Replies

What we need to do in Iraq is not politically viable.

That's the problem, now, isn't it?

"Not politically viable" cuts both ways, of course. But what's closer to being politically viable: Taking the gloves off, or cutting and running?

But what's closer to being politically viable: Taking the gloves off, or cutting and running?

Philosophical point of view.

Fight the good fight - with all the associated pain, and maintain some degree of credibility in the region/world

OR

Pull out, and lose whatever credibility we thought we had as well as concede the country to something other than the rule of law.

All right. Educate this non-military man. What, exactly, are we facing in Iraq?

An insurgency? If so, it's not a very good one. The "insurgents" hold no territory, have not galvinized popular support, and cannot translate what little they have into a political movement (all three are needed for a successful insurgency).

A civil war? Maybe. However, no "side" in the civil war holds territory (once again, a neccesary ingredient to a civil war), and this isn't an armed conflict, per se, just people sneaking around and blowing each other up. Unpleasant, tragic even. But that doesn't rise to the level of civil war, in the classic sense. It's more like if the Crips and Bloods were having a turf war with high explosives. Nobody would say the US was having a civil war if that were to happen. Just criminals and thugs blowing each other up.

This is how Allegra has described the situation on the ground. (That's why I pinged her).

So, if it's not an effective insurgency, and it's not a civil war, what are we facing in Iraq that is SO bad we need to totally change course?