You talk about throwing away resources. If we leave before the job is done the we are literaly throwing away all the work we have done over there. All the money spent and all the lives lost would of been for nothing

Nathan,

I don't think we want to do that....if it became apparent to people in the Middle East that we are there to stay, that would get bad real fast. And we just don't have the manpower for an endeavor like that. Right now, the Army is really stressed, both physically and emotionally. A full-out occupation in the face of tremendous opposition would surely break it....unless we brought back the draft??? And, not to mention, our military is just not best designed for this type of mission. It nullifies so many of our technological advantages.

Gix, I understand that. But, you have to be pragmatic and look at the bigger picture. How much more are you willing to spend on this? All this effort doesn't come for free. What's done is done. We have an obligation to Iraq. But, we also have to look out after our best interests. And if our efforts in Iraq amount to just kicking the can down the road, then I can't believe that staying is in our best interests.

How can terroist having any more power be in our best interest?

Well, you have to remember two things about the war in Iraq:
1) Much of our effort is not directed at "terrorist" per say, but, rather, trying to maintain peace between the many factions in Iraq. And this is not what our troops train to do.
2) There are other ways to fight terrorism. A large overt presence in the heart of the Middle East is not the best way, IMHO.

You mean like it wasn't Frances job to risk any lives to help us win our War of Independence? This is basically what they're fighting for over there you know? Iran and Syria having been supporting this so-called "insurgency" from the beginning with hopes of making Iraq so weak that when we left they could waltz in and take over. So expecting the Iraqi's to win this war without any more help from us is kind of like if the French had shown up to our war and then in the heat of battle backed their ships out of the harbor and watched from a safe distance. We're either committed to helping these people win their independence from Iran and Syria, or we're not. Which is it?

Of course, you still think you can "buy" peace with these folks.

Kix, I've explained to you many times the other more covert (both kinetic and non-kinetic) and effective ways to fight terrorism.....I'm not going to waste my breath on it anymore.

Storm great terminology but as with all things the war on terror doesn't follow a linear plan of attack. It asemtric and you can think of iraq not as the war on terror but a peice or compratment of the war on terror. Each compratment requires it's own needs and carries it's own unique circumstances.

So what works in one compartment will not work in another. If that where the case then you would think that all the terrorist problems could be solved by a single seal team and a few casas of ammo. im sorry my friend it doesn't work that way. And in all honesty i dont thing it works in any kind of instance.

This is not a franchise system................

That's good because I was really getting tired of your Neville Chamberlain styled speeches.