Washington File

A crying man declaring "I never thought you would leave". That's a powerful image. I see the locally employed staff here in Kandahar; they work in construction, camp services, translation, etc. What will happen to them if the West leaves?

Most of those who advocate an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan incorrectly feel that the cause of that particular war was injust. However the justness of the cause becomes irrelevant when one considers the consequences of an immediate withdrawal.

Does anybody actually think that leaving Afghanistan will cause less bloodshed? That's insane. Defeatists don't consider the reprisals against "collaborators" and other civilians that would surely follow.

Now consider Iraq; one must add the sectarian bloodshed that would dramatically increase in the event of an immediate American withdrawal.

Should Canada get out of Afghanstan? Should the US get out of Iraq? In both cases yes. But in both cases, we should get out only after the conditions have been set for the continued stability and security of our respective host nations.

Should our enemies get their way and we retreat prematurely, will Canada offer asylum to those Afghans who tried to build their country with our help? Who sided with us when made our solemn commitment to them to help stabilize their country? How will we help them if we break our solemn commitment? Or will we care? If Canadians embrace those politicians who want to turn us into cowardly promise-breakers, can we cravenly declare that the fate of those whom we engaged to rebuild Afghanistan isn't our problem?

I really have to agree with Aaron's statement. They made a few mistakes from the start and they are still making them. So it has turned into a Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. And like he said you have to make the country as stable as possible and install a proper police force.

A Few Mistakes
From the start America went in there thinking it was going to be a quick victory with little casualties (they made this mistake on every island they attacked on the Pacific Front) America thought that just manpower would win this war when the war is really a hearts and minds war. They may have won on the Battlefield but the people of Iraq Americans. All the Americans needed to do was give more than enough aid, set up many water stations and aid stations. They needed doctors from all over the world to help out.

But that is when you ask yourself (a long time ago) what is the war really for. Well oil, but there is an inside reason why they needed the oil. You probably didn't know that Iraq was in huge debt to Russia, and that Russia is going to its former ways. So if the states were ever encounted in another Cold War then Russia would tell Iraq too cut off oil supply to the states so in turn the states would do whatever they could to stop the oil supply going into Russia. "But"
then Russia would just get all its oil from Iraq. So when the states took over Iraq they cleared all debt that they were in.

So bush was smart to go in, but he was stupid to go in.

I remember reading an essay in Newsweek by Meg Greenfield, the week after the fall of Saigon. She posited that the defeat was neither military, political or of intelligence. It was a defeat, she claimed of the social sciences. By that she meant the U.S. had gone into a war where they knew nothing of the history, culture or national aspirations of the people of Indochina. Thirty years on, the lessons still haven't been learned and the same mistakes, predictably, are being made.

The problem for the Americans is that they are a declining power. All the games they have played since 1945 have made them the enemy of many peoples. As with the Vietnamese campaign they have found to their surprise that extremely old technology, the roadside bomb and the suicide bomber can stop them dead in their tracks. Without the draft, their current army cannot deal with the so called terrorists - somebody else's freedom fighter. Even with the draft, you will not beat the so called insurgency as they learned in Vietnam. Perhaps they should declare victory and retreat. Then they should contemplate their energy options ( limited), the rise of China, India and Russia all of which are capable of reducing the US to a second level state. A great pity!

First, Sincere thanks to CBC and its staff who's moderating this forum for doing a great job in attempting to maintain a respectful debate.
Now, Mr. Champs' article addressed some of the Dilemna for Republican and Democrats in dealing with USA and its allies of occupation of Iraq. ( Good knows what other occupation we'll be talking about in a few years from now, if this mad new empire not stopped and or change course).
While this might be an interetsting debate between USA political powers and decision makers, Let's keep in mind that this WAR has caused the death of more than 700.000.00 Civilians-Iraqis(many more lives were lost as a result of the economic sanctions) and more than 4.000.000. Iraqis have become refugees inside and outside Iraq.
As for USA and its allies , close to 4000 Soldiers if not more have died and based on several studies, more that 50.000 are maimed and severly injured ( most of this killed and maimed soldiers came form poor and improvished families and commnities).

The decision to enagge in such illegal War, is in contradiction of the International Law and the UN Charts. the Former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, called the Bush/Cheney regime's subsequent invasion of Iraq "illegal." In fact, as the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal put it (in the wake of Nazi Germany's defeat), "To initiate a war of aggression" is "the supreme international crime."

The early seeds of this illegal WAR was planted way before Sept. 11. It is well documented that G.W.B Senior and later, the Junior with the hawks in the White House and the Pentagon, have been pushing for new vision of domination and control, for various reasons ranging from Politicals/ Economics (The NSC has been advocating since early 2000 for a new Middle East and that regime change in Iraq would reshape the Middle East and, thus, enhance Israel's security and strengthen America's ability to leverage the region's oiland).

where's turkey when you need them? where's the arab peacekeepers to uphold the rule of law and stabilize this nation into a federation much like our own country in which the ideals of multi-culturalism holds the value of tolerance and ethnic diversity. maybe its time the blue helmets start protecting the rule of law and let a peace reign through the land much like lebanon today. bravo to the 'peacekeepers' until representational democracy exists occupation is the only solution. the americans have to trust democracy for peace to rule. there is no other way. leave and let democracy rule. let the will of the people decide iraq's fate in the new world order. big brother is always watching.....

I've been following most, but not all of this thread. I agree with those of the opinion that the U.S always intended to be for the long haul. As was mentioned - all the major bases and the half-billion dollar embassy almost complete. Witness the Iraq oil law (written in the U.S) ceding most of the oil rights to U.S & U.K. interests. And now the threat of withholding reconstruction money until the bloody law is passed. And we're talking 25/30 year contracts. So guess who's going to be there to see that the oil flows? Quite a smoke-screen, it seems to me, all the talk of leaving- the when, the how of it. I don't even hear our "Daily Show" buddy talking about these things. It probably really isn't even happening. I t's probably just be a bad dream.

I have to agree with Don from Mississauga - anyone who thinks that America's war in Iraq failed through various blunders and a lack of credible intelligence, just doesn't get the big picture. It wasn't supposed to be a quick 'war'. Just the same as it wasn't about missiles that could strike Israel or the plight of the poor Iraqis - it is about America securing its future by seizing control of resources in the decline of the Age of Oil. I'd like to think if the Americans knew that there was 20-30 years of oil left, they wouldn't be wasting more than their fair share of fuel driving around in their SUV's stroking their egos.
It is well known that Americans are spoon-fed their news by corporate interests, although I am becoming increasingly more concerned with the state of our media in Canada. CBC et al. keep up the charade that any of this agressive military action is necessary. It's a bit schizophrenic to have tv shows like 'The Fifth Estate' and 'counterSpin with Avi Lewis' ask tough questions about global terrorism and how it relates to incongruencies in official Governemnt accounts of specific events only to return to the same pointless and misleading fluff the next day on Newsworld, isn't it? We don't even have to look to the US as an example of a Government lying to its people. Look at the Air India inquiry - CSIS and the Mulroney Government knew in advance and failed to act. Sound familiar?
The media is there to inform the people. To keep the powers that be in line through public disclosure of facts.
To hell with impartiality - facts without context are pointless. It is a journalist's job to disclose the facts and put it into perspective. We are being lied to constantly. Our civil liberties and rights are eroding daily under false pretenses. Thousands of innocent people are dying needlessly and the media is still helping us get to the bottom of what is a 'just' war. For shame, indeed.

"Only by shedding Islamic fascism will they become productive members of the international community."
The above quote is interesting, but myth of international community is debatable. For sure international community is not only the Allied countries.
Neither Hitler prevailed nor Bush along with neocon or followers of road to apocalypse can succeed.
As such it needs courage for a journalist to be unbiased in terms of these arbitrary devides of Extremism & Terrorisn, Not sure where lies gray area in this divide?

You people just don't get it, do you? You think invading Iraq was a "mistake", a "blunder", "poor judgement," "faulty intelligence." The invasion of Iraq was NONE of those things. Grow up! For Heaven's sake!

The invasion of Iraq was a deliberately planned, coldly intentional action where everyone knew what was going to happen, how it was going to happen, what the consequences would be, and all the rest of it. The Bush admisnistration is not stupid even though their president is, by every standard known to human science, an amoral, unethical, mental cripple.

Back in the day, one commentator on the war observed that Bush's regime was either incredibly stupid or did not care what the outcome of the invasion was likel;y to be, or the vast numbers of civilian deaths that were likely to resul. Nonsense. They simply DID NOT CARE - which is infinitely worse. They do NOT CARE that thousands of young Americans, the best of their generation, have died for NO GOOD REASON. The 800,000 and counting dead Iraqis are equally of no concern to them. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. are war criminals period. End of story. They are monsters, people, monsters. They are the very stuff of nightmares. The only ones capable of stopping this slaughter are the American people and they're sitting on their hands. For shame, For shame.

The Americans never seemed to have a realistic idea of what they were getting into, and therefore never had a realistic plan to win. They have most certainly been defeated. And with most of the U.S. Army deployed in Iraq in a lost war that has no political support, it seems safe to predict a rapid withdrawal from all the "permanent" military bases mentioned in other posts. The Iraqis will proceed to slaughter each other in even greater numbers, the Iranians will finally achieve their war aims from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and the best that can be hoped from this sordid episode is that there might be some political reform in the U.S. that prevents a rogue president from embarking on an unnecessary war, and likewise prevents an indolent congress from ignoring its own responsibilities.

What kind of Noblest Ideals was this invasion for? They told us, in the beginning, it was because of Weapon of Mass Destructions? Right? If they said in the first place it was to democratise the Iraq; do any body in the world had supported them for that? When they could not direct a play of finding WMD, even though they tried, they came to the democratization issue!
If the Americans wanted democratization; why they did choose Iraq? Was Saddam Hussein the only dictator in the region? Every body knows there are many other dictators in the region. Indeed Saddam used the chemical against his own people. Who gave him those chemicals? The Americans did! They knew he was going to use them against his own people and the Iranians! For more than ten years the Americans were dealing with Saddam Hussein, as an ally, in which he used the CHEMICALS against his own peoples! Suddenly they discovered he is a dictator! A killer!
What kind of success are we looking from invading Iraq? The only success the American wanted was to get a government which applies the policies of the USA quietly without troubles on the ground. Then they would call it democracy! They were wrong.
Let the Americans apply democracy in their own country first! The highest authority in the USA which is The Supreme Court, which is supposed to be neutral and apply the rules of the law and only the law according to the American constitution; is working on a partisanship way!!!! It is ridiculous!!!!

stephen kurtz,

You view the invasion of Iraq through very rose coloured glasses. While I personally feel Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice et al exhibit some of the worst traits of humanity, perhaps their most disturbing characteristic is a near total disregard for the rule of law and a willingness to openly lie to the American public and to the rest of the world.

These people may be many things but they are certainly not stupid and there is absolutely no way that anyone with half a brain could have honestly expected that the invasion would be quick or easy. There is also no way that leaders this experienced could be so naive as to believe they were on a mission to bring “democracy” and “freedom” to anyone so in light of the evidence, to believe that anyone was on a noble crusade here is just wishful thinking. The fact is, while I would guess that BushCo, PNAC, etc expected things to go more favorably than they have, they were completely aware of what they were doing and their true intentions were and are, not at all what we have been told. It may be difficult to accept but we have all been lied to for years.

While you seem to cling to a belief that the invasion was for some sort of higher purpose or ideal that was not what was given as a reason leading up to the war even by the proponents. If memory serves me it was because Bin Laden was being supported by Saddam (which was a fabrication from the beginning) and then it was because Saddam was stockpiling WMDs with intent to use them which also, as we know, turned out to be completely false. In fact, all of the provided reasons were lies so now we are left with some who claim idealism was the true reason for the war? My apologies but if something smells like horse pucky in my experience, it generally is.

I believe that you are all missing the point here. This isn't about any individual, this is about human nature or darwinism if you prefer. We can go as far back in history as we like and find countless examples of civilizations imposing themselves on their neighbors under the guise of national security. We expand or we die, this is thousands of years of evolution at work here.
Today it's the US's need to secure energy to feed their machine and they are compelled to move forces to ensure that this happens. Rather than using rocks and sticks they are using missiles and bombs. Tomorrow it may be China, India etc.
The bright side? Humanity is evolving from being an apathetic individual to an empathetic family/tribe/city/country and hopefully, soon, planet.
When the day comes that we can all realize this and provide what is required to awaken the populous of what we are doing to ourselves and the planet that we live on can we continue this evolution.
The day has to come that the prefered option to unchecked economic growth will be efficient productivity. We have to start managing the resources that we have left, clean up our environment and evenly distribute the wealth. We have to evolve from a nation to a planet.

My 2 cents.

The war was entered into with the noblest of ideals...depose a dictator and let democracy flourish. The dictator was deposed and freedom gave way to internecine strife from those who saw democracy as inimicable to their chosen patterns. Had their been success we would have lauded the achievement but it appears that the experiment was a failure. Tragic for Iraq and a sad thing for western idealism.

Question for Ronald Potter - What drugs are you taking and where can I get some? They're obviously powerful and most likely illegal as well, but whatever they are, they seem to have had quite the affect on your understanding of current events. First off, your rather concise history of the Vietnam war totally glosses over the fact that the US prolonged the war until they could find an "honourable" way to cut and run while declaring victory. Unfortunately, it doesn't gloss over the fact that, in all the years of combat against first, the French, then the Americans, it was the North that ended up victorious. The counrty is unified as a result of their victory.

Second, if Bush and Cheney are not to blame for pushing their country into the war against Iraq then who is? Don't tell me that faulty intelligence alone is responsible for the commander in chief to invade a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, by his own admission no less. Even if that was the case it is still the President and his administration who bear the ultimate responsibility for their actions and they DID start the war. Iraq did not.

Third, Lebanon is rapidly destabilizing as a direct result of US combat actions in the region, as well as the successfull war fought against the Israelis by Hezbollah. The bubble of Israeli / American superiority of arms has been dealt a mortal blow, perhaps an unrecoverable blow. Your reading of the situation has me worried about your state of mind, sir. You couldn't be more out of touch if you lived on Mars.

With all the revelations that are coming out form inside and outside the USA, We still find some people who for whatever reasons, refuse to open their eyes and brain as well to see and learn the real uglyness of WAR, Agression and occupation.

When the empire is out and naked, I wonder what it does take for people to see the light?

Many of us read or heard about "The Project for the New American Century" or PNAC, which is the blue prints for USA stratgies in the world. The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines
what is required of America to create the global empire they envision.
According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

This obsession of domination and control, is equally driven by mad power dangerously heading toward more wars, destruction, human loss and misery.

How Could we ever trust a system that justified/ allowed the "Experiments in influencing human behaviour through the administration of mind- or personality-altering drugs to unwitting subjects. were done on the agency's behalf by prominent psychiatrists on innocent victims - including children as young as four - may be the darkest. "We have no answer to the moral issue," former director Richard Helms infamously said when asked about the nature of the projects.

I recall the days leading up to the war and commenting that the entire case for war was a fabrication. I also recall asking where the press was on this. Surely they were not so dumb as to fall for what was clearly propaganda; especially in the face of the reports of Hans Blix. I was wrong on my assessment of the media.

I remember shock and awe, and being in shock. I remember thinking how could the US Congress ignore history. That history was well documented as to the failure of previous "occupiers" of Iraq. One of those was Britain.

I remember thinking about the Gulf of Tonkin and how it too was sold as a case for war. I remember thinking of Vietnam. I remember thinking about the tens of thousands or more of innocent Vietnamese civilian lives lost.

When all this was over I shed a tear for the innocent Iraqis that I knew would soon lose their lives.

And all of this is for what? A democratic process to be imposed on a country that didnt want it? The other case of course was for energy but that didnt make a lot of sense with the development of the oil patch and hungry American businesses.

Again, we in the West have failed on all accounts. My question is now, "When will WE learn to help countries come to their own democracy instead of pressuring them through economic, diplomatic or military means to accept our own systems; systems that have taken several hundred years to evolve."

I have to wonder just how smart we really are. Perhaps it is our own arrogance that interferes with our politicians ability to think; or perhaps it is partisan politics. In either event, humanity is the loser and again, we have learned nothing.

Ronald Potter: Wow! I thought "Once Were Soldiers"--a movie with Mel Gibson about how the U.S. "won" the battle of the Ia Drang valley--was revisionist. You just blew it out of the water (by the way, it was the first campaign involving North Vietnamese Army regulars and it was in 1965. So much for your timeline).

The best line in your post is: "You cannot apply the past to the present." That will surely be the epitaph of the neoconservative movement.

Posture all you want; I suggest that the slow train wreck in Iraq will have a far more profound effect on U.S. society and world affairs than Vietnam did.

For one thing, when the wheels finally fall off, there will be 150,000 very angry U.S. soldiers coming home, and their edge will not have been blunted by years of drug abuse and official ignoring as it was during and after Vietnam. In addition, they will have the means to speak out--and the audience--that their predecessors did not have.

Professional soldiers are loyal and devoted, and will make the ultimate sacrifice, but when they realize that their dedication, training, and willingness to sacrifice has been abused, look out. I think it will be different this time.

First things first.Must correct errors by Mr. Champ & most of you on the Vietnam War.
The Vietnam War ended in April 1973 with the signing of the Paris treaty. The 3 signatories were the US, South Vietnam & North Vietnam. Hostilities ended, the borders & DMZ were set, the US left. But, the North(supplied by China & the USSR),continued into the South, Cambodia & Laos. Also,the VietCong (which succeeded the less organized Viet Minh), while not affiliated with the North, continued to disrupt the peace.Pushed by the USSR, the North, in late 1974 attacked. When Saigon fell in March 1975, the US was 2 years removed.
Check any history book, you will see that American forces won most of the battles, but as in Iraq, there is no World War II style frontlines so victory/defeat can't be measured by the standards of the past. Kissinger had multiple peace deals signed but the North continually reneged. No one won the Vietnam War and no one lost.

As for Iraq, anyone that blames Bush, Cheney & gang without proof (as the previous posts show) isn't looking at fact. The war can and will be won, not by out-of-date WW2 standards but by modern standards. You cannot apply the past to the present. The Iraq war has pulled in many Islamic terrorist groups and this will set the policy for the Mid-East for the better. Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, Gaza, Iran and the rest will eventually become stable. Their religious zealots will fall & the gov'ts will become secular like Turkey. Only by shedding Islamic fascism will they become productive members of the international community. With Blair leading the Quartet, expect some great strides towards democratic change & zero tolerance of terrorists.
A strong Republican president will be elected in 2008 & continue the good fight. As will Harper here.
We did not create this mess (Islamic nuts did) but we will clean it up.

I seem to recall a similar encounter between an Iraqi and an American journalist a year ago, but the conversation was slightly different, with the Iraqi essentially saying: "I never thought you would come here and make such a mess. At least under Saddam we knew how to get along, and although our lives weren't all that free, they were far better than they are today and for the foreseeable future. Now, we can't even send our children to the school, and my wife can't go to the market, for fear they will be killed or kidnapped in this utter lawlessness. And I can't find work anywhere to support them. I wish you would leave so we can sort this out among ourselves. Your presence is only making things worse and prolonging the chaos."

The North Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh pleaded with the U.S. to help them after they kicked out the arrogant French colonizers, who tried to reestablish their grip after the horrors of the Japanese occupation in WWII. The U.S. turned them down, invaded their country, and killed about two million of them (about the same as Pol Pot in Cambodia). Don't blame the Vietnamese for being tough in taking back their country.

The U.S. was never a factor in who ruled Cambodia, and it was the Vietnamese who finally ousted him. The U.S. actually supported Pol Pot against the Vietnamese with money and arms.

Back to the present: The Iraqis need to take back their country, too. The West should get out and stop pretending it has either the right, the knowledge or the wisdom to destroy other countries' social fabric and to try to rebuild them in their image (whatever that is).

To Wa'el Darwish:

The "sustainable military posture" you inquire about is precisely what you think it is, a permanent American occupation of Iraq as well as a launching pad for future aggression against Iraq's neighbours. That no one in the United States appears to give a damn is more indicative of their ignorance of the subject; they simply do not know that their super bases are there as a threat to other countries and prefer the fantasy that America is still a force for good in the world (a farce dispelled when Truman detonated his two nukes over Japan).

For those who think Saddam Hussein a murdering monster lusting after WMDs, of course you're right about that, but only partly. In history's pantheon of mass murdering monsters, Hussein is EASILY surpassed for overall totals by both Bush and Blair (a million plus dead Iraqi's and Afghans: 4 million refugees and counting) as well as other 20th century monsters such as Kissinger/Nixon, the Khmer Rouge, Truman and, of course, our most favourite European fascisti. They all deserve each other and their place in history as the very worst humanity has to offer.

The blame for the war should be on the shoulders of those who profitted from it most. Dick Cheney and the Generals who work for the lobbyists. And I'm sure old George Bush senior has made a few bucks indirectly (and he such a religious man!)

I suppose our resident "Harry" Potter will now attempt to conjure some nonsense such as the US is winning in Iraq or similar lunacy concerning the "War on Terror" or Afghanistan...

Having failed miserably in every single policy objective since 2001, the Bush regime is now so completely lame-duck that the US is, in essence, leaderless. Going back over the record of this, the single most incompetent, appalling, joke of a presidency (too many people have been maimed or killed to laugh so find another definition for "joke" in this case), one can only marvel at the failures of this current regime. How pathetic that the once mightiest nation on the planet has fallen to such contemptible lows it may never recover. China is the emerging force but are they any different? Not if Darfur is anything to go by they aren't. Time to trample ALL the empires in the dust as they so richly deserve. I only hope that Gordon Brown isolates the US and changes Britain's policy regarding the twin lunacies of Iraq and Afghanistan. That will put paid to Bush & co well and for all time.

Dear Mr. Champ,

How telling this quote is "I never thought you'd leave." Histories tells of so many similar stories, just to mention few, The same was repeated by Local Afghanis after the USSR troops left(And will be repeated after Nato forces leave), by South lebanese Army when israeli Troops left south Lebanon in May 01, and will be repeated by Iraqis who are working with Amercians and their allies now. because, depsite the duration of occupation,Occupiers will leave on way or another.

Now, when it comes to USA, both Parties are lacking any clear direction to clean the mess of a WAR that was planned and lunched based on lies,deception , greed , political & economical plan. Both Parties have imperialistic dreams and ambitions as well, due to been hostages to the big Corporates agenda.
I hope that the recent revealing of CIA 650 Plus pages documents, will help people undertsand the nature and practices of a USA and its " games" around the world.

What's the big surprise? The US has been building dozens and dozens of huge, PERMANEMT bases in strategic locales across Iraq since early 2004, including the Imperial Fortress, er...sorry, 'embassy'. This rather telling FACT certainly has been kept out of the discussion in the mainstream media, and thus, the general public awareness. Officials and pundits now talk of an alternative, or compromise strategy, which I will translate into 'realspeak'. It is simply to hunker down in these bases, project power over oil extraction and removal infrastructure, while leaving the population divided, infighting over the scraps of an intentionally destroyed society, limiting the united opposition to the murderous occupiers and thieves. This has always been the plan. (read any good political history book, this is a popular strategy) My opinion is that the U.S. policy makers did underestimate the level of popular resistance to the occupation, and the military has been stretched further than was expected. This is why I don't believe (anymore) that an attack on Iran is in the immediate cards. As a close observer of US foreign policy, it seems to me the military establishment has been the group putting the brakes on in that regard, not the moneymen or AIPAC. We're watching a false debate people. This has always been 'the plan'.

I don't believe America ever had hopes of "winning" in Iraq as we define "winning" anyway. They have achieved the goal of destabilizing the country and pitting countrymen against countrymen. The reposturing of the troops that you speak of, in my opinion, is to prepare them for what is next and by next I mean "next door". Iran is clearly on the U.S. radar, if they manage to do the same to Iran that they've done to Iraq, that region of the world will have been effectively set back 50 years....just what America wants.

Many well known images spring into my head when thinking of the Vietnam War and especially near the end with the northern troops moving into Saigon. I have wondered for some time now what images will become the defining ones for the Iraq War and what any end to the conflict will look like. One thing for certain though is that local civilians will not be a priority no matter how it turns out.

Just as a side note, the Vietnam War was still raging when I was born and ended when I was a small child. I was struck only a few days ago how my own young daughter will be experiencing such a similar situation with yet another foreign American war splashed throughout the media. I then wondered if her children may very well be born into something comparable in the future.

Hate to say it but when this whole thing started I told supporters of the war the end result was going to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. This is one time I wish I had been wrong.

The results of this as it stands are going to be felt for years. It has been for a while now not a matter of success, just a matter of how soon till the troops pull out and if the region is going to be stable enough to survive.

Sadly it doesn't look good. it was a blunder and it seems all that can be done now is try to sweep it under the rug and figure out who catches the blame for this. Without chances for relection Bush is likely to catch the Lion's share and most people will think that is only right. The man gained no friends in his years in office with the wider world. However the US congress and the supporters of the war should probably have equal shares as he could not and did not carry it out alone.

Mr. Champ,
You said: “In his speech, Lugar suggests moving to a "sustainable military posture," code for removing U.S. troops from the battlefield into much more of a support role.”
What does Mr. Lugar mean by ""sustainable military posture,"? Does he mean the Americans troops should stay in the Permanent Military Bases they have built in Iraq the first day they invaded the country? What is the position of the Democrats on that? Do they want to keep the American troops in those bases as well?
I think both parties are facing the same dilemma. They are afraid from discussing this plan now because they are not sure of the outcome of the current events militarily and politically.
If both parties are going in the same direction "sustainable military posture" and I think they are; that means nothing will change! The resistance will continue against them over there in the bases. Unless the Americans planning to hide behind the walls of the bases and bomb the Iraqi with SMART BOMBS in the cities and villages, saying we are fighting the terrorists who are hiding between the civilians!!! Another hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilian’s casualties!!!
It is the American way!!!!