[RobFromGa]

1) the war wasn't supposed to last this long, and

Iraq in the long term view is a battle in the War against Radical Islamicism. That war was always expected to take a long time, the length of any particular battle is fairly irrelevant. We are involved in battles with Syrians, Iranians, Saudis, and Pakistanis, and more in Iraq. Because we are fighting them in Iraq now, those eventual battles will be easier and may require less actual warfare when they are fought because their most committed fighters lie dead in Iraq.

2) they never expected to find so many foreign forces involved in Iraq.

This is a war, we can't control how the enemy chooses to fight back. They could have stayed hidden in their home countries and waited till we left a free stable Iraq before choosing to go in and take over in five years. THe fact that they have chosen to take a strong position in a sure to lose Iraq battle is theirs to make.

[Alberta's Child]

Iraq in the long term view is a battle in the War against Radical Islamicism.

See my last statement in Post #164. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that this is the case. If anything, the evidence indicates that the U.S. Department of Defense was absolutely naive about what exactly this "radical Islamic" threat was all about.

[TomasUSMC]

This is a war, we can't control how the enemy chooses to fight back

---

Ah, yes you can, its called killing them. Level their cities, until the surrender of they are dead. Start with Damascus, then Tehran, then another and another. This fighting in Iraq would dry up without support from Syria and Iran.