[counterpunch]

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why hasn’t the military closed Iraq’s borders?

[FFranco]

We can’t even control the borders of the US. We could take all the 130.000 or so troops we have in Iraq and put them on the border and that still wouldn’t be enough, and then who would fight al Quaida and the other terrorists in Iraq, the Iraqi army?

[Joe Boucher]

It’s a big border.
Here’s a question back at ya,
Why haven’t we taken out some high valued targets in Iran just to show these turds there IS a price to pay?
I think it is because our vaunted military industrial complex needs a boogie man and Iran fits the bill nicely.

[JasonC]

Because the border is long, and the modern maneuverist US military tries to do everything with less by razzling and dazzling around more. The force in Iraq is half the size older minded generals through the bare minimum for the job, at the outset, and more like a fourth the size they thought sufficient for rapid and complete victory. The current solution, such as it is, is to try to ramp up the size of the Iraqi army until it makes up the other 3/4 needed. Their effectiveness per man isn't so easily ramped up.

[Levante]

“Maybe this is a dumb question, but why hasn’t the military closed Iraq’s borders?”

Ask Bush.

While you’re at it, ask him why he hasn’t closed our OWN borders.

[Jacquerie]

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why hasn’t the military closed Iraq’s borders?

Perhaps for the same political reasons we did not bomb the bridges over the Yalu in 1950, nor bomb Haiphong into rubble in 1967. The politicians get squeamish at actually fighting all out while our troops pay with their lives.