight for themselves. I understand that we have a mess that we have to fix. I don't have the answers as to when it is safe for us to pull out. I don't think anyone does. BUT what I do know. Is that we shouldn't be there in the first place. We have completely shifted our focus from Afghanastan, and Al-Queda WHO HIT IS ON 9/11. So when is it enough. At what point do we FORCE the Iraqi people to stand on their own, to put their own troops on the front lines, to stand on their own two feet. We continue to be a crutch for the Iraqi's. And much like an infant child they are going to have to fall on their face to learn to walk on their own. BRING OUR TROOPS HOME SAFE!!! Thank for your post.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175108Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:11:17 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175108Jim, Santa CruzRyan, that's the same argument the hawks used for the Viet Nam war. Iraq seems to me to present similar challenges: how many of the enemy do you have to eliminate in order to reach your stated victory goal? Does the enemy have the will to sacrifice many lives in order to reach their goal? What is the enemy's goal? Who are the enemy? and finally, what are we doing there if there is a low probability of achieving our stated goal? And beyond all this, why are we at war in a country that did not attack us?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175117Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:14:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175117Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West VirginiaGen. Petraeus has essentially set a deadline....September 2007. He stated if the "surge" has not shown markedly signs of progress, than an alternate course of action is necessary. It would appear that all of the bluster over soft withdrawal dates, between the Congress and President Bush are moot. It goes without saying that if in September 2007, the troops would be withdrawn, absent a successful escalation by Bush. Bottom line, one way or the other, the troops will be coming home in the autumn, either due to a successful surge, or due to a lack of success with the surge. It remains extremely disconcerting to realize that according to George Tenet, there was no real thought and internal discussion at the highest levels of this government, before our men and women were dispatched to a nation that had absolutely no ties to events of 9/11/01.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175121Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:15:14 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175121Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VAWar Czar - oh my gosh, you've got to be kidding. I thought Bush was a Republican, and thus was theoretically for small government. His answer to his administration's inability to make heads nor tails out of the situation in Iraq is to create a new bureaucratic position for someone to be surrogate commander in chief? That would be funny if it was happening to someone else's country. How much time do these sophomoric amateurs have left?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175126Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:17:44 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175126Mark Y; Westlake Village, CAjtb, you described exactly how the admin thought this war in Iraq would go. And as it has unfolded, you probably see it exactly that way. Other people see it the exact opposite. After all, cheney said we would be greeted as liberators. The solution is not simple at this point; it will take political, economic and military phases to achieve the goal as described by Ryan in this blog. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175133Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:21:53 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175133Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VAIndependents decide elections - the GOP ought to listen to Novak, or else they risk handing the Dems a situation in which their most vulnerable potential nominee probably still couldn't lose the '08 presidential race. And that most vulnerable clearly is Ms. Astoundingly High Negatives, aka Hillary. She'll energize the GOP base like no other, but if Hillary takes 70 percent or so of independents, it may not matter. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175138Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:24:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175138Herschel Ducker, Melbourne, AR Toward Ryan, despite my acrimonious comments do not judge that I think a total withdrawal from Iraq is adviseable. I fall more in line with Gen. Zinni's thinking. I would like to "win". But for now, given the missteps, containment is likely the best option. Despite what the Demo contenders are saying now, the serious minded among them realize full well that what they are saying now is window dressing. They will need the "cover" if one of them takes the Presidency to say, "Well, you know I'm on the record as against the war, but." By then they will be able to say, "well the situation has changed." The way we got into this was like the old Supreme Soviet, one party in power, rubberstamping decisions made at the top. Any opposing views decreed treasonable. But, we find ourselves knee deep in dog poop nonetheless.Democracy is problematic given the partisanship, and the voting blocs of the recent past. We as a nation must, in my view, aim for a mean. The only way to retrieve the situation as it now stands is withdraw from the population centers. Interdict arms shipments at the borders. Allow the Iraqis their Lebanon until they bleed themselves out. Knowing full well we are the nation that put this civil war to them. I'm no strategic expert by a long shot. More in the ranks of GW and Dick. But I'm guessing there is no way for a quick, easy exit. Holloring and name-calling may be satisfying for some. But realities have a habit of being well, reality. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175143Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:26:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175143Dave M., Miamisburg, OHRyan noted an editorial in the "Washington Post pointed out if the American people want us to lose in Iraq then we will lose, if they want us to win then we will win." Well, golly, we could turn that same simpleton logic around on Tony Snow and his Administration Big Wigs by saying, "If we want to begin withdrawel of troops with a minimum amount of U.S. casualties and with a minimum amount of telegraphing our course to the enemy, we could. We just simply have to want to." In other words, the U.S. people are saying to this Administration, "It's time to get out. End this thing. FIND A WAY and DO IT." http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175151Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:31:17 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175151Ryan, MichiganI think that the Admiral's sign is well put because it acknowledges that we can't achieve victory purly through our military. We need diplomacy, economic development and political pressure as well. I am not a military or political or economic expert by any stretch of the imagination. Obviously Iraq won't be "terrorist-free country", even the U.S. has terrorists in it. I'm not sure how we get to that point. I do however believe that this war has become the centeral front in the "war on terror" and not coming out of Iraq with some semblence of a "victory" would have devastating consequences to us, the Iraqi people and the world. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175163Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:35:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175163mikeeg,abdn,waBottom line is it is up to iraqs to find a solution not America.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175171Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:37:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175171Gary Schear, Bozeman Montanajtb--There was no way for US to avoid our own Civil War. Irreconcilable differences eventually had to be settled in the messy way that humans settle things. There is no way for the Iraqis to avoid their own civil war. Certainly not with the help of a Foreign occupier whom they all want to leave. Our invasion and occupation hastened their decent into civil war. Our exit will hasten it's end. That end will be a crescendo of violence not unlike our own experience. When it is finished one side or the other will have won. Democracy is not likely to be the outcome but that is for them to decide not us. No more American blood. No more American treasure. Sadly, both will need to be spent elsewhere. In Pakistan we are one bullet away from a nuclear armed Islamic republic. How much better would it have been for us to remain in force in Afghanistan killing Taliban and Al Qaeda as the crossed back into Afghanistan? How much better would it have been to have seasoned acclimated troops massed on the Paki border waiting for the inevitable overthrow of Musharraf. How much intelligence would we have had on the location of Pakistani launch facilities? How many valuable human intelligence assets would we have been able to develop in Waziristan in the past 5 year? These are all opportunities that have been squandered because of bad policy and bad leadership. We have done nothing in Iraq but provide the mother of all Live Fire exercises for our enemies to train the glut of recruits that our actions have provided them. I'm sorry jtb, but where bush is concerned, stupid is as stupid does. I wish he wasn't stupid, I wish we were in a better spot than we are now.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175173Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:39:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175173Carrie, NW IowaRyan - That's a nice defintiion. I just have one question - before we decided that this was what was best for Iraq, did anyone bother to ask the Iraqis what they wanted? I don't think whether the goal you stated is met has nearly as much to do with what we as Americans are want as it does with what the Iraqi people want. You cannot force democracy on people who do not want it. Period. Change of this sort must come from within if it is ever to come at all. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175179Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:43:19 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175179jerry/corpus christi texasSusan, Victory in Iraq will come when we let the military take over from the politicians. We bomb bomb bomb. If the terroists hide out in mosques, blow up the mosques! If it takes slitting the throats of every terrorists, so be it! If we would stop being a nation of scared women and let the armed forces take out the ragheads of the world who want to take on us, we could have ended this years ago.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175183Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:49:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175183James, downstate IllinoisRyan, I think that is one of the most clear definitions of what 'victory' would look like that I've seen. As others have already stated, I'm not sure that goal is achievable in the current situation. The only way I see that happening is if we move in with overwhelming force to quell the sectarian violence. Then we become the oppressors, in my opinion. And it would come at too high of a price, in both troops and treasure, for the gain. I'm not sure how an outside force 'wins' a civil war. We can't do that with the troop levels as they are, nor with the 'surge' levels, nor do we have the military resources at this point to go in with the 500,000 or so troops that would be needed to 'win'. Without any changes in the situation, it's going to be ugly when we leave whether we leave in 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years. I do want to say 'thanks' to you, Ryan, for the way you thoughtfully and respectfully contribute to the conversation. I'm sure it's not easy being a conservative in this environment, but you stand out from the Kool-aid drinkers with the manner in which you conduct yourself.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175228Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:13:46 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175228FloridaIt seems after reading many of these posts that some of you are still thinking putting our troops in Iraq will stop the killing. The simple answer is it will not. The only way we can stop this war is if the country totally mobilizes and puts all efforts toward the war. The question remains how many of you die hard war supporters are willing to pay $10.00 a gallon for gas, no more espressos from Starbucks, no more shopping for your Levis Jeans, ration all rubber products, pay higher taxes, buy war bonds, ration food, and last but not least serve your county through a draft. Don’t tell me you support a war you have not scarified ANYTHING for!!!!!!!!! http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175232Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:15:44 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175232Brian, Cedar Hill, TXSo now the truth is out that Al-Maliki is purging his forces for political gains and supporting rebels in his sectarian war? Wasn't that evident when Maliki warned his buddy Sadr to get out of Dodge until the American shake-up settled down. What is really disgusting is that this bone-head president is still spilling our American blood for this. It is criminal and murderous that he continues to do so knowing these facts. Impeach Bush and Cheney NOW!!!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175240Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:18:20 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175240mikeeg,abdn,waI beleive hitler tried those tactics jerry, didnt work then wont work now. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175251Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:26:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175251Dave M., Miamisburg, OHJerry/corpus christi: Very immature and unrealistic way to solve this problem the U.S. finds itself in in Iraq. Your "kill 'em all" attitude would not work any better than the current failed Bush policy. Your policy would create worldwide condemnation of the U.S. Military and likely cause other nations (not just fringe terrorist groups) to declare war on the United States. Congratulations, Jerry. You've just taken the typical "hawk" argument to the point of ridiculousness. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175260Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:31:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175260Bob Lipsett Sr North Attleboro, MA. 02760-4388Ryran, Michigan & Jerry of Corpus Christi, TX. Do any of you realize that this is a no win situation in Iraq, as we have handed power to the Shi'ite controlled government. Lt Gen Petreaus was the only smart one as he arrived in Mosul. While flying over the route Kuwati to Mosul, That Tommy Franks rushed to get to Baghdad in Apr.'03 he told his crew to look below the helicopter at the "unguarded ammo dumps" and said that "ammo would be used to kill our troops." While in Mosul he established a repore with the Iraqis and had a peaceful occupation with 101st Airborne, when they pulled the 101st out of Mosul and sent in the 82nd Striker Batallion with their Bradley Fighting Vehicles, all "HELL" broke lose as they smached and crashed and ruined the goodwill that Petreaus had established. It took a long time to calm down the irate feelings of the Iraqis and there was a suicide bomber that blew up a mess tent with many military in it and many died in that attack. Had the field Generals, Rumfield, Casey, Abizzi etc: realized then, that they now admit that Petreaus had the winning policy in '04 this nation would not have 3,351 dead military and 24,500+ wounded. It has been 1,465 + days since "Mission Accomplished." And these brilliant General are finding out what "Cinco de Mayo" really means. A now after all this carnage, this administration wants Petreaus to throw the "HAIL MARY PASS" to save the rear end of these "Neocon War HAWKS". Better known as "Chicken Hawks" as one Paul Hadley of Ohio, a military person called them by the right name. Iraq was lost when this country tried to gain a permanent presence in the Middle East after being asked to remove our military boots from the Saudi Arabian "Holy Land" outpost we shared for years since before '91. The only reason for this iillegal invasion was for "O'= for oil field protection of the Reserves, "I"= Israel, to defend and protect Israel from a attack by Islamic forces, "L"= Location of permanent military and the position of the largest "Colossal Embassy" in the Middle East (Iraq) This spells "OIL". This administration cooked the books on Intel and what was said in the closed doors security briefing did not even come close to Judy Miller NY Times story of WMD stockpiles. Should anyone be curious about George Tenant and Colin Powell going along with this wreckless plan, all they had to do is, look what Saxby Chambliss did to Max Cleland of Georgia, calling him not very Patriotic and not being Loyal to the Prez. as Cheney and the neocons called the anti-war crowd UN-AMERICAN and UNPATRIOTIC for not supporting this illegal invasion. Remember Cheney telling Pakistanian Prez that "he is with us or not with us and he is not with us that the USA would bomb him and his country back to the stone ages." Face it this administration just gave Iran a closer position by 1,000 miles to the Arab Sunni Nations and Israel. Some thing called "Unintended Consequences" I only hope that the Democratic majority press for the truth about the pre Sept. 11, 2001 Intel and how it was ignored by this administration as they did not know when or where the attack would be. Something called "Potective Measures" by the National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice and Prez. to alert the FAA, NORAD, and Airline Industry for tighter security measures were called for on Jul. 10 and Aug.6, 2001 "Prez. Daily Briefing." The more that gets out, about the mistakes that were made or lies, is the more the "conspiracy theory" sounds more believable. Nothing like being prepared for the worst. And we are still not prepared for the worst, our whole interstucture is not in place for security.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175265Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:32:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175265Still Crazy After All These Years"The President looks in the mirror and speaks His shirts are clean but his country reeks Unpaid bills,in Afhganistan hills"-Bombs Away-Sting/Policehttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175287Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:46:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175287Ryan, MichiganThis is by know means an easy issue. On one hand, I, like most of you am upset at the mishandling of the war and the cost that it has taken on American lives and pocketbooks. I would love for the soldiers to come home. However, on the other hand, I believe that it would be truly devestating to us, the Iraqi's and the rest of the world if we left Iraq in the condition that it's in today. Gen. Petraeus seems to me to have a military/political plan that could work and he has a timeframe in mind as to when we would need to see results to tell if its working (see Coy's post), and the Iraqi's seem to have worked out a revenue sharing plan for the oil revenues which they will vote on at the end of May. Petraeus told us that there would be high casulties, and it makes sense, if you start to fight the enemy harder it only makes sense that they are initially going to fight back harder. By the end of May 9 of Iraq's 18 provinces will be turned over to the Iraqi's. Hopefully we can reallocate our troops to the more troubled areas and continue to pressure the insurgents. To me, I believe that we have no choice but to hope that the Petraeus plan works. If not, to be honest, I'm not sure where we would go next. It's days and times like these where I'm glad I'm not the President. I don't envy him in these difficult times.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175298Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:50:46 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175298ex-marine,vietvetVFW magazines question for March was "will sending additional U.S. troops to iraq improve prospects for achieving vitory there?" response was 85% NO 15% yeshttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175300Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:51:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175300Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowajerry/corpus. I've got some friends down at the gun range who would definitely consider you, 'Their Kind Of Woman".http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175308Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:57:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175308jtbYes, Mark, yes, Gary, you are both correct. My derision aimed at Johnny Justice is in his simpleton/jingo-istic solution to a complex problem. Leaving Iraq must include military/politically negotiated solutions that result in the least amount of American casualties possible. The Dems ought to put you guys, as well as Ryan and Scott/Oregon in charge of their think tank: you guys have the clearest vision of what the realty of Iraq is, and the best recommendations for our disengagement I've read so far, from EITHER SIDE of Washington's aisle.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175322Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:10:34 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175322Scott in South TexasLet me join James if offering my thanks to Ryan for his thoughtful and respectful contribution to this conversation. And let me thank jerry for providing a perfect example of the complete opposite end of the spectrum, with his proposed solution of "kill them all, man womam and child", with a nice touch of unmitigated bigotry and attempted machismo.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175341Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:24:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175341Still Crazy After All These Years"The President looks in the mirror and speaks His shirts are clean but his country reeks Unpaid bills, in Afhganistan hills"-Bombs Away-Sting/Policehttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175350Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:30:50 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175350Ryan, MichiganJames - Thanks. I am of the opinion that a lot more gets accomplished when you respect the people that you are discussing with. I, for the most part, agree with your "scenario". As I stated in my earlier post, I'm not sure what to do. It seems as though the risks are high on both sides of the argument. We can argue till we are blue in the face why we are in this situation, and that is a valid discussion, but the question of the hour is "what do we do now?" and if your answer is something close to "leave" or "redeploy", does that mean you are ok with the consequences of leaving? And if your answer is something close to "stay" or "do more", does that mean that you are ok with those consequences? For me, as of now, and what I know, I would have to say that I am in the "stay" or "do more" camp and I believe the consequences of staying, at this time, are less then the consequencs of leaving. Now, I say this having little to no skin in the game. I can't imagine how difficult it is for lives of family memebers and friends of those serving our great country in the military.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175354Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:33:22 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175354Still Crazy After All These Years"The President looks in the mirror and speaks His shirts are clean but his country reeks Unpaid bills, in Afhganistan hills"-Bombs Away-Sting/Policehttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175365Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:38:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175365John Doe, The Peanut GalleryRyan, I have to take exception to the very idea that the opinion of Americans at large can affect whether or not we win in Iraq. Wars are not faught based on what people think at home. They are faught based on the stategies of the commanders and with the blood, sweat and tears of the troops. Believe me, it was not a majority of Americans that sent the troops to Iraq without body armor and uparmored Hummvees. It was not the American people who decided to disband the Iraqi millitary and to purge the Baathists from public office. We are losing this war because the President and the rest of this administration has consistently ignored the advice of the professional leadership of the armed forces. Shinseki is a name that should come up often when discussing why we are not winning this conflict. You are a reasonable voice from the right and I very much enjoy your participation in this blog. But I think that making statements that imply that the civilian populace can have any real impact on this conflict is simply untrue. Especially considering as most Americans would have sent the right amount of troops with the right equipment to do the job in the first place. Well... a fair amount of us wouldn't have sent them in the first place, but that is kind of a moot point these days.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175378Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:47:03 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175378Lee in MVRyan - by that definition, we'd won before we invaded. It's like chasing all the cows out of the barn yard then declaring 4 years later that we will achieve "victory" when all the cows are back. We made Iraq a safe haven for terrorists.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175413Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:13:42 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175413Gary Schear, Bozeman MontanaJerry/corpus christi--Maybe we should bring LT Calley out of retirement. He did wonders at My Lai with a single Company and some ditches. At least until that pesky Hugh Thompson set his Huey down between Charlie company and and what was left of the villagers. The bastard must have beenn a liberal. Your a man with a plan Jerry. History is full of folks just like you. Keep the faith man. One People, One Nation, One Leader.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175443Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:33:26 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175443Robert Catalano, Salem, ORPeeps, I am just a crappy two-fingered typist but thanks for the correction. Jerry, you've been reading too many "Destroyer" novelshttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175444Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:33:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175444James, downstate IllinoisRyan - If we 'stay', we just waste more young American lives. I truly don't believe we have the military capability at this point to 'do more', at least to do enough to win. The military is too tired and over-extended to do what it would take to win under your definition. Redeploying the troops is the only option that makes any sense to me. I don't believe the 'fight them there or they'll follow us home' line. If we utilize the resources being wasted in Iraq now to better secure this nation, that gives us a much better chance of avoiding another 9/11 than staying on the battlefields in Iraq.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175457Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:40:10 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175457Ryan, MichiganJohn - I think what the editorial was trying to get across was that public opinion means a lot during a war. Just think how "well thought of", not sure if that's the right term, the Persian Gulf War was in comparisson to Vietnam. Probably a bad comparison now that I think about it but its a comparison none the less. Public opinion can determine whether the President has the military stick it out in a tough situation or retreat/pull out. As I have stated in a previous post in this thread, obviously there are many other things that affect the outcome of a war, but I think what the editorial was getting at was don't count out public opinion in affecting whether a war is won or lost. Lee - I think there are a few million people in Iraq that might say that the Iraqi government was not "a representative government that respects the human rights of all Iraqis". Also, even though our presence there has brought in terrorists from other countries I would find it hard to say that Iraq is a "safe haven" for terrorists.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175495Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:02:12 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175495Lee in MVRyan - agree with first part - not second, but I will concede you are the rare right winger posting here that isn't a foaming, hate-filled moron.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175509Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:11:47 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175509Still Crazy After All These Years"Your lips move but you can't talk"-Tryin'To Throw Your Arms Around The World-U2http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175516Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:19:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175516Ed, North Wales PABush only sees one thing now, How history will view him and his administration. Its not about how many soldiers get killed each month, or how much money we waste on reconstruction, or how many terrorist attachs there are each year. If that were the case he couldnt possibly get up there and say progress is being made. Most soldiers killed this month than past three since the surge started. The govt just came out with a report stating most of the money we've spent in Iraq for reconstruction is being wasted on shotty workmanship or being destroyed by terrorists or being stolen by corrupt Iraqis. Another report just came out stating in 2006, terrorist attacks are up 25%. Does this sound like progress on any level? Get out of there and find a political solution, whether its splitting up Iraq in 3, or something else, Do something, only crazy people think you can keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result . ps Jerry/cc gets to do a lot a thinkin down there in Tx. Maybe its time to start a think tank of your own http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175520Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:21:57 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175520Susan, NebraskaI have to agree Lee, I have said it once, I will say it again, you can't put the genie back into the bottle. It is utterly heartbreaking that we have stirred up this conflict and for what?? My problem Ryan is that I see no end in site here and there are innocent lives being lost because of this administrations blunder. It is inexcusible. We had no reason to go in and now we have made it impossible to leave. Is that enough to ask these young men and women to give their lives for????? I don't know.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175525Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:26:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175525MK,MOwe have no business being in the middle of iraq's civil war,our president is by definition a facist,who are we to decide what type of goverment iraq has,the republican party has evolved into some kind of a self proclaimed god,I will let all you good republicans in on a little secret,you don't know whats best for this or anyother country and your rein of terror is shortly coming to it's endhttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175532Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:33:03 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175532Brian, SeattleRyan- "but the question of the hour is "what do we do now?" and if your answer is something close to "leave" or "redeploy", does that mean you are ok with the consequences of leaving?" Great question. Most of us have no personal stake in this war, and it is a tremendous sacrifice for our military. No doubt. I wish they were all home now. In fact, I wish they had never been sent in the first place (the American people broke its promise to the military by sending them to fight this unnecessary war). I can understand the desire to pull them out and end the "war." In my humble opinion, the only thing right now that can save Iraq and the Iraqi people from devestation is the American military. I have not heard anybody factually support an argument that this will not get far worse if we pull our troops out of Iraq. I am suspicious of rhetoric, but the consensus of the consequences of pulling out now are usually phrased in terms of "humanitarian catastrophe" and "region wide conflict." I personally do not see anything we can do right now militarily apart from stay the course or surge even further. I am personally troubled by those who blame the Iraqi people for the current chaos (e.g., they have hated each other forever, they need to step up, and so on). I do not see how the American people can honestly blame the Iraqi people for the current chaos. Didn't the American people decide to invade and destroy Iraq and directly cause the current situation? My disdain for the basis for this war, the actions of those that led us into this war, and the current administration's conduct throughout this war, is as great as anbody else. But, shouldn't we hold those persons accountable, rather than allow our anger to destroy potentially hundreds of thousands more innocent lives in Iraq as a result of a mess that is of our country's own making. There is no "do-over" here. For those advocating a pull out of our military, I have asked it before and I will ask it again. If the world put you and only you in charge of deciding what to do in Iraq today, and begged you to get it right, would you pull the American military out knowing the likely consequences your actions would bring? We ask that our leaders do everything to prevent the horrible killing of 33 college students here, but cavalierly suggest that it do nothing to stop the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents elsewhere. Even more perplexing, is that those hundreds of thousands would die as a direct result of our nation's own actions. One lesson from all of this is to beware of the tough-talkers. This includes those who blithely support blowing up other countries, as well as those who blithely support leaving millions to die in our wake. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175535Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:34:06 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175535Still Crazy After All These Years"Your lips move but you can't talk Tryin' to throw your arms around the world"-Tryin' To Throw Your Arms Around The World-U2http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175631Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:46:12 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175631ex-marine,vietvetBrian you and some others have a preordained decision as to what will happen(something bad,very bad)if we leave soon(rather than stay for how long?) on what basis is your opinion and what facts do you use(you say no one has good reason to leave soon). I dont believe there is certain regional conflict and certain devestation to happen. I remember when we left nam no one followed us here. The viets settled their scores, they would have settled them sooner but we were in the middle just like now. Sooner or later iraqs will settle things once we leave and I do not call that quitting or running only using good common sense. If we had never invaded iraq they would still be killing each other and would settle things sooner. Just the opinion of someone who served and saw with my own eyes how these things work.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175650Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:00:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175650Brian, Seattle"Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return." Iraq Study Group Report, p.30. I agree with all that this cannot be won merely militarily (and that the current administration has not shown any competence in dealing with this mess), but can anybody give me any evidence that Study Group was wrong and that declaring the war lost and pulling our troops out is the right idea? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175664Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:08:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175664Herschel, Melbourne, ARFor Brian in Seattle, I don't think you give Ryan enough rein. Ryan's original comment posted at 11:07 a.m. would seem to nullify your objections. Aside from a few opinions expressed by a few (maybe needing Thorazine) this seems to have been a, for the most part, reasoned, well thought out discussion. It takes some time but it is helpful to start at the beginning. It seems that the majority of opinion leans toward a "just what do we do now?" third. A get the heck out now third, try to leave with some sort of livable resolution third. I do realize of course that splitting the discussion into thirds renders my opinion as to any consensus, null. Of course if you ask me what might be done. I posted it at 12:24 p.m..http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175685Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:23:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175685Gary Schear, Bozeman MontanaBrian, Seattle-- I understand your conflicted feelings about leaving a country that we chose to invade in a mess. I too am angered by people who blame the Iraqis for a mess that we hastened by our invasion. Our options are few and all bad. We can either commit, at great bloody cost, to an open ended occupation of a country in which we are even now building walls to separate the citizens or we can resolve to disentangle ourselves now hopefully by replacing our presence with the presence of combined force of interested Iraqi neighbors. The first option merely delays the inevitable and prolongs the pain. The second option is hard to accomplish when our leaders refuse to engage in the diplomacy of realism. I support disentanglement now because it will result in fewer American deaths and allow our damaged army to rebuild itself. I support disentanglement now because although it will undoubtedly result in continued Iraqi civil war, it will hasten it's end. I support disentanglement now so that the blame for this "messOpotamia" may be place squarely on the single person ultimately responsible for the conduct of war and foreign policy. The greatest service of this presidency will be as an example of how not to do it. He really Bushed it this time. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175698Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:34:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175698John Doe, The Peanut GalleryRyan, You make a good point regarding how civilian oppinion can affect decisions made by politicians regarding the war effort. However, I would submit to you that the polls will never actually cause the defeat on the battlefield. The very fact that the majority of people don't support the Iraq war should give some indication that it is a lost cause. Take for example, Market Garden in World War 2. That operation (and I view Iraq as a singular operation in the larger War on Terror) completely fell on its a** and delayed the end of the war by months if not years. So what did the leadership do? They pulled out of Belgum (Holland? Sorry, my WW2 history is not what it should be) and focused on a new tactic. But retreating on that one front did not equate to surrendering to the Nazis. Nor does pulling out of Iraq equate to surrendering to Al Quieda. Iraq is a failed operation in a larger war. The longer we pursue this misadventure in Iraq the harder it will be to prevail in theaters like Afghanistan and the several covert fronts that I have no proof of but am quite certain are being fought. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175716Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:55:35 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175716Desmond John Doe,Somalia?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175720Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:58:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175720Brian, SeattleEx-marine. I agree, but my decision is not preordained. I am looking for a reason to believe that it will be okay if we remove our troops now so I can understand the position that we should. I am not advocating that it is preordained that it will be a catastrophe. I am uncomforatble with the rhetoric. I just have seen nothing to suggest it won't be a catastrophe. We got into this mess by relying on statements (e.g., invade and we will be greated as liberators, set up democracy and it will flourish) without evidentiary support. So, before I back the pull-out plan, I want to ensure that the "leave and they will take care of themselves" statement is not the same type of wishful but unfortunately factually unsupportable type of thinking. The Iraq Study Group is about the best (not perfect, mind you) and neutral analysis that I know of on the situation. The Study Group, and every other opinion I have seen, suggests it will be disasterous to leave Iraq and to allow it to disintegrate. My invitation for evidence that this is wrong and things will not become disasterous if we pull out was just that--an invitation. And, thank you for your service, we are all grateful. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175732Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:06:36 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175732Lee in MVIf only there hadn't been such wide-spread election fraud in Ohio, in '04. Then I'd say: "OK, the citizens of the US, no matter how stupidly, have re-elected a towering puppet of a man to bungle further the most expensive $$$$up in history. Give the malfeasant corporate lesser ape what he wants, even if it means pointless quagmire with no real leadership efforts until we can legally hustle him off the scene in '08." But there was. And he doesn't deserve our trust, faith or power. Google: GAO report Ohio vote fraud - The Iraqi's are NEVER going to "stand -up" without a good, SOLID push! Deadlines. Benchmarks and "artificial" (whatever that 18th century French prince means by that) time tables. Like another poster stated - he can't afford to give up those "Patriot" {spit} act dictatorial powers until he's ready to haul his yankee cowboy saddle out of town. God knows what those crept criminals plan if there's no in-coming repu to automatically start handing out pardons. Good-bye, Akron (or Witchita - I haven't decided, but it 'll be a red state. Can't be Omaha. Can't be a Mississippi river town. Can't be up wind of D.C. or Aspen, or Tetons, or Great Lakes... )http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175736Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:11:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175736Brian, SeattleHerschel, I had read the posts and was agreeing with Ryan and the question he was asking. I think it is the most important question to be asking right now. If there was any misunderstanding, I apologise.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175747Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:21:06 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175747Brian, SeattleGary agreed. I have no party affiliation, and would like nothing more than to see the current administration held responsible. Our current political leaders are incapable of addressing the diplomatic and economic tact necessary in Iraq. The only near-term solution I can see (apart from pulling out and letting chaos ensue) is to try to hold on miliatarily until we have somebody who can actually work to stablize the situation. But, if Congress and American citizens are advocating pull out now, then as an American citizen I want a debate on those consequences--just like I wanted a debate on the consequences of starting this war. I want us all to know what we are agreeing to. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175824Tue, 01 May 2007 00:35:15 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175824Independent, Texasre note in First Read's paragraph: " the key reason why most Republicans aren’t going along with any withdrawal deadlines, even though a majority supports the: The GOP base isn’t letting them. “That cohesion reflects the views of the GOP's core voters, who see the war in Iraq in fundamentally different terms than Democrats and political independents do, said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Voters from those groups tend to see unremitting gloom, but Republican base voters continue to see a conflict that is going reasonably well, with a decent chance of military success." This may sound naive but isn't it the job of the candidates to tell the "base" what the truth is? I don't just mean what I believe to be the truth. If a candidate does believe the war is going badly, isn't it his responsibility to let his "base" know that? I am being naive, huh? I truly don't understand this. If an electorate has an opinion on something such as abortion, I can understand an elected official "representing" that opinion. But about this war? It either is going well or it isn't. That isn't something that is decided by the "base" but by facts. I, of course, don't believe the facts support that the conflict is "going well" but ..........http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175825Tue, 01 May 2007 00:35:16 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175825Independent, Texasre note in First Read's paragraph: " the key reason why most Republicans aren’t going along with any withdrawal deadlines, even though a majority supports the: The GOP base isn’t letting them. “That cohesion reflects the views of the GOP's core voters, who see the war in Iraq in fundamentally different terms than Democrats and political independents do, said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Voters from those groups tend to see unremitting gloom, but Republican base voters continue to see a conflict that is going reasonably well, with a decent chance of military success." This may sound naive but isn't it the job of the candidates to tell the "base" what the truth is? I don't just mean what I believe to be the truth. If a candidate does believe the war is going badly, isn't it his responsibility to let his "base" know that? I am being naive, huh? I truly don't understand this. If an electorate has an opinion on something such as abortion, I can understand an elected official "representing" that opinion. But about this war? It either is going well or it isn't. That isn't something that is decided by the "base" but by facts. I, of course, don't believe the facts support that the conflict is "going well" but ..........http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175841Tue, 01 May 2007 00:48:17 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175841Mel, IllRyan, thirty odd years ago I was injured in a terrible head-on car accident. I had a severe concussion, broken bones, ripped apart joints, ruptured discs and damaged retinas. I've had several major surgeries and I live with chronic (quite often excrutiating) pain. All that pales in comparison to the agony of sending my son to fight in Iraq.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175859Tue, 01 May 2007 01:07:14 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175859jerry/corpus christi texaswell let's see here. A Bigot? I'm sure there are 3000 souls floating around from the world trade center and flight 93 and the pentagon that would agree with my assessment of what to do with the ragheads. The only true heroes on that day was the team from flight 93. They did the same thing I would have done, fought to the death. When are you liberals going to wake up and smell the coffee burning at the bottom of your pot? I still see Nick berg, sitting there while some dumb raghead chops off his head while he is just sitting there. When these guys take you hostage, you have only one way out, you fight and kill everyone in the room, if you die, atleast you fought, you didn't sit there and LET them cut off your head. As far as the rest of the world, to this day, I don't give a dog about the rest of the world. The rest of the world bows to us, that is the facts. I agree with several well known people that there should be no foreign aid to any of those countries who bad mouth us. I think the United nations is crooked and we should be charging them rent instead of paying dues to this mafia style syndicate. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175864Tue, 01 May 2007 01:09:04 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175864Jim Frego, Grants Pass, OR All of the reports I have seen estimate the number of Al Qaida Forces in IRAQ to be about 2000 and not more than 3000. We have 150,000 U.S. troops, 13,000 Allied Troops and the U.S. Trained (By General Petraeus) Iraqi Security Force is now 325,000. That's 488,000 good guys vs. 3000 Bad Guys. This disaster has lasted for 4 years and the violence is just getting worse. There are over 6.5 Billion folks on this earth and about 25% are Muslims that amounts to 1,600,000,000 Muslins. What percentage are Terrorists? How about only 1 Terrorist per 10,000 Muslims. How many terrorists would that be? How about 160,000? Are we the greatest Super Power in the world going to DEFEAT THEM Militarily? If your answer is yes, please explain why 488,000 troops have not been able to "DEFEAT" 3000 Al Quaida ( TERRORISTS ) in Iraq. 47% of all Iraqi's (over 10 Million) say that it is OK to KILL Americans in Iraq.Are we fight 3000 Al Quaida or 10 Million Iraqi's? If you extrapolate that to the total Muslim Population that's over 1 BILLION that would answer that it is OK to Kill Americans. The "FREE" Nations of the World need to find ways to combat the "TERRORISTS" Ideology with means other than Bombs,Bullets and B.S. That approach is simply creating more enemies every day. Maybe we should have the Republican and Democratic Propaganda Machines "SELL" America and Democracy to the Muslim World instead of using Smear Campaigns against each other. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#175877Tue, 01 May 2007 01:17:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:175877Jim Frego, Grants Pass, ORDid you all miss the latest Poll regarding where the American People stand on IRAQ? WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two out of three Americans think the country is on the wrong track, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday April 24, 2007. Only 22 percent of Americans think the country is moving in the right direction, while 66 percent think it's on the wrong track, the poll of 1004 adults taken April 20-23 showed. That compared with 58 percent who saw the country heading down the wrong track and 25 percent who saw it moving in the right direction in a NBC/WSJ poll taken in March. NBC News said the poll numbers point to one compelling reason why that should be the case: the war in Iraq. Asked if the situation in Iraq has improved, deteriorated or stayed the same over the last three months, just 12 percent said it had improved while 49 percent said things were getting worse. Some 37 percent saw no change in the situation. Asked if the war could still be won, 55 percent said it could not while 36 percent said it could. And some 56 percent of those polled backed Democratic efforts to impose a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops, while 37 percent shared President George W. Bush's view that no deadline should be set by politicians in Washington. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#176006Tue, 01 May 2007 02:24:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:176006Brian, SeattleJerry, everybody--yes including liberals--believe in defending ourselves against terrorists. This is not a liberal/conservative issue. If you are advocating indiscriminately killing middle eastern people so you feel safer that is cowardice, not courage, no matter how tough the language you use to describe it.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#176032Tue, 01 May 2007 02:48:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:176032Russell in MarylandSo why does the Republican base like the way things are going in Iraq? I believe it is because they think it is bringing us closer to armegedon and the "end times" when Jesus returns and they will be raptured into heaven. They want it to be an even bigger disaster; that is why you cannot convince them to pull out. I have talked to these people and they are some really sick puppies. Unfortunately they are also about 20% of the voters.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#176056Tue, 01 May 2007 03:17:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:176056ex-marine,vietvetBrian, seattle yes I appreciate your response to quote your post of 6:58 "I have just seen nothing to suggest it wont be a catastrophy" this statement I interpret as you believe it will be a catastrphy please correct me if I am wrong. I see it as the iraqs were already killing each other before we ever got there so whatever they do when we leave no matter when we leave is up to iraqs not me or you. I also believe it is wrong to send someone else to do the dirty work, therefore I would never condone sending anyone to do something I would not do myself. The reasons bush gives for staying keep changing, it is like there is no end zone to use a football term, just how many yards do we expect our troops to run?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#176139Tue, 01 May 2007 04:48:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:176139Jane, Southern Mississippijerry and jtb, you have converted me. I am now a republican, as a result of your posts no sane person could argue with. I think we should make all the countries of the world do as we say and be what we say they should be. We know best how to use their countries for our own ends. They need us to keep them in line and we need their natural resources and strategic locations. How else will be able to conquer other countries and enjoy the spoils of war, if we fail in Iraq? Wars are money-making bonanzas, with our profits coming from investing in all sides. This is Economics 101! And if it takes all our young, so be it. Our cause is noble! http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#176255Tue, 01 May 2007 11:57:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:176255Still Crazy After All These Years"I went out drinking with Thomas Paine He said that all revolutions are not the same They are as different as their cultures That gave them birth For no one idea Can solve every problem on Earth"-North Sea Bubble-Billy Bragghttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#176290Tue, 01 May 2007 12:48:53 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:176290Dave M., Miamisburg, OHBrian in Seattle states, "The Study Group, and every other opinion I have seen, suggests it will be disasterous to leave Iraq and to allow it to disintegrate." You seem to be struggling with what you know is the right thing to do because you believe the notion that if the troops are removed that all hell will break loose. As long as you believe that, then the troops will never (I mean that literally) never leave. George Bush would like you to believe that. There are lots of options in play that open up once the U.S. makes the decision that it's time to begin withdrawing troops. However, exploring those options, won't take place until we make the decision. Furthermore, the possibility that our troops might have to "come back later" is not a good reason to leave them there now. At least, in the come back later scenario, there will be a military objective. Right now there is not. Playing babysitter and referee is not a military objective. My advice to you Brian is to stop the hand wringing over what to do. Let go of the oh my gosh What then? deliberation. The U.S. needs to make the decision to get the troops out (you can't remove them all in one day anyway) - It has to be a phased withdrawel - just for logistical reasons. As the withdrawel happens, we will be forced then to find other ways of helping Iraq maintain order, preserve peace, and prevent the country from disintegrating. Your struggle with allowing yourself to accept that it's time for the troops to leave gives the impression that you still believe the troops are actually doing some good and being effective. They are not. Believe there are other options. It's hard to believe because our reliance on military presence has eclipsed discussion and implementation of other viable options.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#176296Tue, 01 May 2007 12:53:57 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:176296Scott in South TexasIf you read jerry's last post (4/30 9:07 pm), you'll see the republican base they're talking about. Are republicans actually looking to jerry, et al for guidance and direction?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#176300Tue, 01 May 2007 12:59:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:176300Dave M., Miamisburg, OHJerry, Corpus Christi: You seem a bit troubled about your place in the world and the capacity of humans to do evil. The terrorist groups don't have a monopoly on heinous acts or the ability to do awful things. In times of war, throughout the history of mankind, humans have done very awful things to each other. Furthermore, you seem to have a superiority complex with regard to the United States. Hollywood produced war movies and military history films may make you feel this way. They are not based on reality. In times of war the U.S. isn't always as "pure" as we would like to think. Like it or not, we are merely one nation in a whole world of many nations. We all have more in common than we do different. Condemming a whole nation or whole race of people because of the "bad acts" of a few only makes you a lesser person.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#176435Tue, 01 May 2007 13:59:43 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:176435MK,MOthe united states will never solve iraqs problems,iraq needs to fight it's civil war on it's own they are going to fight one another no matter what we do. All we are doing now is letting bush try to save face,that's not worth the cost.There will never be what most people would consider an acceptable outcome to this mess,we are sending young americans to their death for no good reason,bring them home and move on.This police action was born of lies and has never had a reasonable objective, quit getting our troops killed for purely political reasons,nobody can justify the loss of life for this farce. Limited military action never works if you intend on using the military it better be worth completly destroying your enemy,I don't think there is an enemy in this case. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/30/174840.aspx#176523Tue, 01 May 2007 14:42:47 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:176523Dave M., Miamisburg, OHMK, in Mo: I agree. The reason the U.S. Military is not being effective right now in Iraq is because of what you said. There is no enemy (at least not one that we can readily identify). And, as a result, there is no military objective.