Thanks for responding. I disagree with you on this, because of this point. Would it be acceptable to be attacked only in , let's say the state of Virginia in America by homocide bombers and call the situation a "finished job"? Would we as Americans accept such an alternative as this?
From the way I view it, saying there is peace in Baghdad is acceptable while the murderous islamonazis wage mayhem outside of Iraq is ok? We are indeed stuck between "Iraq and a hard place". The solution, I don't know, I don't like to see our soldiers being homocide beltbomb fodder in a religious clash, that we as Americans do not understand, NOR CAN WE STOP. Best to you and family.
Jeff Davis
No, of course that wouldn't be acceptable. I'm not saying that it should be. The phrase "securing Baghdad secures Iraq" does have a certain amount of truth to it though.
If Baghdad is secure, then the economy of Iraq has a base from which to flourish. It also means that the Iraqi forces themselves can better focus on the smaller towns and keeping the peace there. It's a key step toward leaving Iraq to the Iraqis, which is what we want to do... and the sooner the better.