Wf = withdraw from Iraq as the facts on the ground permit

Strictly in terms of logistics, the facts on the ground don't prohibit a pullout of US forces, beginning this minute. It will takea while, logistics being what they are. But strictly in terms of the ability to begin to pack up and leave, nothing is there to stop us.

What other "facts on the ground" do you have in mind? Please be specific- I'm looking for facts, not abstractions.

The problem with a poll option like "withdraw from Iraq as the facts on the ground permit" is that it's so unclear and open-ended that interpreting its meaning is left entirely to the respondent.

What exactly constitutes the "restoration of civil order" is likewise subjective.

Furthermore, I can think of a number of other countries where civil order is undeniably in unsatisfactory shape, and has been for a long time- and the USA feels no particular obligation to put those societies in order at riflepoint. Given that fact, what makes it so imperative to forcibly pacify the internecine quarrels of Iraqis?

I realize that US negligence enabled the disruption of civil society that empowered the extremist factions battling there- but beyond that, they are internal disputes. Any response we can make is inherently uncomprehending of their etiology; the most US forces have been able to do is to react on an ad hoc basis to various flareups; cobbling together alliances of convenience that are temporary at best, ephemeral, illusory or deceptive at worst- typically with bribes and graft. We can do that much without the need for troops on the ground.

I think that as long as we keep a large military contingent in Iraq, the Iraqis are bound to play us more effectively than we can play them off against each other. They'll get better at doing so, and we'll simply stay bewildered.

I also realize that the US has material responsibility to help repair the damaged infrastructure and public works in Iraq on behalf of the Iraqi people (not merely the inhabitants of the Green Zone, and its satellite bases.) But it long ago became obvious that repairing the infrastructure and public works is approximately 100% dependent on the civil strife coming to a halt first. We've wasted billions over there, maybe tens of billions, on failed projects and outright contractor scams already. It makes much more sense to pull out, cut off reconstruction aid, and use the resumption of the aid as a "carrot" that's dependent on the warring internal factions laying down their weapons and putting aside their animosities first.

It's possible that there's an argument for US or UN bases in Northern Iraq/Kurdistan- a population hemmed in on all sides that has historically been a punching bag by every more powerful neighboring group that borders them. But as for the rest of it- let the warring sides slug it out if they're bound and determined to do so, and hope that they snap out of it, once they're miserable and hungry enough.

Give the militants full bagloads of bullets, and empty sacks of food and empty boxes of building supplies. Tell them that those supply priorities could easily be reversed.

That's why I qualified my comment with the modifier "begin to withdraw."

I said that nothing is stopping us from leaving; I didn't say there wouldn't be anything slowing us down.

it long ago became obvious that repairing the infrastructure and public works is approximately 100% dependent on the civil strife coming to a halt first.

I should add that for at least some of us, including myself, "long ago" means prior to March of 2003.

I'm not saying this to boast of my powers of precognition. The question is how it could possibly be that it wasn't apparent to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or to any of the other top-ranking officials and advisers who ultimately planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I get what you're saying. And you've put a lot of food for thought up there.

One factor that does help matters is that Iran is developed enough to have a large and influential portion of the population that has no interest in getting into a hot war- not even one over on the other side of the border. A lot of Iranians have a good life, day to day. They're educated and reasonably well-off. Some of them even remember the weariness that comes over a land locked in a long-lasting state of war. That fraction of the populace is very disinclined to become desperate, alienated extremist fodder- even as collateral damage or through deprivation.

If what Jon B. Eisenberg alleges is substantially true, I can't imagine how it is that Department of Justice employees like Anthony Coppolino, Erin Hogarty, and Thomas Bondy aren't abandoning their presently ordained roles as toadys for George W. Bush, in order to break this case wide open.

Presumably, they took an oath of office to protect the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic- not an oath to collaborate in a secrecy state protecting criminal acts in high office.

Sometimes it's imperative for people to snap out of their routine focus, drop their thralldom to the impostures of hierarchy, consider what is actually happening on their watch, and take responsibility.

Is it more likely that the sky is going to fall without a surveillance state based on the dictatorial whim of the US chief executive's Will To Power- or that the rule of law in this country is going to succumb to the dry rot of apathy, and unthinking fealty to the Fuhrerprinzip?

Time for a revolt of the guards- before it's too late.