GOP senators call for Iraq change now

[Janett_Reno]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

The meeting that lawmakers had with national security adviser Stephen Hadley came as GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel announced they would back Democratic legislation ordering combat to end next spring.


I'm hopeful they (the White House) change their minds," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M

Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota said he was seriously considering Salazar's legislation and remained gravely concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who also attended the meeting, is expected to call for a change in Iraq policy after Bush releases on Thursday that interim report on Baghdad's political progress.

Several Republican senators told President Bush's top national security aide privately Wednesday that they did not want Bush to wait until September to change course in Iraq.

[George Gervin]

"And the walls come tumbling down..tumbling, tumbling,tumbling down.."

[dude1394]

Only a democrat would be happy about the potential genocide of an american ally and a military defeat of america.

Or al queada.

Pretty disgusting.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Only a democrat would be happy about the potential genocide of an american ally and a military defeat of america.

Or al queada.

Pretty disgusting.

Only a dead ender (republican) would promote the use of our miliary as targets in the middle of a civil war we created. Meanwhile genocide goes on daily and the war whores are silent on them.. by the way dude we already won the war (mission accomplished)On another note it was the lack of a post war plan that has caused us the most trouble.. but again I guess it's the dems who caused that also.. wow in dude's world all of the ills of the world are caused by democrats.. shocking..

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Only a democrat would be happy about the potential genocide of an american ally and a military defeat of america.

Or al queada.

Pretty disgusting.

you don't have to be "happy" about something to point it out.
I would have been much happier to have been proven wrong in Iraq...

[Janett_Reno]

Al Queada was not in Iraq before we went in. They was scarred to death of Sadam. Now Iraq is a breading ground since "mission accomplished".

When we was in Vietnam, we was not only fighting the north Vietnemese and now in Iraq we are not only fighting Al Queada and some Iraqis. As long as we stay there many countries will send wave after wave of terror onto that country and us. They want us off of what they say is holy land and only land for Muslims. They do not care for jews ,christians, or foreniers. You are not going to convert them. They will never let us take their oil fields and they as a people and many, many countries in that region and even some of afar, will never let us just stay and occupy the country.

The right thing to do was to never invade a country that was "no threat" to us. Sadam was not the master mind of 9/11 nor did he have anything to do with it. It was Bin Laden and he has said his goal was to to have a holy war, muslims against christians and jews. He want's to turn muslims to hate countries like us and for us to hate them. He lives like an animal in the dirt and he chose to do this many years before he did what he did in 9/11. People and muslim coutries was behind us after 9/11 and wanted Bin Laden to pay. Most anyway.

So we go invade a muslim country that has nothing to do with Bin Laden and 9/11? Bin Laden and Sadam hated each other. Now the muslim people sit back and think, does the Americans want to really do what Bin Laden says? Take over and occupy muslim land? The jewish people and muslim people will fight forever as both are very religious and it goes back to the bible where some felt they was getting short handed back then.

We need to defend and love our country. The United States Of America and kick any body's butt that ever tries to invade or do bad things to us here, like 9/11. Bin Laden. Not go out and police other countries how we feel they should live because we get in trouble that way. In Iraq, it is a war that can't be won in a convential way. He got rid of Sadam and that is what he wanted but i promise you Bush and Cheny will not get there oil fields. I can name you many countires in the region that won't let them. So what are we staying for? Trying to make 2 or 3 wrongs a right?

Daddy Bush did the right thing, by sending Sadam back home after Sadam invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden was mad at Kuwait because he wanted him and his army to send Sadam back home and he did not want christians doing the job in the holy land. Now should have daddy Bush went on in and found Sadam that first time? I can't answer that. One thing daddy Bush did do, was "mission accomplished". He got Iraq out of Kuwait and without us occupying Iraq. If you base a war on terror and say you are going around all the world having wars on terror. That is a war you will never win and you will have to invade most countries in the world.

If we leave today mission accomplished will not be mission accomplished and if we leave there 20 years from now it still won't be mission accomplished. Iraq is a dead end for nothing. Bin Laden is somewhere else, not Iraq.

Iraq now is going to be one bloody civil war for many years to come. It is going to be other muslim coutires in the region trying to take over and run Iraq. When Sadam was there, they couldn't. Now just watch what happens, with us there or us gone. We really helped Iran by doing what we did. They hated Sadam and was scarred of him. Now they can run rough shot. Sadam was evil and mean but before you invade you must weigh out who or what is best or if they are a threat. It's a mess now and will be. The people need to be getting out of Iraq as it is bad now and will be bad when we leave. It is no fixing it anytime soon.

[wmbwinn]

Janet, there were and are many things that were and are done wrong. It is easy to look back and say what went wrong.

Obama Barack has admitted that if he were elected, that he would also not retreat until certain goals were met and certain outcomes were obtained. None of the potential next presidents have an actual plan to pull out and leave a vacuum/civil war. Hillary has taken a lot of heat for admitting that she would change the plans in strategy but stay and fight until certain outcomes were met.

They might pull a high percentage of troops out and limit the troops to protection of the government capital buildings and leave just enough troops to be "embeds" in the Iraqi army and enough troops to continue police and military training and enough troops to prevent/concern surrounding countries from feeling a free reign to enter Iraq. The strategy and goals will change, but the next president is not going to sign the oath of office and then bring all the troops out of Iraq. Even Obama has admitted that if you read enough news carefully enough. Forget the slogans and sound bites and "one liners".

As far as the past is concerned, remember that Hillary voted for the war and she has said that if she knew then what she knows now that she would have voted against it. That is convenient.
Everyone could have voted differently if they could read the future.

The only important thing right now is the future. We need a future plan. Do you think Giuliani or Hillary or Obama are going to create the next military plan? I sure hope everyone realizes that presidents don't really do anything. The plans and decisions and strategies come from military generals and advisors and other "high brass". Presidents just take credit and blame. The next president is going to have a cabinet of advisors including military advisors. There may be a change in who is the general in Iraq. There will be a change in who is in the cabinet. But, what I am trying to say is that we will still be in Iraq. We will just have a different plan about how to try and succeed. Or we will have a plan about how to obtain the best outcome possible even if the outcome is bad.

My personal opinion doesn't matter but here it is anyway:
1)divide Iraq into a Federalist system, giving the 3 groups their own lands: Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis.
2)Have a Conderation style central weak government that only exists to create an Iraqi currency and have a set of laws for dividing Iraqi wealth/oil.
3)Maintain only the military capability to:
a)deter Iran and Turkey from entering Iraq
b)train police and military
c)military and police "embeds"
d)intelligence
e)special forces
f)contribute to security of the government/politician security in the "capital" lands

4)back off and let them have their civil war if necessary. the only way there will be success in preventing the civil war is if the federalism is created successfully.

There are other military goals to attend to that are not being adequately attended to.
1)Pakistan/Afghanistan border area in Pakistan where Al Qaeda has re-established near full strength
2)Iranian nuclear capacity (we can't eliminate it with airstrikes but we can sure prevent them from reaching bomb capability for 30 years or more if we occasionally hit selected targets from the air). We can move Iran back 30 years in civil infrastructure and economy capacity with air strikes and then maintain punishing economic restrictions on their interaction with the rest of the world. We can make it nearly impossible for them to reach nuclear technology to the degree necessary to produce a significant weapon. N. Korea has demonstrated to their embarassment that their nuclear bomb is very weak and can't be delivered by missile. It takes a substantial economy and infrastructure to produce Western grade nuclear capacity.
3)follow up with N. Korea to determine real nuclear abandonment. Their failure creates a loss of confidence that we can use to bargain to our advantage. It was no accident that Russia dropped the cold war with us right after Iraq I when we demonstrated that our tanks were so far superior to any tank in Russia that the Russian tanks would not even be able to target and fire before they blew up. We demonstrated the Patriot missile defense. We demonstrated precision air attacks. In short, Russia saw our capability on display and knew they were absolutely outmatched. It is no accident that Russia is saber rattling and re-building alliances and making noise about hating America again now that Russia has had the chance and time to accomplish a few tasks to feel more capable.

I can ramble forever. I respect the opinion of Janet. Janet has been my friend on boards in the past before this board. I just hope that people have a better idea about how this all really is currently and how it won't change with a new president (at least not quickly beyond new strategies).

I suspect that our military will be involved in Pakistan. I suspect we will be involved in Serbia/Yugoslavia again. I suspect that we will be involved in Iran. I suspect that additional problems will emerge and that we will be involved there also.

[Janett_Reno]

I agree alot wmbwinn with what you said. I am not saying McCain, Hillary, Obama or Rudy or any of the rest of them will have answers. It is a big mess now. They all need to work together. I just do not like the course we are on. Even if Dems or Repubs agree with it, i don't.

The bad thing is it has already happened and we have to find a way out and save face. One thing you mentioned that several has talked about but Bush does not agree and i agree with you and i feel it needs to be looked at.

1)divide Iraq into a Federalist system, giving the 3 groups their own lands: Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis.

These people seem to fight over a drop of a hat. Turkey hates the Kurds and i guess the Kurds hate them and Turkey doesn't like them on their border. I feel if you divide it up with three parts all can be strong and can be happy maybe. Unless they try to over run each other. In some of the last Senate and House elections this was brought up alot and some mentioned it would be hard to divide the oil equally because of the oil being i think in the central and south. Then they said well it would have to be sharred equally. I agree with you, i think we all need to look at this and give them all some say so and it looks like what you have said, is one of the only way's doing it.

I like your number 2 if they can share and get along without killing one another. I totally agree with 3. I think we will have to do number 4. I am afraid as long as we just stay there we will be hated wore and get our guys killed. In Vietnam they was not allowed to go over certain lines or areas to engage the enemy. So the enemy could hit and run back. We are the strongest and best in the world and when we make a sweep, we can clear alot of the bad out but in the next few days here comes the bad back across borders, where we can't go into and now they blend in with the people untill they do the next bad thing. Like a suicide bomb. They are told they are going to their heaven when they do that. Totally differ in what we believe.

We completed our mission in getting Sadam out and freeing the people. Now they must do something. I do not agree that we went there but most everyone agreed going in on bad or wrong charges of Wmd's. I am not saying the Dems, Independent's or other Repubs can make big and better changes as they do need a plan. I just feel this one and his vice do not listen to the Repubs, the people, Dems or Independents. It is his way or the hwy but i feel Dick is making the calls.

I hope for the best and the country can get where they police it themself and let us come home and get out of the civil war. I agree with alot of your post wm.

I am not like some that says what a Repub does is gospel and he or she does no wrong or that a dem does no wrong or an independent. I listen and then i vote with my mind and heart for the person, regardless of party on who i feels is best. I just know we are bogged down in a quagmire now and we need a sense of direction and let those people know, we can't say 25 years from now or 10 years or etc. They must learn and defend and fight for themself as we freed them and now they are on their own.

On those other countries, yes it will probably be probs with some of those down the line but we must weigh things out and i feel it is good to have allies to go in and help us where one type people doesn't put all blame on us. In this case, the muslim peoople. I hope for the best in Iraq and we can start pulling out, sooner than later.

It would be good if the borders was closed down for awhile and no cars, car bombs and the suicide bombers crossing into the country and then comming to where they are doing bad. I know again that would be very hard to watch ever border and keep it closed untill things got better because it is just to big.

I like listening to all that have a plan, no matter what party and if they do have a plan. I like your points and think you have very valid points in your post. Great seeing you on also and let's win the title next year.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Only a dead ender (republican) would promote the use of our miliary as targets in the middle of a civil war we created. Meanwhile genocide goes on daily and the war whores are silent on them.. by the way dude we already won the war (mission accomplished)On another note it was the lack of a post war plan that has caused us the most trouble.. but again I guess it's the dems who caused that also.. wow in dude's world all of the ills of the world are caused by democrats.. shocking..

Of course it was not the democrats that have caused a lack of post war planning. And there was planning, but obviously it didn't work out so well.

However it is the democrats that although they know we are fighting Al Queda now, don't care if we lose to them or what happens to our ally after we leave them to Al Queda's tender mercies. That IS typical of the democrat party however.

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about "genocide going on daily but war whores" don't care. It seems the US is the only country that actually does give a crude about Darfur for example.

In general I'm not for military force except in cases where our strategic interests are involved. But obviously the US has been at the forefront of protecting the downtrodden. Unless they are our allies and a democrat congress is in power it seems.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

When we was in Vietnam, we was not only fighting the north Vietnemese and now in Iraq we are not only fighting Al Queada and some Iraqis. As long as we stay there many countries will send wave after wave of terror onto that country and us. They want us off of what they say is holy land and only land for Muslims. They do not care for jews ,christians, or foreniers. You are not going to convert them. They will never let us take their oil fields and they as a people and many, many countries in that region and even some of afar, will never let us just stay and occupy the country.

Am I to understand you are advocating completely leaving the Middle East? Quit providing aid to Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Israel, etc. because of a bunch of rag-tag terrorists who want to create an islamic state? Is that really what you are advocating? It's terribly naive to think that the US can get behind a wall and check out of the world.

"Let us take their oil fields" What in the world are you talking about, we've provided them the expertise to develop those oil fields, protected the oil shipping lanes and provided protection from other militaries (Sadaam for one) all the while the Middle Eastern countries have reaped huge profits. Which country is it that we've "occupied" or that we want to "occupy" that hasn't asked us to stay there?

No one is trying to "convert" them, that's nuts. All we are doing in Iraq right now is helping the democratically elected governement of Iraq defend themselves against terrorists (and Iran) and help them get on their feet.

We need to defend and love our country. The United States Of America and kick any body's butt that ever tries to invade or do bad things to us here, like 9/11. Bin Laden. Not go out and police other countries how we feel they should live because we get in trouble that way. In Iraq, it is a war that can't be won in a convential way. He got rid of Sadam and that is what he wanted but i promise you Bush and Cheny will not get there oil fields. I can name you many countires in the region that won't let them. So what are we staying for? Trying to make 2 or 3 wrongs a right?

Boy you've swallowed the hook on this "get their oil fields" fantasy haven't you. I don't recall anywhere in the AUMF that was overwhelmingly voted on by congress and supported by over 70% of the country anything about "getting their oil fields".

Daddy Bush did the right thing, by sending Sadam back home after Sadam invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden was mad at Kuwait because he wanted him and his army to send Sadam back home and he did not want christians doing the job in the holy land. Now should have daddy Bush went on in and found Sadam that first time? I can't answer that. One thing daddy Bush did do, was "mission accomplished". He got Iraq out of Kuwait and without us occupying Iraq. If you base a war on terror and say you are going around all the world having wars on terror. That is a war you will never win and you will have to invade most countries in the world.

Daddy bush condemned millions of Iraqi's to live under a tyrant for a decade, killed by poison gas and millions more to be starved to death by Sadaam because of his quest for WMD and his continued provacations. I wouldn't crow too much about what a great job "daddy bush" did. All he did was kick the can down the road.

No one is talking about "invading most countries in the world", we are however talking about a very long engagement of opposing islamic terrorism where-ever it occurs. Ethiopia is a recent example where we provided military support for them to fight their own islamic terrorists.

For some reason folks think that
a. If we hadn't invaded Iraq Al Queda would have just dried up, it's asinine. This is a movement that isn't going away anytime soon, you either oppose it or acquiese and there is no acquiesing with these guys.
b. That Al Queda is only interested in Iraq. More inane thought, Al Queda is interested in the entire middle-east and most of Europe. IT's also interested in moving into Africa where-ever it can.
c. Think that Bin Laden IS Al-Queda. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bin Laden isn't directing terrorist activities around the world, they are latching onto an islamic dream. Everywhere that Islam is touching another religion or culture, there is terrorism and aggressive islamic expansion. Everywhere.

Hopeing it goes away won't make it so.

If we leave today mission accomplished will not be mission accomplished and if we leave there 20 years from now it still won't be mission accomplished. Iraq is a dead end for nothing. Bin Laden is somewhere else, not Iraq.

Again Bin Laden is a figurehead of this movement. You have to quit thinking inside the box here. It's an organic islamist movement. You can only combat it, politically, militarily and economically. If Bin Laden were dead tommorrow nothing would change in iraq, somalia, pakistan, etc. Nothing, it's wishful thinking to believe it would.

Iraq now is going to be one bloody civil war for many years to come. It is going to be other muslim coutires in the region trying to take over and run Iraq. When Sadam was there, they couldn't. Now just watch what happens, with us there or us gone. We really helped Iran by doing what we did. They hated Sadam and was scarred of him. Now they can run rough shot. Sadam was evil and mean but before you invade you must weigh out who or what is best or if they are a threat. It's a mess now and will be. The people need to be getting out of Iraq as it is bad now and will be bad when we leave. It is no fixing it anytime soon.

It's hard to know what will/will not happen, you certainly don't nor do I.

We DO know what will happen when we leave however, we've seen it before.

[dude1394]

Barack Obama/Harry Reid...what a pair.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...surrender.html

In light of all of this, it is downright surreal that Barack Obama doesn't even think that al Qaeda in Iraq is worth mentioning (because he thinks all the terrorists are in Afghanistan, where they doing next to nothing by comparison with Iraq). Isn't that remarkable? He's like a lot of other Democrats in that regrad, almost all of whom have adopted an eerie code of silence on al Qaeda in Iraq. I found a bit more from Obama's speech here:

That's it? Al Qaeda in Iraq is such an utterly inconsequentual terrorist organization that it does not even warrant so much as a fleeting comment? That seems to be what Barack Obama thinks, and it is incomprehensible to me.

On those rare occasions when Democrats do mention al Qaeda in Iraq, they generally say something like "Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before George Bush decided to invade that country." Whether or not that is true, al Qaeda is there now, and they have an excellent plan to defeat us. The only question is whether or not you want to cooperate with that plan. I don't, but that's just me.

Here is the response to Reid's surrender call

This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”
...

That's al Qaeda, folks, and they are paying close attention to what Harry Reid says (and they are rejoicing when he speaks). It is not an exaggeration at all to say that the Democrats are demanding that we surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq. It is, instead, an accurate summary statement that is based on a veritable mountain of factual evidence (some of which I have considered in this post). The U.S. military generally points to the same evidence when offering their assessment of Iraq. If you suspect that the military is lying, then ignore what they say and think through the evidence yourself. You'll arrive at the same conclusion. If you are not interested in what the U.S. military says or what the factual evidence suggests, then read the New York Times instead (and stop reading my blog because my posts are always full of evidence).

[Ninkobei]

while I believe there should be troops in Iraq to defeat al qaeda, I believe they should not be american troops. our troops have such a bad worldly image already. having them over there just seems to be like adding fuel to the fire. if iraq would elect a local tribunal (who actually know the roots to most of the problems) to deal with the intricate matters, ie the civil war that is brewing and various other conflicts, then a smaller UN force might be able to keep peace and train the iraqi police.

[Janett_Reno]

We will always defend Israel. Like it or not, that will be the way it is. The Muslims know this and they do not like it. They want Israel off that land and will do all they can forever to get them off. Israel will fight back and it will be fighting forever.

Al Queda was not in Iraq untill we invaded. Now that is one of there strong holds. They are not afraid of who is running Iraq now but they was afraid of Sadam. They is Al Queda.

Nink is right, we need help from other countries where they do not look at it, as we are Christians over on their holly land and them wondering why? To invade and settle, for oil, why? If it was Muslim countries, European countries, and many more helping us patrol and trying to get the country back on the right track, it is not the USA that takes all blame. Most all coutries do not think you do good deeds, it is alway's reason for gain behind it, they think. We had a right going after Al Queda and Bin Laden and we should be now but we put Al Queda in Iraq. Al Queda is pouring across the borders in Iraq. Bin Laden said he was going to turn Muslims on Christians and Jews and he was going to turn Christians and Jews on Muslims and make a world holly war. Nick is right on a UN force and the Iraqi police and not just us. The Vietnemese had North Viet Kong in the South Viet army and working with us. One guy would tell us things way before they happened. He worked both places but helped the North alot on what we was doing and going to do. It was many that way. Now the police in Iraq, not all but some are corupt and against us fighting for the other side. It is a touchy situation over there and we need help from other countries as it is hard to fight politics and religion with bullets, completely. It also takes talks and understanding on both sides. The people must see us as good people and trying to help them and not mean and evil or the other side will keep persuading them to take arms up against us. You can make comments on this is not a holly or politcal war but the people that the Muslim people listen to, make it a holly war, make it religion. These people will fight over a drop of a hat over religion. If other Muslim countries was helping us, then it is not as hard for them to make the people think, this is Christians on your land. It is way over your head because all you see is Democrat and Republicans Dude. All you want, is to stir a hornets next.

Bin Laden wanted us out of Saudia Arabia and our army bases. His extreme religion feels we are infidels and he also feels this with Jews or anyone that helps Israel. His family has billions of dollars. He tried to buy off the Saudi officials but the Saudi's are making to much money and a comphy life with their oil and friends with us. No matter how many 9/11 bombers came from Saudi Arabia, we will always be friends with them, always and them with us. Bin Laden thought this would make us turn on them. He was bascially thrown out of that country because he wanted a holly war and he wanted us out. He does not like any Muslim coutry having anything to do with us. He couldn't reach us enough(9/11 he did) to make a holly war inside the usa, so he had to draw us out. His money is going to schools and poor people and lands preaching about how evil Christians and Jews are and what will you do about it? I am showing you by my money and then they teach if you suicide bomb and kill infidels, you go to heaven. Everytime Bin Laden draws us to another Muslim country, where his group can start pouring over the borders and engaging us, he feels good and bringing a spot light on what he calls and wants as a holly war. He doesn't care how many die.

Right now it is all Christian against Muslim(as many see it in the middle east). It is Al Queda against USA. In the end, this is the way alot in the middle east look at it and Al Queda preach to them, can't you see the Christians are comming to take your land. I know, you know it isn't like this as we are trying to help the people and a country, where about 4 or 5 countries are trying to over run it and put their rules on Iraq, where it would bascially be there country when we leave.

The more hornets nest you stir up and go poke around in, the worse it gets. It is two wars you will never win and always remember this, a religious and political. These two wars will be fought untill the end of time. These two wars will also be because of the end of time.

[Janett_Reno]

So now it boils down to this. We invaded Iraq, right or wrong, that is done. Now how can this coutry be stable again and where we can get out or where we can get help from others and it not be just us. As long as we stay and no other helps us, anything that goes wrong, just blame it on the Americans and all we are trying to do, is help them.

Even three differ factions of muslim people are killing each other. In Iraq. I thought Wmbwinn made many good points and someway you must let these three diffent strong holds of people run their country. If not, it seems if they are around each other, they kill each other. What Wm talks of seems legit, to split the coutry in three differ regions and each one responsible for their region. It will still all be Iraq. They share in the wealth of oil, have their leaders and so on.

They must have to want to kick Al Queda out. They must want to kick the people pouring in from Iran and Syria that is comming to do wrong. Only the Iraqi's know who is comming to do good and who is bad. If they knew we wasn't going to stay forever and they must have something to want to fight for and stand up.

If we keep pouring gas on ants and killing them, then after the gas goes away, the ants keep marching over the border and doing what they was. This has to be stopped. Most that are pouring into Iraq, do not have good on their mind but the Iraqi people must help themself.

Can they with a civil war and these three differ factions hating each other? I am not sure and it looks bleek so far. That is why what Wm said, sounds good. I know Bush doesn't want this and he has said the generals say this wouldn't work. I am not sure about the generals as he has relieved some of their duties, that do not see it as he does.

It needs to be more stradegy than what we are doing now and for others helping us, for the Iraqi people helping themself. If not, we can just be bogged down and it stay like it is. When Al Queda and groups pour over the border and kill other Muslims, any of those three factions in Iraq and when we are not there, then other Muslim nations say, wait just a minute. You are killing my brothers. We will put a stop to that and then this is when other Muslim nations get mad at Al Queda and these terror groups trying to create destrution. They don't care when it is Americans.

[Henry_VIII]

If you think that by America leaving, the war will no longer be viewed as Christianity vs Islam, then you have bought into the terrorist propaganda. Most of the killings are Muslim vs. Muslim but it is spun as religious. Just because America is not there will not change the way it is spun. The problem with withdrawal is that it will be a *military* victory for al qaeda without us gaining any long term advantage in the war. There are times where you lose the battle to win the war. This is not that battle. The terrorist have been preaching for years that America is soft; that America cannot stomach a "long" war. By allowing them to have this victory, it only will enable them to grow even stronger. If this were a poker game, Iraq is the high stakes table with both sides with all of their chips in. Flinch and you lose. All of the rhetoric to withdraw is in the interest of bringing the troops home and getting out this mess. I would love to have the troops home. I have family and friends oversees. Instead of focusing on the discomfort the war has imposed on us, we need resolve to address the challenge that has been laid out by the terrorists. Regardless of al qaeda's involvement in Iraq pre-9/11, it is without a doubt the front-line of the battleground today. Militarily, you do not give up position unless you are forced too or you are falling back to a better position. To have the military fall back to the states shifts the front line from Iraq to our shores. How is this a better position? In response to other means of reaching a desired outcome (ie diplomatic/political solutions), these means can only be achieved when dealing with trustworthy counterparties. There is no possible diplomatic solution with al qaeada. period. The diplomatic solutions with other groups (within Iraq) are instable due to the instability of the groups involved in the negotiations. In order for the diplomatic solutions to have legs, they must have tangible support. That support exists solely in the form of military strength. The Iraqis are watching both sides to see which has the bigger stick and is most intent on using it. They want to be on the side of the winner (they want to live). The mere fact that there is so much talk of withdrawing undermines the Iraqi confidence in the American supported government. Couple that with the large influx of outside influences and you have the seeds for big problems. America running away doesn't help the situation in the slightest. Just the opposite--we would be even further hindered in combating the overall agendas lining up against us. It is long past time for Americans to unite behind the war against terrorism and focus on victory, because the cost of failure is too great. I say this regardless of the party in power in the Congress or in the White House. The arguments not to fight this fight boil down to believing there is no great threat posed by terrorists or that the terrorists have no direct interest in America except for our involvement in the Middle East. The other arguments are mostly political grand-standing. Hopefully the next President (regardless of party) will be able to establish clarity of purpose in the war against terrorism.

[Janett_Reno]

Yes, the next president, regardles of party, needs to have a plan. I agree and we all, the American people and all our politicians stand by it, or atleast the majority. I feel now why the Dems and Repubs are not behind this pres is because it is no plan and the majority of people. The pres claims it can't be a plan announced because then the terrorist would know. I do not think the American people are comphy with no plan and alot of our Republicans, Independents and Democrats are not comphy with this also. If it was a plan and the eyes could see it, then i feel the American people would get behind it more.

I think the poster above me was right, as long as it is "just Americans" there, it will always be blammed on the Americans, anything goes wrong will be our fault by most of the world. If you have other countries, un, other Muslim nations helping us fight the war on "terror" then they can't blame one country, one religion, one people.

[dude1394]

The only "plan" the democrats have are to abandon another ally. If that's what you mean by having no "plan" I'm for it.

Sure dubya has a plan, in fact the congress VOTED (again) on a plan when they confirmed Petraeus by UNANIMOUS VOTE, but typically they don't have enough backbone to even follow through with the plan that they agreed to.

Especially since they think they can make political hay out of it. Who gives a crap about our allies or the security of the nation when you can accomplish their real goal in life, get political power.