Even though we are engaging in wishful thinking here, it is meaningless to propose a body like ICC: Bush and the neocons will simply see too large a chance for war crimes trials.

So do I, that is why I think it is appropriate. I think guys like bin Laden should be charged with crimes against humanity, I think that guys like Cheney should be tried for starting the war, as well. You can't have it both ways, we'd want someone who made a total mess of our country to go on trial too.

I think the Iraq study group did an alright job, but they neglect the guy on the street. It's all well and good to appease the 1400 year old battles, but the real problem is now, as they say in Urdu, khoon ka badla khoon -- blood begets blood. So many people have lost someone in violence. They brought the South Africans in to do Northern Ireland, maybe they'd be willing to try Iraq.

Congress, contrary to popular belief, is allowed to indulge in foreign policy, and in managing war efforts. The president has the power to negotiate treaties and is the commander in chief of the armed forces, but congress can regulate commerce, impose tariffs, raise armies, declare war, etc.

As for whether you know enough to suggest things, nobody has a clear picture of what to do right now, so there is no harm in making suggestions and seeing how they fly.

Certainly it will cost. We've spent a half a trillion so far, I can't see us getting out with any meaningful resolution for less than another half trillion. I wouldn't be surprised either if they didn't want us to be part of the planning. I also am not going to be surprised if we are asked to pay reparations, which means they have to let us negotiate. How we negotiate will determine how we start our road back to credibility.

I don't think it sells here at home for us not to specify our terms. My personal opinion is that the generals, this time around, will do what we want them to do, that was why I had thought that the Dems could bring them to the table if the had a reasonable plan. The military is really smarting from the lack of a "Phase IV" plan (the plan for after the invasion phase was complete). According to Thomas Ricks, the Phase IV plan was entrusted to Douglas Feith, and when the war began, consisted of 42 powerpoint slides. I gather they're supposed to be book length. My police idea was based on restoring order and stopping the silly idea that terrorism is something you go to war against. But maybe it will be resented.

Acknowledged. Like I said in the post to William, we don't get out of there for less than half a trillion. Like he said, we don't get out with much trust, and like you said, we don't get out of there without pain. As an occupying power, we are responsible for what goes on there law and order wise for a year after we leave, so it would still behoove us to put in place ways to minimize the ensuing mess that we will be responsible for, no matter how fast we go.

When we left Vietnam, it took two years before we were all the way out (73-75). And we would like to put somebody in charge, even somebody someone else picks, so we do need to think about it, don't we?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if anyone reads the article in the National Catholic Reporter, they again make the mistake of saying that the practice of rendition is a banned practice and defining it as "sending suspects to another country without regard for the torture that might await them there." The practice of sending prisoners to another country, knowing that that country will violate the conventions on torture, or because they will, is called extraordinary rendition. Rendition, is just the practice of transfering prisoners between countries, and is legal usually, and often referred to as extradition.

Sorry for harping on it, but the organization I belong to has a requirement that we educate on IHL, so I feel obligated.

...sorry if this has already been commented on, I haven't gotten through all the posts yet. Did anybody notice in the polls,

1) Look carefully at the Iranian/American poll, you will find that there seem to be a whole host of people we would call civilians that the Iranians apparently do not.

2) The rural Pakistanis (and to some extent the urban ones too) begged off on so many questions, there should have probably been some to determine why. Most American Muslims believe they might be under surveillance, how many Pakistanis do? (of course it could also be that a lot of rural people with no education feel they are unqualified to answer some questions).

3) 50% of Americans polled in 5/05 had never heard of the IAEA!

BTW, when half your respondents beg off on question after question, you should note that your margin of error for that country is not what it is overall. World Public Opinion didn't as far as I can tell.

American doctrine has always been response, not first use. First use may have been feared by others that didn't believe us and we may have even encouraged such fears, but it has not been offical doctrine.

It was NATO official doctrine throughout the cold war to an overwhelming tank attack from the Warsaw Pact. Since Europe was regarded by America as the primary theater, I don't know what you mean.