and besides, we're never going to commit 500,000+ troops to Iraq -- even if we had them -- and I suspect that estimated number of troop needed is woefully below what a revised estimate would be today. Even with a draft effective immediately, take years to "secure" Iraq, at costs unfathomable to both sides.

We have to declare our intention to leave, promise to leave, and prepare to leave, then we will have to opened the door for other help to be forthcoming ... we have poisoned the well ... now, we have to "get out of the way" as our presence only perpetuates and worsens the deadlock.

As it is, the daily Iraqi casualities appear to be only very minimally affected by our presence, see the surge results, the "gains" of which were extracted at very high cost to civilian freedoms, depending on sectoring cities with walls, restrciting vehicular traffic to virtually none, and causing extreme hardship and limitation of movement on the population. I don't think these hideous measures are sustainable or "part of the solution" ...

those daily Iraqi casualty figures add up to something dreadful ... and, as I said, in many ways our presence precludes alternatives.

There's no "happy ending." There is, imho, likely to be turmoil for decades -- whether we stay or go -- but like a burr under the saddle, a foreign occupation is a constant irritant and toxic element. As under colonialism, collaboration with the occupier corrupts and distorts ... particularly in an impoverished environment with massive unemployment which, in essence, creates prostitutes or collaborators out of people simply trying to put food on the table. ... and we're still "fighting the bad guys" -- perhaps a genuine peacekeeping force could do some good... by many reports the impending "humanitarian disaster" is arriving -- the spread of cholera in a malnourished population lacking clean water, refrigeration and working sewers is the result of years of neglect -- ON OUR WATCH -- and we're still playing cowboys and indians and saying these things have to wait for the security situation to improve -- well, they can't wait any more.

The internal displacement is massive and will -- in and of itself -- have consequences for decades. But, on the "bright side", violence does wane as "ethnic cleansing" removes obvious targets/"victims" and areas become homogeneous.

IMHO, the situation is already spiraling out of control with us there ... and the American dead-enders see progress under every rock ... No, I don't think we can physically "pick-up and leave" at a dead run, it will take some time ... but declaring our intention and promise to leave Iraq for the Iraqis is where we need to start, imho, and today, we're still MILES from that point.

...

He made what I thought was interesting analogy/observation that TeamBush act as if the war were somehow on TIVO ... they can eventually recognized past errors, but they seem to think they can inject "what they should have done" in the present ... when in fact, the time and the war has moved on ...

I think wrt to good intentions and moral obligations toward "preventing genocide," etc. -- that window of opportunity closed quite a while back. I think it is too bad that Petraeus (or someone else well versed in occupation/insurgency management) was not tapped earlier -- it might well have made a difference -- but THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

All of the candidates have drunk massive quantities of koolaid ... look how they equivocate when asked what their plans for "getting out" of Iraq might look like ... "too early to tell" is both reasonable and an utterly prevaricating UNREASONABLE dodge.

Has anyone come mentioned the absurd contradiction of trying to fight the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR with GUNS or bombs (which seems to generate "enemies" faster than we can kill them) ... or that "terror" is a tactic and that "terrorism" is most often carried out by autonomous cadres or cells, with or without technical or financial assist, with "masterminds" extremely few and far between.

Whatever -- let's have hearings ... maybe we can get someone to outline our "mission" in Iraq at this point ... since I'm still confused about "how will we know when we've won?" and "when we win, THEN can we go home?" and other conundrums ...

I think we are approaching another monumental "CREDIBILITY GAP" ... which unfortunately threatened to engulf ALL the candidates. I'm disgusted. However, assuming that just because you didn't like their answer, somehow they misunderstood the question or are waiting to give the RIGHT answer AFTER (1) they find their cojones (2) poll numbers support them (3) Bush is out of office, IMHO, is wishful, bordering on "magical" thinking ...

These people ARE the ESTABLISHMENT.

concentrate on stopping what he believe is an impending attack on Iran ...

available on commondreams and

http://www.truthdig.com/

It's long ... I have to re-read it and follow links for sourcing ...

I've never wished I was a bear and could hibernate all winter before .....

Thanks Scott

in the meantime, the GOP ran off with farm by claiming instead that something called "family values" are paramount ... and the Democrats are STILL trying to prove their worthiness wrt the GOP agenda.

In fact, "class warfare" is very much underway, using tactics like school vouchers, charter schools, faith based initiative and privatization ... etc.

I still find people -- all the time -- who gasp at the notion that national healthcare is --- oh my god -- socialism ...

And though they work themselves to death for fewer perks and security than their (gasp) socialist counterparts in Europe, they insist FREEDOM (to work 60 hour work weeks) trumps SECURITY except when it comes to that ultimate boondoggle the GWOT and Homeland Security.

The Democratic party is trying to win with both hands in their pockets.... like Gore's gentlemanly acceptance of Florida and Kerry's gentlemanly defeat in Ohio ... If the democratic party won't fight for the VOTES they actually RECEIVED ... and for election reform, etc.... gee, what point is there in these contests?