[Dave S]

You make the error of comparing all out war in 1943 Europe to our standing around in Iraq between opposing forces and getting blown up without taking the battle to the enemy. If we were massively bombing Al Qaeda and killing off Sadr's Madi Militia maybe Americans would be more supportive of the war. But at present I dont see American troops taking the war to anyone, just patrolling up and down the same streets as targets for road side bombers.

[Congressman Billybob]

I agree with you to a point. Every day that Sadr doesn't catch a half ounce of high-speed American lead between his beady eyes, is a day that the US does not take this war seriously. Keep in mind that Iraq itself had an arrest warrant out for him years ago, for assassinating the older, more respected Imam, whose place Sadr then took.

Iraq went wobbly, and canceled that warrant. The US then went wobbly and also failed to act on Sadr. And the geopolitical cancer has then grown, and grown.

John / Billybob

[secretagent]

You make the error of comparing all out war in 1943 Europe to our standing around in Iraq between opposing forces and getting blown up without taking the battle to the enemy. If we were massively bombing Al Qaeda and killing off Sadr's Madi Militia maybe Americans would be more supportive of the war. But at present I dont see American troops taking the war to anyone, just patrolling up and down the same streets as targets for road side bombers.

Exactly. Same thing with Vietnam.

Either take it to the enemy, or get out.

For that matter, the WWII generation would have gone into Pakistan and got Osama before going into Iraq.