I've long advocated option 2 in your list of possibilities.  I've yet to see/read a substantive argument that would definitively mitigate it's potential advantages.  Still, it'll be particularly interesting to see what the likes of Mansoor and McMaster are able to offer the President, courtesy of Peter Pace.  Despite the high profile of the ISG, I suspect that the President may not settle for their recommendations.  Meanwhile, it'll be equally fascinating to see if the democratic Senate attempts to flex it's muscles, particularly Biden (Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and Levin (Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee) try to force their respective agendas through.

 

The discussion needs to move forward.  We've been thwarted in achieving all our ambitions.  I don't believe that our nation has suffered any serious damage, however.  We do suffer from a malaise of informed discussion about our real objectives and the relevance of the current battlefields to those goals.  I personally expect us to occasionally alter course in these uncertain waters.  This is new diplomatic territory in my estimation.  So, too, the challenges faced by our military.  We retain the disadvantages/requirements posed by significant regional conventional threats while facing the emergence of a variety of assymetric philosophies of conflict.  As such, fits and starts may be an acceptable by-product of the times.  To not, however, attempt a coherant and vigorous attempt to really place the prevailing issues in an appropriate national security and bi-partisan context hurts us all.

 

We've both unrealized opportunities and newly discovered limitations that we must better understand.  Any actions taken in Iraq will certainly have broad regional and even global implications.  I've tossed my two cents worth but most here seem to prefer discussing the back n' forth of blame.  I guess there must remain some political or egotistical capital to be had from that type of discussion.  For me, though, WMD or the latest findings of Lancet/IBC, etx. (as example) is a waste of time.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course there is another option which will decrease the violence quickly and that is an increase in American troops (100-200,000more) or a broadening of the international coalition.  These options though are unrealistic due to the deep state of denial the Bushies are in.  Since Rumsfeld was too proud to ask for more help from the international community and too stubborn to admit his forces were too light we are left with the five options I have listed. All of them will eventually lead to a decrease in violence as one side has to win, or they both wear each other down.  All wars end, but this one will end in a way not to our liking.  

 

If a complete, 100% verified, accounting of Iraqi WMD's, the overthrow and capture of Saddam Hussein, and free, fair, nationwide elections across Iraq equals a complete lack of planning, or basically nothing, under these current circumstances, then what makes your plan(s) even remotely logical? 

 

Well, according to many on this board we don’t have a 100% accounting of Iraqi WMD.  At any rate the threat posed by Iraq was small in comparison to the carnage that has been unleashed by the war.  You still want to still make that weak argument that Saddam was some kind of dire threat (and Sadr and Iran aren’t), go right ahead.   As for the elections, the first one was boycotted by the Sunnis so it was hardly nationwide or fair.  The second one was pre-ordained as to who would win, and well the elections did not usher in a new era of freedom nor could they stem the violence.  The overthrow of Saddam was the singular accomplishment of this war, though it hardly seems worth it.  He will be killed soon and he will be martyred.    

 

 Your plans are flawed in that it costs money to move the green zone and we still get what we've got. Of course the move could affect poll numbers; apparently most important to success... It would also please Al Sadr and his goons over at the health ministry, which is really important too; we need to stay on the good side of that fountain of reliable information.

 

  It costs money to do anything, and who said anything about moving

You've gotta admit, it's an interesting position to hold, one where every single US and Iraqi govt plan or action is judged by the (almost complete) pacification of Baghdad -nay- the entire country of Iraq- and your 5 plans are actually built upon "allowing" an unabated continuance of the violence.

I was being facetious when I said allow the Sunnis and Shiites to kill each other.  I don’t believe as many do that the violence in Iraq will increase after an American withdrawal.  The air will be taken out of much of the Sunni insurgency and they may cut a deal.  We are currently a scapegoat for the Iraqis. Anytime something goes wrong they blame the US, they want us out so let us accede to their wishes.  They will be forced to bring order or perish.  We have trained enough Iraqis in the army to give the government something of a fighting chance, so we don’t need 140,000 troops there that can’t provide security.

 

 

Of course you were, Which is why the un-funny, current plan is the only one that might work... all goofballs are facetious (believe me, I know). What other state of mind could you be in when you claim that; or when you claim the the Iraqi govt is helpless to curb the violence, and then you say that they stand a fighting chance just hours later. Of course we're scapegoats (although usually for not providing security) Most Arab govts need a scapegoat to keep doing what they do best....You don't actually consider Arab governments a reliable source of information, do you???  Do you think our leaving will decrease the violence? Who is your scapegoat?

Screw the violence, there's a curious crowd going about their daily business at the scene of every insurgent battle. I say we stay and try to end up with an ally in charge of that counrty..The violence in Iraq only moderatley affects the definition of success in Iraq as it pertains to America. It's hardly a lynch pin or the most important measure of success. We stay because Iraq is a short drive from Iran....there's so much more to come.

You don't actually consider Arab governments a reliable source of information, do you???  Do you think our leaving will decrease the violence? Who is your scapegoat?

Well if Arab governments are not reliable sources of information how is one going to become a reliable ally?  Not only do Arab governments exaggerate but Arab exiles do too (Saddam has WMD, a nuclear program, ties to al Qaeda etc.), so I don't know how reliable any intelligence coming out of an Arab government is going to be.

 

Our leaving may or may not decrease the violence I don't know for sure, nobody does, but our presence there has certainly not decreased the violence. For the most part the Iraqis seem oblivious to our presence except to blame us when things go wrong (As in they continue killing each other despite the presence of American troops), or to take potshots at us. 

 

My scapegoat is Bush and Rumsfeld, they are terrible managers and allowed much of the violence to escalate needlessly...we had a window of opportunity to really change Iraq, in the early goings of the occupation, the vast majority of Iraqis were willing to give us a shot, instead Bush filled the CPA with political lackeys who cared little for Iraq, and Rumsfeld denied for over a year that an insurgency was taking place.

 

 

 

 At least 3700 civilians died last month, and the new government is helpless to stop the violence.

 

 

 

"A figure of 3,700 civilian deaths in October, given by the United Nations last week based on data from the Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue, was branded grossly exaggerated by the Iraqi government." --Reuters

 

 

 The government of Iraq states that the number of dead civilians given to the UN by the government of Iraq or subsidiaries thereof, are grossly exaggerated.  How?  Why?  What number of civilians were killed in October?  What number will be released for November that the government will almost certainly disown?  Reuters has nearly 2,000 killed, and they are usually off by a third of the "official" numbers.  So 6,000 killed in November, 4,000, or merely 3,000?  All civilian casualty numbers reported in the newspapers or by the UN have one source---the Iraqi government.  That the Iraqi government subsequently disowns the numbers because they make it look bad, doesn't mean those people didn't die.  Dead bodies are easy to count and are powerful evidence and cannot be merely explained away .  Just ask OJ, or Saddam.

 

  

The government of Iraq states that the number of dead civilians given to the UN by the government of Iraq or subsidiaries thereof, are grossly exaggerated.  How?  Why?  What number of civilians were killed in October?  What number will be released for November that the government will almost certainly disown?  .  That the Iraqi government subsequently disowns the numbers because they make it look bad, doesn't mean those people didn't die. 

 

 

 

 Reuters has nearly 2,000 killed, and they are usually off by a third of the "official" numbers.  So 6,000 killed in November, 4,000, or merely 3,000?  All civilian casualty numbers reported in the newspapers or by the UN have one source---the Iraqi government. (now you're catchin' on!)

 

If by 'official' you mean "grossly exaggerated" then no, the number would be "nearly 2000"