GWB and Rumm incompetence has been an open invitation for terrorist to kill American GIs in Iraq. the terrorists have accepted the invitation and entered Iraq to kill thousands of American soldiers. it is pathetic, people who got their head buried in sand just don't get it.
I'm coming late to this thread but wanted address a few things. First to the charge of revisionism on the part of war opponents that they're claiming to not support it when things are going bad I can't speak for anyone else but I've opposed this war since the beginning. I didn't post on much on CF.net in 2003 but here's a post of mine from the NYTimes forums that I used to post on. Not to say I told you so but I see a lot of the problems that people like myself predicted have come to pass but I don't think it took a genius to predict that the occupation was going to be very problematic. Second regarding the surge idea. There's nothing wrong with the idea of a surge in principle but there are a lot of problems given the realities of the US military and what's going on in Iraq. My understanding is that many in the military oppose it because our resources are stretched thin and their isn't enough troops available to make a huge surge. Currently troops deployed there are having their stays extended or troops rotating out are having their incountry time greatly cut down. This has dire consequences on the morale and capability of the troops and their equipment as they miss valuable downtown to recover, train and repair. At the same time the military has been meeting its recruiting goals by lowering their standards and further degrading the overall qualities of the troops. At the sametime by increasing the number and duration in country of troops greatly reduces the readiness of the military to deal with other threats. This is why the military option for Iran or NK isn't pushed as much as it could be since our military is not at peak condition to deal with another conflict. The other problem with a surge is, what is the goal of the surge and what happens after it? Is the surge to increase the longterm number of US troops in country? Is it a temporary stand and then we pull back? The problem with leaving a longterm number of troops is that it would be difficult for us to sustain it. If it is only temporary then the insurgency likely could go even further underground and wait it out. One more thought in regard to the surge though is that if the US does pull out of Iraq a surge will be needed to cover a pullout of US forces while Iraqi forces move into position.
Let the Iraqis defend there own borders. we got rid of there tyranical dictator, not let them build there own version of democracy.
If they form an alliance with Iran, and, in some form or fashion, help facilitate an eventual (though currently undocumented) nuclear armament, military build-up/conquest, or ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, or region-wide Shia (or fundamentalist) insurgencies..... Fundamentalists may have realized that inter-sect conflict is just as effective against the US as direct confrontation, because it reduces stability for our commercially important oil suppliers, and stokes our impulse for preventative maintenance via military action.
