First of all, do you honestly believe if we completely pulled out of Iraq, and left it to the protection of the Iraqi army, that said army wouldn't collapse like a house of cards? You also stated that we've "thoroughly dominated" the terrorists. Well, let's see: al-Sadr and his Mahdi army has been allowed to exist and has become stronger, and other cities in Iraq remain terrorist strongholds as well. You also state that a "civil war" does not exist in Iraq. Then what would you call the various religious factions killing each other for dominance? A "sectarian war" would be a better definition, since religion (if you can call Islam that) is a major factor in the deaths of Iraqi civilians and mosque bombings. Better them than our soldiers, I say! Lastly, do you honestly believe the average Iraqi civilian is interested in democracy? They didn't vote in the name of democracy; they each voted for their own particular religious faction to take power. Judging by the number of candidates that have ran in each election, there must be dozens of different factions of Sunnis and Shias. That is what the Iraqi army and police force is made up of. If the Iraqi populace truly wanted to be free, they'd help fight for it by exposing the terrorists that hide among them. Democracy is a "western ideology" to these people, and Sharia Law is the only thing they believe and understand. Regarding Casey, he's still taking orders from the administration. I find it hard to believe that all war operations and decisions are fully in the hands of the generals.
Ever heard of a paragraph?
We have completely dominated the terrorists.
I'd say a 100 to 1 death ratio is domination.
Sure you don't like the war because of who the CINC is, it's ok, but you're completely wrong in your criticisms.
Oh man, that one goes right up there with the "Saddam had to brutally put them down because they are all barbarians" excuse. I have heard liberals say first hand.
WTF do we vote for if not for some faction who we agree with to take power?
That is shameful.