http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5104

Quote :

"The war has come at grievous cost to Iraq’s people. It has been estimated that almost 7,500 Iraqi civilians were killed in the initial invasion. A national survey by the Iraqi government and the UN World Health Organization released in January 2008 found that 151,000 Iraqis had died from violence between the March 2003 invasion and June 2006 (the range is between 104,000 and 223,000). Other estimates put the casualty figures higher. A household survey-based study published in The Lancet found that as of July 2006 “as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation... About 601,000 of these excess deaths were due to violent causes.” Many have died since then. Iraq Body Count, which tracks civilian deaths in Iraq using credible media reports and NGOs and offers what can be taken as a minimum casualty estimate, has found that “the most violent 12-month period in Iraq’s recent history extended from July 2006 to June 2007.” The daily toll went down for a few months, but Iraq Body Count reported that as of the end of February 2008 the number of civilian deaths from violence was higher than in the preceding month “for the first time since September 2007.” March 2008 has proved to be very bloody. There are many ways to die a violent death in Iraq. Not all can be attributed directly to the American-led occupation forces. But almost all can be attributed to the occupation and the resistance that it has elicited (with all its horrors) and the anarchy it has unleashed. Robert Fisk has reported in The Independent that suicide bombings in Iraq may have killed over 13,000 people and wounded even more. As he points out, the first suicide bombings were aimed at the invading American forces. There have been over 1,100 since then. Along with the dead and injured are the displaced. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees reports that “as of September 2007, there were believed to be well over 4 million displaced Iraqis around the world, including some 2.2 million inside Iraq and a similar number in neighboring countries.” Three million of these were displaced after 2003. It estimates that “60,000 Iraqis are being forced to leave their homes every month by continuing violence.” For the Iraqi survivors, the legacy of occupation will be punishing. The years of daily humiliation and violence by outsiders, the collusion and collaboration by the self-serving and the desperate, an armed resistance based around sectarian religious and ethnic identities, and the embrace of self-destruction as a political act that is at the heart of suicide bombing, will poison Iraqi society for a generation if not longer. "

3/26/2008 1:16:48 PM

^ bush cries his crocodile tears in response.

3/26/2008 1:27:42 PM

^
and makes sure a whole new generation of jihadis to come

3/26/2008 5:22:35 PM

how did the first round of jihadists come about?

3/26/2008 5:30:17 PM

GrumpyGOP's always pretty much been a good reason to stick around this place, and I'll stand with him here.

If you can't separate government policy from the guys who enlist out of a sense of duty, then you'll probably have the same karma coming to you as the people who enact wreckless policy. I lost a friend over there, might have a couple more friends over there soon. They didn't enlist for a president's policy, but for the 200+ years of honor.

3/26/2008 6:55:02 PM

Quote :

"not to mention they are indoctrinated since bootcamp to accept the order of their superiors and through group theory are encouraged to support the war."

i think you'd be a little surprised at how most in the military--from the privates to the generals--are not, in fact, mindless lemmings of death.

3/26/2008 7:27:52 PM

Quote :

"What would it take in Iraq to make it worth the deaths of 4000+ Americans and 100,000+ Iraqis? (serious question)"

A prosperous, democratic, and free Iraq, maybe? That's the supporters would say, anyway. There is historical precedent. The War Between the States killed over half a million. Most Americans think that war was positive on balance.

I say paying for lives with lives is a poor bargain. Lives for wealth is even worse. We can't change the past. There's no doubt good came from many wars. However, I reject treating mass death as an acceptable and inevitable cost of progress. We're smarter than that. We can do better.

3/26/2008 8:33:52 PM

Quote :

"The soapbox is full of people who would sooner dance on the grave of our soldiers than salute the flag."

3/26/2008 8:52:37 PM

Quote :

"The soapbox is full of people who would sooner dance on the grave of our soldiers than salute the flag."

.

3/26/2008 9:35:30 PM

"The dead know only one thing: It is better to be alive."

3/26/2008 11:31:39 PM

Is it truly?

Be it eternal rest, a cessation of existence, or an Afterlife... sometimes you have to envy those who have passed on.

They don't have to put up with this piddly bullshit.

3/27/2008 12:04:55 AM

Truly? Psh. Who knows. That was just Full Metal Jacket.

3/27/2008 12:07:43 AM

Quote :

"I'll appreciate you speaking for yourself, GrumpyGOP."

Sorry man, maybe I missed those times when you said that there was any hope that our continued troop presence would help matters, or that you ever thought there was any hope for the operation to begin with, or that we should keep the troops there. And I mean that sincerely -- maybe you said those things, and I missed it.

I was mostly basing the description on this:

Quote :

"Unconditional phased withdrawal/redeployment reaching 100% within 18 months. This is not surrender. Remember, we have replaced the dictatorial regime successfully with an elected democratic government. Hoorah. Now let us move on to more important matters. "

---

Quote :

"What would it take in Iraq to make it worth the deaths of 4000+ Americans and 100,000+ Iraqis?"

A stable, peaceful, and relatively friendly Iraq that's politically liberal at least in the sense of, you know, having passable elections and not doing the whole rape room/secret police/gassing its own villages thing.

Basically, setting up a situation that prevents far worse things from happening on down the line (which, though I'm sure you disagree, I and others have always held would have been inevitable if Saddam and then his sons had maintained control).

[Edited on March 27, 2008 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ]

3/27/2008 2:20:43 PM

Quote :

"A prosperous, democratic, and free Iraq, maybe? That's the supporters would say, anyway. There is historical precedent. The War Between the States killed over half a million. Most Americans think that war was positive on balance. I say paying for lives with lives is a poor bargain. Lives for wealth is even worse. We can't change the past. There's no doubt good came from many wars. However, I reject treating mass death as an acceptable and inevitable cost of progress. We're smarter than that. We can do better. "

I def. can respect your opinion. This was a good post.

3/27/2008 2:40:20 PM

Quote :

"The war has come at grievous cost to Iraq’s people. It has been estimated that almost 7,500 Iraqi civilians were killed in the initial invasion. A national survey by the Iraqi government and the UN World Health Organization released in January 2008 found that 151,000 Iraqis had died from violence between the March 2003 invasion and June 2006 (the range is between 104,000 and 223,000). Other estimates put the casualty figures higher. A household survey-based study published in The Lancet found that as of July 2006 “as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation... About 601,000 of these excess deaths were due to violent causes.” Many have died since then. Iraq Body Count, which tracks civilian deaths in Iraq using credible media reports and NGOs and offers what can be taken as a minimum casualty estimate, has found that “the most violent 12-month period in Iraq’s recent history extended from July 2006 to June 2007.” The daily toll went down for a few months, but Iraq Body Count reported that as of the end of February 2008 the number of civilian deaths from violence was higher than in the preceding month “for the first time since September 2007.” March 2008 has proved to be very bloody. There are many ways to die a violent death in Iraq. Not all can be attributed directly to the American-led occupation forces. But almost all can be attributed to the occupation and the resistance that it has elicited (with all its horrors) and the anarchy it has unleashed. Robert Fisk has reported in The Independent that suicide bombings in Iraq may have killed over 13,000 people and wounded even more. As he points out, the first suicide bombings were aimed at the invading American forces. There have been over 1,100 since then. Along with the dead and injured are the displaced. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees reports that “as of September 2007, there were believed to be well over 4 million displaced Iraqis around the world, including some 2.2 million inside Iraq and a similar number in neighboring countries.” Three million of these were displaced after 2003. It estimates that “60,000 Iraqis are being forced to leave their homes every month by continuing violence.” For the Iraqi survivors, the legacy of occupation will be punishing. The years of daily humiliation and violence by outsiders, the collusion and collaboration by the self-serving and the desperate, an armed resistance based around sectarian religious and ethnic identities, and the embrace of self-destruction as a political act that is at the heart of suicide bombing, will poison Iraqi society for a generation if not longer. ""

I wonder how many would have died over the same period of time under Saddam Hussein.

When you have a country with that kind of inbred violence and betrayal, you will not turn it around without a revolution or force.

3/27/2008 3:24:31 PM

To a friend or family member of a soldier who has been lost, its obviously a major deal. Historically speaking, 4000 soldiers in a "war" that has lasted 4 years is about as small as could be imagined.

As for the Iraqi vs Iraqi violence, that is another argument.

3/27/2008 3:31:25 PM

Quote :

"a "war" that has lasted 4 years"

The Iraq Conflict started in March 2003, which means it has lasted five years.

Quote :

"I wonder how many would have died over the same period of time under Saddam Hussein."

Probably considerably fewer. Of course, the question is how many would have died during this period and the next few decades.

Quote :

"The years of daily humiliation and violence by outsiders, the collusion and collaboration by the self-serving and the desperate"

This part seems pretty fucking loaded. People who are working with the new Iraqi government are "collaborators," and not people who just maybe want a fucking democratic government?

Quote :

"However, I reject treating mass death as an acceptable and inevitable cost of progress. We're smarter than that. We can do better."

In a conflict between two secular people, educated in Western universities brought up to be disdainful of violence...well, then I could agree with you. That's not even fucking close to what we're dealing with.

Things are the way they are, and one way or another you're going to pay for your decision with death, because the rest of the world doesn't think like you. Want to make it a policy to avoid taking any lives? That's fine, but sooner or later, someone is going to take some of ours. You've paid for other people's lives with our own. I won't even make any particular judgment about that, in this context -- but one way or the other, a trade-off has been made with human beings as currency.

Death doesn't always lead to progress, but, as it's going to happen violently anyway, I have no problem with trying to steer it that way.

3/27/2008 5:57:14 PM

Quote :

"Want to make it a policy to avoid taking any lives? That's fine, but sooner or later, someone is going to take some of ours. You've paid for other people's lives with our own."

It's not so simple. In reality, we rarely know exactly where decisions lead. The longterm effects can be hard to predict. Would being weak on terror lead to more dead Americans than kicking buttocks? Maybe, maybe not. It might not be an easy case to prove either way.

On the other hand, we know damn well that dropping fucking bombs kills people. Direct cause and effect. Easy to demonstrate.

Combined with other factors, will dropping bombs sometimes prevent future deaths? Yes, though rarely directly. The causation becomes complicated. More often than not, dropping the bombs is tremendous gamble.

It's as if you're saying the following: "Aw fuck it. People are going die. Might as well kill them myself."

If you're serious about preserving life, you should avoid directly killing people. When you kill some to save others, the connection should at least be unambiguous.

Even in that situation, I say it's a poor solution. With a bit more intelligence, we could do better. That's we we should strike for.

3/27/2008 6:24:05 PM

Quote :

"It's as if you're saying the following: "Aw fuck it. People are going die. Might as well kill them myself.""

Hardly. If you're going to oversimplify my whole point, at least do it right: "Aw, fuck it. People are going to die. Better them than me."

Or, more accurately still, "Aw, fuck it. People are going to die. Might as well try to keep the number low."

Quote :

"In reality, we rarely know exactly where decisions lead. The longterm effects can be hard to predict."

We rarely know jack-all shit. We don't even know if dropping bombs will kill people. The people might hide. The bombs might be duds.

It's all a question of probability, no matter what. Yes, dropping a bomb on somebody has a very high probability of killing somebody, higher than, say, being weak on terror. You have your cutoff line, I have mine.

Quote :

"In reality, we rarely know exactly where decisions lead. The longterm effects can be hard to predict."

Look, man, I'm all for finding a better solution. But until you do, I'm going to stick with what gets results.

3/27/2008 6:57:33 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Sorry man, maybe I missed those times when you said that there was any hope that our continued troop presence would help matters, or that you ever thought there was any hope for the operation to begin with, or that we should keep the troops there. And I mean that sincerely -- maybe you said those things, and I missed it."

I don't see how making any of those comments would be necessary for your statement to be a complete and utter mischaracterization of my position.

You summarized it thusly: "There is no hope, these men have died in vain, and all we can do now is to prevent more from dying in vain by bringing them home."

First, there's always hope that Iraq stabilizes so long as people in Iraq want it to happen.

What specifically does an American presence have to do with that?

You've got to use underpants gnome logic to make any connection between the two. Our troops are not international hope distribution machines. Battlefields are not conveyor belts of hope.

Second, these servicemen didn't die in vain. Each died for his or her own reasons. Sadly, dead all the same, but I've never been an arbiter of whether anyone dies in vain.

Third, all we can do to prevent more US troops from dying in Iraq--whether it's in vain or not--is to pull them out. This is actual logic.

Quote :

"GoldenViper: I reject treating mass death as an acceptable and inevitable cost of progress. We're smarter than that. We can do better."

Masterful.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Of course, the question is how many would have died during this period and the next few decades."

Or whether Saddam had a history of heart disease...or stroke...or any number of other things that could've killed him sooner. This even includes his own people, especially those secular terrorists in Northern Iraq.

Step away from the crystal ball.

[Edited on March 27, 2008 at 11:32 PM. Reason : ...]

3/27/2008 11:28:10 PM

Quote :

"What specifically does an American presence have to do with that?"

That's actually my question. We're talking about whether or not to pull out the troops, so I'm talking about the hope that they can effect any change. If you believe they almost certainly cannot, then it makes sense to pull them out.

Quote :

"Second, these servicemen didn't die in vain. Each died for his or her own reasons. Sadly, dead all the same, but I've never been an arbiter of whether anyone dies in vain."

Oh, for God's sake. You know as well as I do that I'm speaking in terms of our national goals -- free stable democratic Iraq, and all that. If those goals are not achievable, then everyone who has died for them has, in this (relevant) context, died in vain.

Quote :

"Or whether Saddam had a history of heart disease...or stroke...or any number of other things that could've killed him sooner"

Saddam had two kids that were even more batfuck than him. Two, both fairly young. And don't fucking start about "his own people" doing anything -- when we invaded there was no sign of any serious internal threat to the regime. Maybe some fringe group could get lucky and off Saddy, but that leaves the Ba'ath party and his inner circle still intact and still in charge.

In short, there was basically every reason to believe that Saddam's regime would persist for the foreseeable future. One of us is taking a way bigger predictive leap than the other.

3/28/2008 12:00:55 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: That's actually my question."

No it isn't. You don't even ask a question. You present our continued military presence as a self-evident conveyor belt of hope.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: We're talking about whether or not to pull out the troops, so I'm talking about the hope that they can effect any change."

Then you're OBVIOUSLY trolling my position in addition to mischaracterizing it.

The Pentagon can effect a change anywhere on this planet.

Who the fuck would argue with that?

Whether that change is positive or negative on balance is the open question. Whether our Pentagon is required to secure and deliver hope to the Iraqis is another, and that's a question you've not raised nor addressed.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Oh, for God's sake. You know as well as I do that I'm speaking in terms of our national goals -- free stable democratic Iraq, and all that. If those goals are not achievable, then everyone who has died for them has, in this (relevant) context, died in vain."

If securing free, stable, Democratic foreign governments was part of the oath those in the service swore, then failure to do so would indicate they'd died in vain. As it isn't, they haven't. For proof witness the surviving strands of our Constitution and totally extant sovereignty. That's what those in the service swore to defend.

Failing to strategically connect the fatal mission on which the dead were sent to the oath they took in service to our own nation may piss you off a lot, but it doesn't mean the service was performed in vain. The service was still noble and even honorable to a large extent, but ultimately misapplied at the strategic level.

The only way anyone in the service dies in vain is if we lose our own country.

Or would you say our victims in Vietnam died in vain? Or in Somalia? Or any of our police actions in the past few decades?

No.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Saddam had two kids that were even more batfuck than him. Two, both fairly young."

Of little consequence to the Bolsheviks...

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: And don't fucking start about "his own people" doing anything"

K. I won't. I'll pretend history is a vacuum and that if they weren't going to do it before March 2003, they weren't going to do it ever. I'll even pretend the CIA couldn't have taken a more active role in overthrowing the regime covertly, or done its part to incite and arm such an overthrow if it were really necessary.

Hell, I'll won't even ask why the regime needed to be overthrown. God knows that might reveal some uncomfortable facts about how powerless a "threat" it presented to us.

I totally see your point though. There's no historical precedent for a bottom-up revolution against a well-armed, brutal regime with many enemies. Nope. Not a one.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: In short, there was basically every reason to believe that Saddam's regime would persist for the foreseeable future. One of us is taking a way bigger predictive leap than the other."

GrumpyGOP: CALL ME NOW FOR YAR FREE READIN'

How does my position take any predictive leap?

As I've mentioned REPEATEDLY, we weren't obligated to go into Iraq in the first place.

Just what prediction is required for us to stand guard on our own damn borders, complete the mission in Afghanistan, and leave Iraq alone in 2003?

[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2008 12:44:14 PM

Quote :

"No it isn't. You don't even ask a question."

I meant, it was the question that the rest of your response made me want to ask.

Quote :

"The Pentagon can effect a change anywhere on this planet."

Any positive change. Assume for the moment that I generally try to refer to things relevant to the discussion. There is a specific set of desirable changes.

Quote :

"Whether our Pentagon is required to secure and deliver hope to the Iraqis is another, and that's a question you've not raised nor addressed. "

Required as in obligated, or required as in necessary?

Quote :

"Or would you say our victims in Vietnam died in vain? Or in Somalia? Or any of our police actions in the past few decades?"

Yes, in several of them where we failed miserably. Or better put, perhaps, the government sacrificed them in vain. Is that better?

Quote :

"Of little consequence to the Bolsheviks..."

There was a long, long, loooooong and connected history of revolutions and attempts at it in Russia. More to the point there was a great deal taking place in the years up to the Russian Revolution that indicated that it was imminent.

Show me the massive revolutionary fervor in Iraq prior to 2003. The Kurds more or less had what they wanted, and as subjugated as many people there were, they showed no signs of revolution in the foreseeable future.

Quote :

"I'll pretend history is a vacuum and that if they weren't going to do it before March 2003, they weren't going to do it ever."

Now who's trolling? When did I ever say anything about not doing it ever? I know you're having a grand old time with the psychic jokes, so at least try to stay consistent: at least I've consistently referred to the foreseeable future.

Quote :

"I'll even pretend the CIA couldn't have taken a more active role in overthrowing the regime covertly, or done its part to incite and arm such an overthrow if it were really necessary."

You don't have to pretend. The CIA's track record is atrocious on all counts, and even its very few short-lived, consistently backfiring "successes" at overthrowing countries were essentially accidental.

Quote :

"There's no historical precedent for a bottom-up revolution against a well-armed, brutal regime with many enemies. Nope. Not a one."

And when you look at these historical preferences you consistently see certain signs in the lead-up to the revolution, few (if any) of which were present in pre-war Iraq.

Quote :

"How does my position take any predictive leap?"

I was referring specifically to your litany of ways that Saddam's regime might have just gone away on its own. I of course assumed for the sake of argument that it was desirable that Saddam's regime go away, which was a mistake.

3/28/2008 3:08:04 PM

Quote :

"the government sacrificed them in vain. Is that better?"

A million times over. It's no less sad or any different in the end.

That said:

RIP Capt. Christopher Cash

And all the other fallen.

Quote :

"...it was desirable that Saddam's regime go away, which was a mistake."

So wait a second. Let's collect the facts for a moment:

1) Our international propaganda wing--a.k.a. the CIA--couldn't foment a revolution in Iraq with all its resources.

2) The signs of an imminent internally-driven revolution were absent despite a brutal history of government oppression with no end in sight.

Whose revolutionary war are we fighting and why?

Quote :

"Required as in obligated, or required as in necessary?"

Please explain the difference.

[Edited on March 29, 2008 at 12:29 AM. Reason : ...]

3/29/2008 12:28:09 AM

Quote :

"I wonder how many would have died over the same period of time under Saddam Hussein. When you have a country with that kind of inbred violence and betrayal, you will not turn it around without a revolution or force."

thank you for justifying...i was dying to hear that!

btw did they did find the wmds they went looking for?

oh noes now its i-RAN's turn to have a nuclear weapon....god bless america!

3/29/2008 9:37:21 AM

IT'S SPIN THE BOTTLE...OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION!

3/29/2008 9:40:33 AM

10% the casualties of vietnam? 2 countries liberated + countless others saved from iraqi/afghani rule and torture.

i'll take. gg us army

3/29/2008 10:05:18 AM

Quote :

"i'll take"

you say that like its just some stat you see in your class son.....place yourself in those innocent people's shoe who've lost family and everything they had because of the war.

In war you kill the terrorist not the element because the dead and loss caused will make those people hate the western world more. Al-qaeda and other terrorist organizations feed on this hatred, channeling it for their benefit. They train these kids who've lost family and more to become suicide bombers and who-knows-what.

[Edited on March 29, 2008 at 10:17 AM. Reason : ../]

3/29/2008 10:17:06 AM

nice try tslava

when you have a father, 2 brothers and 2 cousins, who gave a total of 9 years in iraq and afghanistan serving in 3 seperate marine combat battalions and an airforce fighter wing, get back to me.

pwned.

3/29/2008 10:21:18 AM

but your family had a choice, i just wish those people in iraq and afghanistan did

3/29/2008 10:27:26 AM

yes. that is a very good point

when your out flying in one of these:



you tend to take it for granted. wrong. honestly tslava. i really wish you could meet them and chat with them for just a few minutes and let them show you the pictures of the families they met, and lunches they had together with iraqi friends they made, and soccer matches they had together just to have some fun. the smiles in these iraqi families and the gratitude in their eyes really can't be conveyed across this dumb web site.

i feel for ya man. you've missed a great piece of humanity by never taking notice. just turn off the tv, drive down to fort bragg and ask some troops what it was like.

3/29/2008 10:30:09 AM

LOL

My family has experience in Iraq.

Therefore, there will be no terrorists born of this conflict.

Go talk to other veterans 4 proof!!1

[Edited on March 29, 2008 at 1:51 PM. Reason : LOOK AT MY RAD PICTAR]

3/29/2008 1:51:01 PM

Quote :

"1) Our international propaganda wing--a.k.a. the CIA--couldn't foment a revolution in Iraq with all its resources."

Given its track record, I'd say it is very, very, very unlikely. At best they might have thrown together Bay of Pigs II: Iraq.

This is not to say that there aren't people and groups in Iraq who wouldn't have gladly accepted CIA help and even attempted to use it in the right direction. However, as we're seeing now, these entities are so fragmented and distanced by mutual loathing that no single group had the sway and no coalition (no pun intended) seemed viable.

The problem, in short, wasn't in finding a thousand guys who wanted to get rid of Saddam. The problem was finding a thousand guys who agreed on how to do it and what to replace him with. More accurately still, the problem was finding a thousand guys who could disagree without immediately wanting to bomb and kill each other.

The set-up was many times better in Cuba, and we still managed to dick it up colossally in such a way that ensured Castro and his brother could keep power for as long as they can keep wheezing.

Quote :

"2) The signs of an imminent internally-driven revolution were absent despite a brutal history of government oppression with no end in sight."

Well, as you say, the shitty government was there, which creates the right environment. And a revolution being distinct from an incomprehensible mosaic of angry dissidents, I still stand by that statement.

Quote :

"Whose revolutionary war are we fighting and why?"

Well now that's the problem with that region, isn't it? All we want -- all that will benefit those nations as well as us -- is for moderates to be in charge. But rather by definition, moderates don't often pick up guns and shoot people for their moderate ideals.

Unfortunately, it turns out that when left to its own devices, a revolution is normally carried out by revolutionaries. These typically being of the fascist/communist/theocratic/criminal/Idi Amin variety, with the very rare representative democracy as an exception. Relative moderates have made a go of it before but they generally get run over by tanks (Prague, Tianamen, etc.).

Quote :

"Please explain the difference."

OK, I was responding to this:

Quote :

"Whether our Pentagon is required to secure and deliver hope to the Iraqis is another"

I didn't know if you meant:

"Whether our Pentagon's involvement is necessary in order for hope to be secured and delivered to the Iraqis..."

or

"Whether our Pentagon is obligated to try to secure and deliver hope to the Iraqis..."

3/29/2008 6:13:08 PM

I think we have no obligation to try to secure and deliver hope to them. Call it cold if you want, but I don't pay taxes so that my relatives and best friends can be shipped off to fight other people's wars for them.

Mind you, I HATE HATE HATE the chaos our intervention has enabled, but think that we ought to let the business men bring in the carrots and draw the military men with the sticks back. We sure broke Iraq, but the Iraqis deserve their own shot at fixing it. Even at our expense.

Long term, I don't think our Pentagon's involvement will be necessary to secure and deliver hope to the region. How we usually agree that our government is an awful solution to most problems but disagree that it's an awful solution to this one still confuses me.

Simply put, my position is that hope is only going to be secured and delivered by Iraqis to Iraqis. No foreign leader is going to give America it's hope (that's Barack's job, goddam) and we're not going to give it to Iraq.

3/29/2008 7:52:33 PM