[Reagan Man]

Good post. I don't support a cut and run strategy in Iraq, but having our troops unknowingly killed from IED`s and RPG`s, can't go on forever. US troops have gone from warriors to sitting ducks. On election day, the American people voted for a tactical change in Iraq. We invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam. Good news. Since then, we've got bogged down in a very nasty urban guerrilla conflict that has no end in sight. The US military can't be the policeman to the world and spreading democracy to the Islamic world will not work. Nation building/nation rebuilding, can only work, if the people of the nation you're attempting to rebuild, supports the effort. So far, my greatest fears have been realized. Muslim's have no desire for social engineering by liberal western governments.

[hinckley buzzard]

US troops have gone from warriors to sitting ducks.

On average we lose two or three troops a day. The loss of even one American is a tragedy but when you consider the casualty reports of previous wars including VietNam, this is historically low. I recall when Walter Cronkite would report the losses by the week in VietNam--hundreds each week, week after week. And the battle losses in WWII speak for themselves. It is misleading and inaccurate to imply that we are 'sitting ducks' when maybe two or three out of 140,000 are lost in a given day of operations.

I would like to see a more aggressive posture toward the insurgents where they live, and "Sadr City" is a rat's nest begging to be cleaned out with D-Con and a stiff wire brush. So no, Cut and Run is not an option, nor need it be--but "business as usual" is by no means the only possible answer, and a review of the whole approach is in order at this point.