Joe, you are a good writer and a Great American.

Some small discrepancies with your theory.

1. Timeline will make the bad guys hang out until we have decided to tell everyone when we will leave.

2. In my humble opinion, the "insurgency" is being degraded substanionally. Every week, it is disrupted and challenged.
We are beating their ass.

3. Never let your political agenda cloud the truth.
Either way, what is right is right.

Thanks

jimbolio

1. Exactly my point. Timetables are irrelevant.

It's the cockroach theory. Cockroaches don't know when I'm coming into the kitchen for a midnight snack or when I'm leaving to bed. Light on, they scatter. Lights off, they come back. I've got news..they're coming back and the Pentagon knows it.

2. We never lost a major battle in Vietnam either. This is assymetrical warfare. Wins and losses are measured whether we decide to let the public know or not. We are "bowling in the dark". Does the insurgency have an airforce, a navy, or a HQ to destroy...you get the picture.

In the end history shows that he who is willing to take more losses will win. Still trying to figure out the noble cause though. At last count this war has managed to kill, maim, torture, and destroy as many folks and infrastructure in a few years as Saddam did in his entire career.

"Commtting suicide to prevent a murder" someone once said. Time will tell. Time will tell. But history has pretty much told this story already.

I agree with Joe Duran as to the danger of the open-endedness of the US' apparent commitment to the war in and occupation of Iraq. Perhaps announcing a time-table for withdrawal would be a bad idea, but if our government is actually planning to stay until "all is well," we are in deep trouble.

As Joe points out, a new generation of Iraquis is being born now, into an occupation. As time goes by these children will grow into a generation of angry nationalists who have known nothing other than forced obedience to a foreign power. Have we learned nothing from the experience in Palectine? Whether our government wants to admit it publicly or not, we need a clear strategy to withdraw. And soon. Time flies and kids grow up. And observe. And learn.

Good posts!

Seems I might be the one on the "party line" a bit.

Not a student of history, but I know we will eventually be leaving and when we do, there needs to be less of the guys who run the insurgency. We need to ensure that our mates' work is not in vain. Iraq will not ever be a democracy like we have, but it will be different from what was here previously. We will all be better off.

Timeline.... guess I'm gonna bail a bit on that one. Still don't think we should advertise one. Like "when is the next election?"

That type of thing....

I agree with jimbolio – advertising a timeline is not only a bad idea for the reasons he states, but also because world events, specifically events in the mideast, could cause a change to an arbitrary timeline.

I can’t help but see the need for the flexibility to adapt to an unstable world. Wouldn’t a timeline be too stringent? Wouldn’t our hands be tied to a timeline?

This talk about a timeline makes me think of Korea:

U.S. involvement in the Korean War began sometime in 1950 and history books tell us the war ended in 1953. I remember reading somewhere that in 2004, in order to free up U.S. forces for deployment elsewhere (Iraq?), the U.S. made an agreement with the South Korean government to withdraw about 12,000 of the approximate 37,000 U.S. troops by 2008.

Whether I remember that agreement correctly or not is not as relevant as the fact that the U.S. military presence has been in Korea since the war – that’s over 50 years!

Should we use this “timeline” as a model for Iraq?

dirizarr

Joe, It’s funny you bring up the cockroach theory. I’ve done some thinking about this cockroach theory - based on personal experience. I'd like to share my thoughts:

Most folks I know view roaches as nasty little creatures: they hate roaches. Only a cockroach can love a cockroach (ok, perhaps an entomologist and an exteminator may really like them, but love?). At the site of the first roach in a home it’s not uncommon for the resident to chase after that roach, perhaps with a shoe, and smack it with such a might that it’s guts are squash out. The mess gets cleaned up and all is fine until…another roach is sighted. As you well know, where there’s one roach, there is usually a whole battalion of roaches. The resident has several options which can be narrowed down to 2: learn to live with them, or attempt to get rid of them.

Learning to live with them is not a real option because they can reproduce so quickly and they tend to hide in spots that are difficult to see, and they are….well, let’s just say they are vile.

An attempt to get rid of them usually begins, as mentioned already, with a shoe: if and when that doesn’t work, we kick it up a notch and get some pesticide from the corner shop which usually works for a while. The next step is to visit the big hardware store and get the professional grade stuff. Eventually, the resident may have to hire a professional to rid his home of these pests.

It’s easier to rid a new home of roaches as opposed to an older home probably because in older homes roaches can be embedded in the house behind walls and in attics, after years of building their communities and laying their eggs all over the place.

If a newer home does not conduct periodic maintenance they too may end up the same as the older home. In other words, the best a resident can do to lessen the chances of having their home infested with roaches is to take preventative measures because once the home is infested, the elimination of roaches is extremely difficult, very expensive and requires a lot patience.

I’ve known a few residents who preferred to just move out and let somebody else deal with the problem. Interesting what a cockroach can do.

dirizarr

Great post Dan. Hoorah!!

I'm not so sure I would:

1. Choose to bankrupt my family,

2. Let my children go without health insurance,

and

3. Leave my home unprepared for a national disaster

just to be in a situation that the president once said was "unwinnable". (Making our way back from the bug analogy to the sports analogy - its' almost dinner time.)

He did say that right? He may have gotten one right after all. Good for him and good to hear from you.

S/F

Please check out the Work-At-Home-Mom Section under Flavia's excellent "Fast Food - We Can Do Better" piece.

Then click Parent's Action For Children (even if you are not a parent).

You do not have to be in a war-zone to save a life. This is your chance to take a second and take action.

"How lovely to think that no one need wait a moment, we can start now, slowly changing the world!"
-- Anne Frank

Go there, what are ya'll waiting for!

Focus
Regardless of your feelings on the decision to go to war in Iraq, we are there. We are committed and we have people putting their lives on the line every single day.

We need to keep our focus. It is an ugly business. It needs to be done. We need to concentrate on punishing the folks who want to kill indiscriminately and run violently amuck.

Some believe that the military should be a "Nation Builder."

Wrong. The military is designed to kill the enemy. To take the fight to them. To punish them and make them want to stop fighting or die.

Too many resources and too many brain cells are wasted on things that take away from this purpose.

It is a Focus we need. A focus on what we were designed to do.

Everything else is just a diversion.

Focus you are a good American that wants what is best for our country. So do I.

But let me ask you to critique my thought process here:

If someone pointed to a man and told me that he just burned down my house, I would assuredly forget my Christian upbringing and at the very least, punch him senseless, again, at the very least. If, after punching him, I was just told that it wasn't him after all, would I continue to punch him, burn his house down, and take his money because I "was there"? Heck no, I would stop punching him (he is already down) and go after the SOB that actually did it. What would you do?

I was raised to boil things down to one real simple question: Is it right, or is it wrong? Most of us were raised that way and I admire your resolve. I just think it's ill-placed and at a huge cost we can't afford while our security level has actually dropped. I assure you, not too many brain cells are used up answering that question. Its actually pretty easy for me. No spin. No propaganda. No problem. Call me simple.

Look, I can tell you want to capture/kill Osama, take care of the network that did this, and eradicate terrorism all over the world..So do I. But by the goverments own estimates, over 90% of the fighters are nationalist or sectarian, fighting to get us out of their country. Less than 7% are foriegn fighters.

In the end we only have so many troops and so much firepower. Meanwhile we have China, Iran, Korea, and God knows where else to contend with. Meanwhile our ports are unprotected, our borders are open, and our people are stretched thin.

I know you have played RISK before, but this is the part were we've extended in the wrong direction, missing the enemy's center of gravity. I assure you it is not Iraq. To make things even worse, our victory may very well buy an Iranian influenced theocracy, if not now, then certainly in the next decade. So in the end, the focus you desire is not even really had by the folks you thought would be standing with you on this.

Good assessment on what troops do, but bad assessment on the people who lead them and the strategy we've employed. As much as this enlisted man has to say this: I have to agree with the Generals' on this one. We need to focus on having a real winning strategy worthy of the troops who execute that strategy.

Pentagon: Iraq Troop Reductions On Way
U.S. Could Be Down to 100,000 By End of Year
By JONATHAN KARL

April 26, 2006 — As the top U.S. commander in Iraq suggested today that the United States will soon reduce the number of troops in Iraq, Pentagon planners tell ABC News they hope to pull more than 30,000 troops out by the end of the year, and possibly by as early as November. The reductions depend on political and security progress in Iraq.

-Sounds like the makings of a timeline to me. Funny what a little drop in polls can do.

..but I'm being cynical about the polls. I have no idea what they are thinking. I guess I can trust them and believe they are drawing down because we are "kicking their ass" and meeting a secret criteria, but we always seems to be kicking ass around November. November is always such an important month for these guys. I don't know. Makes me scratch my head. I thought the drawdown had to do with the training of the ISF but at last count we were way behind. But now that I'm thinking about it, they didn't say we were leaving, just reducing troops. I would think we would need more. Clear and hold. Or not. What they're doing is as clear as mud. Can anyone venture the guess as to the strategy or plan?

I can't argue the point that their isn't a bit of confusion by some in charge regarding the mission focus in Iraq, nor can I speak to the idea that there are many other threats in the world. What I can say is that much of the conjecture surrounding the war in Iraq is politically based. There are some sharp leaders who do have a focus and try to take it to the enemy every day. Then....there are the others. The folks who waste everyones time and effort by politicizing the war. Those who bend figures to fit the political ideaology they associate themselves with, to sustain their arguments. There is no question in my mind that we are doing good things in Iraq. Regardless of how we got started, or really what the eventual outcome will be, it will be bent to fit the election speeches of the folks who are invested in themselves and their political leanings. The truth about the war is held individually in everyones experiences with how it touches them. There is no doubt that political leaders make mistakes. There is no doubt that in the flexible crazy environment we call war, people err. There is also no doubt the the troops do well at whatever they are asked to do. Finally, there is no doubt, that sadly, people will politicize all of those things to serve their needs. War and death is passionate. Watch it get used. It speaks to the failure of some leaders in our society to conduct themselves with dignity and to treat others with respect.

I can't argue the point that their isn't a bit of confusion by some in charge regarding the mission focus in Iraq, nor can I speak to the idea that there are many other threats in the world. What I can say is that much of the conjecture surrounding the war in Iraq is politically based. There are some sharp leaders who do have a focus and try to take it to the enemy every day. Then....there are the others. The folks who waste everyones time and effort by politicizing the war. Those who bend figures to fit the political ideaology they associate themselves with, to sustain their arguments. There is no question in my mind that we are doing good things in Iraq. Regardless of how we got started, or really what the eventual outcome will be, it will be bent to fit the election speeches of the folks who are invested in themselves and their political leanings. The truth about the war is held individually in everyones experiences with how it touches them. There is no doubt that political leaders make mistakes. There is no doubt that in the flexible crazy environment we call war, people err. There is also no doubt the the troops do well at whatever they are asked to do. Finally, there is no doubt, that sadly, people will politicize all of those things to serve their needs. War and death is passionate. Watch it get used. It speaks to the failure of some leaders in our society to conduct themselves with dignity and to treat others with respect.

Is it possible that those in favor of running us up to this war, starting this war, and prolonging this war also have political motivations as well as those that are their opposites? And why is it that some good folks sometimes think they are conviction driven and those that oppose thier viewpoint have been contaminated with the media or with "other people's politics" - "duped" "manipulated" "brainwashed" "drank the kool-aid"? Human nature perhaps?

I have grown enough since I began discussing this with good people to know that my opposite in this debate is just as conviction driven as I am, as smart as picking through the propoganda and real news...

(yes there is real news --there is an objective truth for those who care to see it)

...as I am, and just happens to come to a different conclusion because they started at a different place - we all do.

In the end for me, and I believe this (I wasn't told to believe this): it comes down to trust. It comes down to accountability. It comes down to always seeking a better way and not settling for "thats just the way it is". For lack of more sophisticated imagery it comes down to calling the BS card. Some people call it on the politicos and media. Some call it on the policies, plan, rationales, and assurances. Some call it on all of 'em and more. We all probably feel that is our bottom line, we just don't trust the same rationales, the same people, and the same outcomes for leaving and staying.

And I don't think people who disagree with me are any less worthy of thier opinions than I am.

Respectfully Submitted.

I submit that the self-serving folks in ANY political party or military organization are to blame. It is very compelling to hear people who were in power before 9/11 deride the Bush administration (who I didn't vote for) for invading Iraq. Under the previous administration, there were people of the same mind and had the same intel. Now it is being skewered for political gain.

It is frustrating to me that most folks don't know this. It is frustrating when the people who are in a position to make a substantial difference in the lives of those closest to the war, spend their energy bad mouthing others instead of coming up with a plan and pushing it to the forefront. You gotta respect a guy like Rep. Murtha, or Senator Schumer. They have propsed ideas. I might not agree with them, or maybe I do, but at least it is a constructive bit of thinking.

I will try to sum it up better.

Let's get to working on a positive outcome regardless of what political party comes up with it. Let's try to identify with clear thinking and resolution as opposed to petty insults and small minded blame games. Both parties are responsible.

We waste much in the way of $$ and time.

Inclusion vice seclusion.

I agree. I would even go so far as to suggest that Bush 1 had it right to stop when and where he did. He did it the right way. I did not beleive SH was an imminenent threat. Nor do I beleive that our actions made life better for the people of Iraq or have made us safer. Just becuase Clinton may have thought he was dangerous and W too doesn't make it so. Mr. Murtha and those like him in positions of authority who give alternate plans deserve a listen to. The rest of us are just armchair quarterbacks, but whose opinions and voices are just as important, if not more so, because men and women like Jack and Chuck represent us as flawed as we are.

You may be right about SH being less of a threat than he was perceived by our intelligence agencies. However, if that is all the proof we had and again, our intel agencies are rarely checked on, who could blame either administration for invading. Armchair Q-backing is way easier after the fact. Believe me, I do my fair share.

I disagree that the Iraqi people are worse off. No doubt that this war has taken its toll on the Iraqi people, but their own inability to control their country is truly at fault. We do share the blame, as do the apathetic people and their governements who took advantage of the Iraqi people and did nothing to help them.

I truly believe that no real problem solving comes from killing people. It is like ramming a stick in the wound to stop the bleeding.

When it comes time to kill each other, all the intellectuals in the world have failed.

I resent them.

They are the first to criticize and the last to contribute to solving anything. They look down their nose at guys like me.

All truly motivated leaders who have an idea motivated by something other than self promotion deserve a listen.

Remember Vaclav Havel? The "Velvet Revolution?"

Problem is, they don't really sell much on the nightly news.

Blood, guts, drama, death and failure get peoples passions stirred up and signed on.

Ever watch Al Jazeera? Don't think we are far off.

When people need information to make informed decisions about who to vote for, or who to perceive as a threat, both organizations who provide that information suffer from a lack of accountability.

They need to be accountable.

Also....

you are pretty damn correct as to the "safer" idea.

when we can drop thousands of lbs. of food and water to the Afghan people, create clean water systems for whole towns in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and then our own citizens are left out in the elements to suffer during a hurricane, we really need to start looking at the meaning of "safe."

No WAY to argue that point Joe. No WAY.

By the way, didn't all those who should be helf accountable for that immense failure, hide behind their political party and point their fingers at the elected officials from the other party?

Jimbolio, we have to get off our armchairs, work together, and get things done. God will have his day of judgement, but that doesn't mean we have to stand by and watch the decay of every level of government. Thank goodness for Citizen Hunter to begin the process of returning this country to the very hands that made her great in the first place. Business as usual? I don't think so!!!