[mburbank]

"My "victory" would include a secure and Democratic Iraq, even if it's a bit more theocratic than our own government. I'm willing to include a more or less permanent American military presence there, much like as we have in any other country we've ever defeated in war within the last 100 years, but I'm unwilling to include a "Democratic" Iraq existing as a puppet state of Iran."
-preech

Laudible goals. How do you think we could achieve them short of re-occupying Iraq officially with a much larger force? If that's what you are advocating, I think that's a defensible position. I also think we won't do it. I don't see any other path toward a stable, even vaguely democratic Iraq. There is no army or police force to 'stand up' that is a 'unity' force. The 'unity' government is currently unable to function without the support of Shiite seperatists and Iranian puppets.

I have a laudible personal goal. I want to be able to fly and have lasrer vision. I recognize these goals are impossible, and so I have recently stopped having intercourse with my microwave in the hopes the radiation will give me super powers. I did it for quite some time because my golas were so laudible, but after I got testicular cancer, I decided not only was it never going to work, it was really hurting me.

" What do you call defeat?"

You need to be more speciffic. Defeat in Iraq? Defeat in the 'war on terror'? Defeat for the human race? I think we are defeated in Iraq, and I think that was prettty much doomed to happen from the moment we went in with no post invasion strategy. I don't see how we can pull out a victory without retaking Iraq and holding it. The British has mixed success with this for a number of years before crashing and burning. We might be able to do better. But short of a new and unashamed colonial atttude, I don't see a path to 'victory'.

'This is the War on Terror, and if we quit fighting it before Terror as a method of political influence is totally rendered ineffective, it will necessarily remain as a tool to be wielded by those that would find it expedient to do so."

I can imagine a world where terror becomes far less politically effective, but I don't think we are on that path. I think so far we have made terror vastly more effective, in that Al Quaeda's immediate goals (as opposed to long term, pie in the sky goals) was the destabilization of the middle east, which we sort of gave them on a big old platter, right before we took our eye off the ball and let them have Afghanistan back. I think the big hammer approach has proved resoundingly ineffective. Now, if you are aupporting a much bigger hammer approach, again, that's an arguable position, but again, I don't think as a country we're going there. The size hammer we're using isn't working. I don't suggest walking away from terror at all. I suggest walking away from vast sectarian conflicts in order to concentreate on terrorist organizations. I suggest using the wealth we are currently using to support a humongous active army to offer carrots and sticks, perform police work, improve intelligence and infiltration and economically discourage any country that tolerates let alone supports terrorism. That approach certainly has it's weaknesses, but I haven't noticed a great deal of success in this approach. I might even support returning some of our army to Afghanistan, where we had something of a foothold back in the day.

I think if we are not willing to work with Iran and Syria (and I agree, that's highly distatsteful, but I also think it might be neccesary.) we need to put our cards on the table and say if you do not comply with our wishes we will destroy you. I'm against that. I don't think it woud work. But I'm absolutely certain that our current strategy of "You have to do what we say, or we'll engage you in a miserable, permanent war of attrition" Back later