Iraq is a Fool's Errand.

[ghostrunner]

And if they want to defend their home, they just need to stop shooting.

Offering no resistance is certainly an interesting form of defense. Seeing as we're perfectly willing to use violence to achieve our goals, I don't see why we're so shocked that Iraqis would do the same.

I think you know what I meant. What are they resisting? I'm just saying if things are peaceful, we have a good reason to leave. I would have preferred that a long time ago.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Which Iraqi's want this, the ones who will move in and take power for themselves, or the inocent people of the country who will be forced to suffer if they don't share the exact same religious beliefs as those in power?

And what they've been living through the past 4 years isn't suffering?

We tell them we are leaving, give them 6 months to deal with that, then leave.

[docellis]

Iraq was a violent place before Saddam came to power. Iraq was a violent place while Saddam was in power. Iraq continues to be a violent place.

[jim]

Iraq was a violent place before Saddam came to power. Iraq was a violent place while Saddam was in power. Iraq continues to be a violent place.

.... and will be a violent place tomorrow, 10 years from now, and probably 1,000 years from now if history is a guide.

[Arthur Dent]

And if they want to defend their home, they just need to stop shooting.

Offering no resistance is certainly an interesting form of defense. Seeing as we're perfectly willing to use violence to achieve our goals, I don't see why we're so shocked that Iraqis would do the same.

I think you know what I meant. What are they resisting? I'm just saying if things are peaceful, we have a good reason to leave. I would have preferred that a long time ago.

I really didn't know what you meant. What evidence do you have that if the violence stopped, the U.S. would leave? If that were the criteria, we would have left soon after the initial invasion. There was a brief period of looting and so on (which the U.S. inexplicably failed to plan for even though it was predicted to happen), but the security situation didn't get too bad until it became more and more clear that we had no plans to leave until we had locked in institutional control of Iraq. There's plenty for Iraqis to resist on every level from U.S. imposed laws to routine mass round-ups, to home invasions, to torture and imprisonment without charge.

[wart57]

I guess we need to just cut our losses, get out and hope the Iraqis only keep killing eachother and don't go after the rest of the world.

[jim]

I guess we need to just cut our losses, get out and hope the Iraqis only keep killing eachother and don't go after the rest of the world.

What do you mean by "Iraqi's". Shiites? Sunni's? Al-queda? Random car bombers?

If peace in the region is your goal and definition of success, then it won't happen.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I guess we need to just cut our losses, get out and hope the Iraqis only keep killing eachother and don't go after the rest of the world.

Yes that's about right.

[Popeye_Card]

If peace in the region is your goal and definition of success, then it won't happen.

Certainly not through military force only.

And I thought we learned lessons from Vietnam and Afghanistan (Soviet Union)--wars against guerillas are extremely tricky. You fight an uphill battle for years and years until you are forced to just give up. Bin Laden has already toppled one superpower. Don't let him topple another.

--P--

[wart57]

I guess we need to just cut our losses, get out and hope the Iraqis only keep killing eachother and don't go after the rest of the world.

What do you mean by "Iraqi's". Shiites? Sunni's? Al-queda? Random car bombers?

If peace in the region is your goal and definition of success, then it won't happen.

If your ultimate goal in anything is peace you are doomed to failure.