69 of those coalition deaths were brave soldiers from Tennessee.

American casualties for March of this year are already two times greater than March of last year. This speaks well for the Republican Plan.

"Stay and Die"

The hallmark of the surge up to now has been the willingness of the Mahdi Army to stand down and avoid confrontation with US troops. That's the reason the number of bullet-ridden bodies has dropped. But as long as the Sunnis keep blowing up Shi'ites, the Shi'ite population will go back to the Mahdi Army - or its various offshoots - and demand vengeance and protection. The recent mosque bombings on both sides are evidence that Shi'ite patience is running out. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mahdi Army checkpoints and death squads return in full force within a few weeks as the Shi'ites give up on the US plan for protection.

Oh, and remember how Bush lauded Tal Afar as an example of military success? There was a twin-truck bombing there today that killed at least 48 people. The reason the violence is spreading to places like Tal Afar is that militants are taking the fight to areas where there are not enough US troops to patrol. If the surge had about 200,000 soldiers and not 25,000, it would have a slight chance of pacifying the country for awhile so the Iraqi politicians could generate some sense of unity. But that will not happen with meager US troops in the country. Moroeover, it seems that the new de-de-Baathification plan supported by former PM Iyad Allawi is meeting fierce resistance. No political reconciliation seems to be coming soon. The civil war rages and and the US tries to play ref. Why are we there again?

a waste of lives, American, Iraqi and others as well as billions of our tax dollars...gee thanks Republican Party...

I know something about the problems. My question is, what's the answer. Immediate withdrawal no doubt has a serious down side. Withdrawal under any timetable where the effect will be for the elected Iraqi government to collapse would return the country to those who want to kill as many Americans as possible is not good for us.

My point is, if we leave, they won't just leave us alone. Terrorists will continue to try to kill Americans. Escalating attacks have been the rule. I don't believe we can pacify them (if you think so, how?). I suppose we can just 'protect our borders' and not fight anywhere in the middle east. Do we just fight them if they come here?

Whether you agreed with the Iraq war or not (and many who did then, don't now) and whether you hate Bush, his policies or decisions about the war, what do we do now and what is the answer for radical terrorists who have proven time and again that it makes them happy for innocent Americans to die? You might also add, do we also retreat from Saudi Arabia (one of OBL's complaints), Israel? What other demands of terrorists do we give in to? If they threaten to kidnap and kill any American they might find, is that enough to quit? Please also state whether you believe war is ever acceptable. If so, where's the line you draw?

I know these are broad questions. But, now that Democrats have control of Congress, let's hear some solutions rather than "what Bush is doing isn't working".

I will be glad to post my ideas for getting out of this but, you should first post your ideas about why Bush will not ignore them and anything else that doesn't come from the neocon idiot idea factory.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

Steve,

That's ridiculous. I am willing to admit that Bush is unlikely to follow your suggestions.

It seems to me we ought to be discussing how to solve the problem, not have thread after thread of "what Bush is doing isn't working". The threat of radical terrorists will not go away, Bush or no Bush. It will be there for the next President. So, how should he or she deal with it?

CBT, I think you are confused, but that's ok. I'm not the one holding back on my plan because George Bush won't listen to me. He won't listen to anybody, and you need to come to grips with that. Bush has essentially fired everyone who tried to tell him anything. You know that as well as I do, though I doubt you'll admit it.

It's time Republicans showed some patriotism and helped get us out of this mess. You can start by taking this simple first step: Quit making stuff up!

The Murtha plan advocates a phased withdrawal...You Republican operative guys made up that cut and run part.

No Iraqi terrorist group is going to follow us back here and attack us. The overwhelming majority of attacks on American troops come from Sunni groups, backed by Saudi Arabia...Not the Shiite, which are backed by Iran. You guys made up the Iranian bogey man, too, and no, I don't want them to get nukes but what choice do they have based on what your idiot President is doing and given his lack of any hint of diplomatic ability?

Last of all, There are ver bright, very thoughtful people all over the world who think that, "Yes, the problem will be reduced a great extent if we get out of Iraq." Iraq is a bigger mess now than ever before.

Killing people and getting killed is not working. Not only does Bush not have a plan, He doesn't have a clue!

Give it up, Chad. This is important. Let's get Bush out of office before he and the crazy people he hangs out with screw things up so bad that no one can fix it.

Just think about this: If you have to make things up in order to make your point, you are on the wrong side.

Peace,

Steve

Democrats have floated a number of ideas, that were promptly shot down by the President and his Republican controlled Congress.

Whether you think they are good ideas or not, they included:

- "Partitioning" Iraq, with oil revenues to be shared among three "states" and nationally to fund infrastructure.

- Diplomacy with Syria and Iran and other Mideast interests to develop an "Arab" solution with involvement from all parties in the region.

- Phased withdrawal with emphasis on and support for Iraq taking responsibility for their own security.

Then there were the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group recommendations, which had bi-partisan support and which recommended basically the last two of the previous three options, and stated:

In this report, we make a number of recommendations for actions to be taken in Iraq, the United States, and the region. Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.

The report says "there is no military solution to the conflict" and goes on to lay out a very specific and detailed plan dealing with the regional political and diplomatic issues, the internal political issues, and the security issues, which is more than we've seen from anyone else, including our worthless excuse for a Secretary of State.

The Bush Administration, of course ignored the report and rejected it's recommendations.

You can read the PDF here (amazing how quickly it faded into obscurity).

As for dealing with terrorism, John Kerry was right that it is an intelligence and law enforcement problem. How do you send the Army to bust up a ring of 19 guys plotting for years and supported by terrorist cells scattered around the U.S. and the world?

CBT was talking to me. He just used my name instead of my screen name.

SKB makes some great points. I will add to them I hope.

Knowledge! Until we, individually and as a nation, are willing to learn of the history, culture, nature, and motivations of Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Turks and the others that make up most of the Muslim faith, there is no (zero, zip, nada, nyet, zilch, not-gonna-happen) chance of a "solution". Even a faux made up war with a made up nation with no logical boundries, cannot be won without an understanding of those considered the enemy. In example, a group of guys just knowingly flew airplanes into tall buildings. They planned for years to fly airplanes into tall buildings. So what do Americans want to do to stop them? They say to threaten them with death. Uh, HELLO!! Death might well piss them off should they consider it unjust but it should be obvious to the most casual thinker that the threat of death isn't going to scare/deter them.

I personally think any conversation about what to do is useless as long as the "deciders" and the advisors of the "deciders" do not understand those they consider the enemy.

So I guess the answer to your question Chad is pretty much the answer to all questions. Education. Untill we as a nation are open to being educated about Middle Eastern culture. I might as well discuss this with my wall. It has an equal chance of understanding. Ask me the question again when a majority of elected and appointed officials in this nation can intelligently discuss Sunni, Shia, Wahhabi(sp?) and properly assign which beliefs to which major groups.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

What Cafkia said! And Bubba, too.

Looks like the Senate will vote on a withdrawal deadline just like the House.

I think CBT has a point in saying that the situation will be a disaster when we leave. I just think it's also a disaster right now. And because we're engaged so heavily in Iraq - with too few troops to make any real difference but enough troops to drain our overall military - we are unable to deal with other threats like Iran, Pakistan (Musharraf may be in big trouble), Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in general. I don't buy the "they'll follow us home" argument because AQ is not a conventional army with a finite number of soldiers. Overall I think AQ is actually quite small. But as long as we persist in a civil war in Iraq, we will help AQ recruit new members. Our efforts in Iraq are not reducing Islamic militancy.

Here's my solution: Pull our conventional forces back to Kurdistan. Leave some Special Forces to continue training the Iraqi army. Send military forces from Iraq to Afghanistan (not as many will be needed in Kurdistan). Tell Musharraf that if he doesn't crack down on Waziristan - if he's willing to cede Pakistani sovereignty in that region to Al Qaeda - we'll declare it enemy territory and go after the real Al Qaeda.

Most Al Qaeda-in-Iraq folks are Iraqis now, not foreigners. They just want the US out of Iraq so they can prevent the Shi'ites from taking over the country. That's a civil war that will have to bleed itself out; nothing we are doing will stop it over the long term. It's like Lebanon: the various parties have to wear themselves out before they come to the table. Our role is to contain the chaos and make sure that the Sunni-Shi'ite squabble doesn't become a region-wide sectarian war.

we tell Saudi Arabia and Iran and Turkey that we are leaving...today. It is now up to them to do what they can to contain the civil war in Iraq unless they want their countries to become involved by default when Shia begin terrorist actions in Saudi Arabia and Sunni terrorists begin attacking in Iran and Kurdish people begin flooding across the border to escape both the Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq that would happily wipe them out completely just for kicks.

Let the Arab world handle their own problem children and we come home...all the way home. No more troops in the Middle East at all.

Then maybe we can get New Orleans rebuilt and do a little home fix-up projects like healthcare, jobs, and stuff that has largely gone ignored by the Buffoon-in-Chief.
_________________________________________________________

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

I'm busy with work. Thanks for the replies. I'll try to to respond by the weekend.

Today, according to AP, Shi'ite policemen in Tal Afar went on a revenging rampage through the Sunni section of town and killed "dozens" of people - mostly bullets to the back of the head. This is exactly the sort of thing that characterized pre-surge Baghdad. And Tal Afar was cited by Petraeus himself in his very smart counterinsurgency document as an example of success. If Shi'ites have given up patience in Tal Afar, who knows how much longer Shi'ites in Baghdad will exercise restraint. And then we'll be back to square one.

And then we'll be back to square one.

Everything Bush has screwed up--by neglect, incompetence, or just plain failure--has been followed by scrambles just to try and get the toothpaste back in the tube, to paraphrase Haldeman (or Erhlichman). Except this toothpaste is radioactive.

Bush and his band of neocons were chomping at the bit to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and 9/11 was just used by them to make invasion politically doable. This group never served in the military to know what people like John Kerry and Chuck Hagel already knew about war. It's too devastating and there's too much risk of unintended bad consequences. Not just by failing on a straight-up battlefield--which is hard to imagine our military ever doing--but winning hearts/minds and avoiding things like collateral damage, friendly fire, and long-term medical and emotional health casualties.

What Bush still can't do is muster any kind of adult diplomacy to get us out or keep us out of these messes. With respect to North Korea, the best they can possibly hope for is to return to Clinton's deal the GOP loved to criticize. Except even if they achieve that, North Korea has successfully made the jump to a nuclear armed regime with some number of warheads on the shelf.

So the Bushies just use our military to literally fight battles they can't solve through dialog and negotiation. Iraq was totally preventable, as was North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons. And it just goes on and on like that everywhere else.

Until the rest of our country (the remaning CBTs) recognize the source of our problems, we'll never start solving them. [/my_rant_off]

I meant just in single one-on-one battles, like the old WWII style ones that don't really exist anymore, our >$400b budget military is virtually sure to "win" over anybody else's. It is well equipped and well trained. (At least it was before it got depleted by Bush/Cheney. Now, entire divisions, if called upon, would have to respond: "Not ready for duty, sir." As Cheney fraudulently charged about Clinton's military in 2000, most ironically.)

But single battles ain't a war, as you are pointing out. Even if we win every one, which we can't anyway because today's battles are more like police riots, we can still lose wars. And do, just as in your examples. So that was my point. Bushies arrogantly think as the only superpower, we're guaranteed a military victory. So I think that's one reason they don't mind going that route. Fools that they are.

BTW, just today I read about another one of those consequences the Bushies were blind to (and still are).

Thanks for showing somebody's reading and for the opportunity to clarify.