Replies

"Where is this bringing the troops home being impossible or damaging coming from?"

armymarinedad gives an excellent answer; I would just like to add a response; or two to your question.

We do not come home now; because the terrorists would declare 'victory'. They would be empowered; embolded and renewed by our 'weakness'; our lack of resolve.

We cannot, in any way, serve the goals of Islamic terrorism.

We stay; and stabilize. . .and we fight like hell to do it, because it is the right thing to do.

. . .and yes, the 'oil thing' is important; important to us, as it is important to our enemies.

In short, we stay, because that is precisely what our terrorist enemies do not want us to do.

Right on compatriot!

My only questions are:

1. On what basis does any person who has any knowledge at all of the people who live there provide an estimate that any government that is formed will actually LAST. The 1950s are a clue into what will happen once we phase out our presence -- Communists (just about the ONLY locals who welcomed us in fervently -- did you see the NBC footage of a mob of Communists waving the party flag?), Baathist factions (Saddam held together a party structure that was deeply divided before he consolidated power), Shiite factions (and there are many), Kurdish factions, etc. are always going to be at each other's throats. Hundreds of thousands died in the 1950s and early 1960s civil war and chaos that helped the Baath come to power. Any semblence of stability and stabilization is only because we are going to be keeping 100,000 ground troops in the country through 2006 at least (the latest operational plan according to Washington papers). Are we really going to be there at that scale for 58 years -- like Germany?

2. Courtesy of the defense "buildown" of the Clinton years, we now do not have the effective force capable of keeping that level of commitment and confronting a far more serious danger -- North Korea. President Bush declared war on 3 countries in Jan. 2002 (it is irrelevant whether his advisors understood that they were -- "Axis" means one thing). "Resolve" is a function of achieving global war aims and enhancing the long-term security of our nation. How on earth can anyone argue that occupying Iraq instead of launching a full-scale moves into Pakistan (to sweep for OBL and cadres) and Iran, or preventive strikes on Iran and North Korea is a reflection of firmer resolve? IMPOSSIBLE!