It is apparent by now that the government in Iraq is not capable of maintaining civil order, even with help (or hinderance) from the US presence there.

I think that the real turning point over the cliff was the rush to have the Iraqi constitution ratified despite general Sunni opposition to it. If the Sunnis were able to force significant changes in the constitution through the politcal process, that would show them that even as a minority, they can wield political power.

That's not to say that they would not choose a violent insurgency. However, when a large minority opposes something as fundamental as the country's constitution and still end up stuck with it, the message is clear that the political process is a dead end. This is particularly the case in areas where monarchies and dictatorships demonstrate that minorities posess zero political capital.

If the US really cares about the fate of Iraq and the establishment of a stable (and hopefully freely democratic) Iraq is as important as the current administration makes it out to be, then the path is pretty clear. The US must step up to the plate and send enough properly trained troops to secure the entire country - enough trained to act as a national police force, effecitvely replacing the local policemen.

This would require a much more significant sacrifice than the current administration or the US populace in general are willing to bear. This would require at least as many troops as suggested before the invasion, 400,000. It would probably take more due to the escalation in violence since the invasion. The only way to have this many troops is to institute a national military draft, and the only way to pay for it would be a massive tax hike or massive cuts in current spending (and not just pork, but real programs like highway funds).

If we as a Nation decide that a stable and free Iraq is absolutely vital to our national interests, then we owe it to our troops to support them and give them a realistic chance of achieving a strategic victory. This is what makes the surge so laughable if it were not so insulting.

However, I would bet that most Americans are not willing to make the type of sacrifice necessary for a strategic victory. Somewhat less importantly, this administration is not willing to part with their preconceived notions of how success can be achieved.

Unfortunately, the risk of failure is a false risk for those in the administration. What is the price of a strategic failure in Iraq? Nothing - they shed no blood, spend no money, and if they lose control of the Whitehouse, just tow the party line and work at a think tank until you get called up again when the pendulum of public opinion swings back to the right.

I'm personally not a big fan of conscription/draft, but I have to agree with the basic premise of your post. If we are to commit this nation to war, then we need to completely commit ourselves to this war. Doing it on the cheap is not the way to fight and win wars.

LOL! I agree wholeheartedly...start the draft. Let the yellow-ribbon folks enjoy some of what they've wrought in Iraq through their careless election of a criminal to the White House. Draft away! And then auction off their SUVs (yellow ribbons included!) when they get their heads blown off.

I remember living through WWII when this country was "at war". The Draft was just a part of the total effort that included Rationing, Civil Defense, Price Controls, Industry Mobilization, Internment of Potential Enemy Supporters, War Bonds and Stamps, Celebrity Military Enlistments (Clark Gable, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Stewart etc) we were all UNITED in WINNING the War and we WON it! Our country has lost that UNITY of WILL and is on a downward spiral of NAFTA, CAFTA and ONE WORLD STATUS. I am glad I will not be alive much longer to see how far this country has fallen.

I don't know if we are now just totally arrogant or totally stupid.

Bush overthrew the Sunni elite, and now Bush/Petreus want to use them to defeat, eh, who, the Sunni elite? How many times do you suppose they will fall for that? How many times the knife in their back.

Additionally, since, as Clauswitz said, war is just politics by other means, then what have you got as a social base for government in Iraq with TRIBAL leaders? That's like if the mountain tribes, which were very primitive, had "won" in Vietnam.

There is no possiblity of any real solution to anything in all this, so one has to assume that Bush et al. are either lunatics or they have a secret agenda, such as genocide, or such as preparing for war with Russia and/or China.

I've switched from "stupid" to "lunatic" because everyone has now heard ALL the reasons why this invasion and occupation was insane from the beginning. To keep on this boat is stark raving insane, I think.

Can't disagree that the only way to win in Iraq is to start the draft. Perhaps the Bush twins could lead the way. It's either shit or get of the pot. Right now Dubya and the boys are just shitting their collective pants. Hmmm...you break it, you own it Dubya, what's your next move going to be.

Sure, draft more people to fight AQI. I mean sunni nationalists. No, wait...the Badr Brigade. Oh sorry, I meant the Madi army. And we need to keep the Kurds from Seceding. Actually there are still some baathists to fight... and don't forget the foreign fighters and iranians. (All those people are on the same side right?)

IRAQIS DO NOT WANT TO BE IRAQIS

What is there to win?

And as For Clyde Turbo -

1. The national response to world war II was greater because the war was a much larger conflict that directly involved our national security - don't pretend that we have anything now that resembles a comparative scale

2. Bush has asked nothing - nothing of the American public other than to be patient. Most of the programs you mention (including a quaint shout-out to japanese internment camps - quite the good ole' days there) were government initiatives. Nothing has been asked of me monetarily, bodily, intellectually, or institutionally to participate. Personally, I liked John Kerry's idea of mandatory disaster training, and I would love to participate in that, as it directly relates to the war on terror, unlike Iraq. Regardless, it is not "this nation's" fault that little else is being done.

Your lack of faith is grossly misplaced. To blame the American people for our current failings is horrendous. The only people in this country I have no faith in are those who think they can reshape the world according to their own mythological beliefs about our national history.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got an internment camp to begin constructing.

Clyde Turbo - correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Ronald Reagan didn't enlist in the Army. He acted in public service announcements - though that might have been produced through the Army. So maybe he was officially in the Army, but he certainly did not come close to combat duty.

...flew over 40 combat missions in the Army Air Force during WW II. Ever wonder why, with the exception of Ike (who became a Repub shortly before he ran for prez under their banner), every pres candidate who actually saw combat -- from Harry Truman to John Kerry -- has been a Democrat? Maybe getting shot at tends to kick the false bravado out of you...

Actually, as I recall, Bob Dole saw action, in I believe, Italy in WW II, and has the scars and disbility to prove it. I'd say most presidential candidates who are combat veterans are democrats, but not all.

Bob Dole ran for Pres, but only made it as far as the Senate. However, GHW Bush did fight in the Pacific during WWII -- not that I thought he was a good president either (although his son certainly makes him look like a statesman by comparison).

Does anyone know if Tricky Dick was ever in the military? I would guess not.

The real point, though, is that none of the neocon chickenhawks responsible for this war crime of OURS (we the people did pay the taxes for it, and our ignorant, blood-thirsty soldiers and toolish officers went along with this illegal, unconstitutional war) ever served in the armed forces for real.

I'm not for a draft, because I don't think citizens should be dragooned into fighting illegal wars for corporate interests or to support racist, ethnic-cleansing, nuclear rogue nations -- such as Israel in the current debacle, and we're thinking about doing it once again to Iran for Israel, too.

The first step to ending this war is to gitmo-ize the neocons and put them on trial. Better yet, hand them over to the Iraqis and let them hang 'em high. We're illegally occupying that country. We need to get out and leave it to the Iraqis to solve their problems. And as for the argument that this will lead to a bloodbath, what has our occupation of Iraq been? When you throw in the fact that we have sowed that poor country with depleted uranium, i.e. DIRTY ORDINANCE, we have already left the place a radioactive/heavy-metal wasteland for the next billion years (No hyberole here, folks, check the half-life of U-238).

Anyone talking about the US getting the job done right in Iraq is deluded and or ignorant.

Zarniwoop, Yeah the "Old Kipper" did serve during WWII:

1937 Enlisted in Army Reserve as a Private but was quickly promoted to 2nd Lt. because he had a College degree.

1942 USAAF called Reagan up for active duty and assigned him to 1st Motion Picture Unit where he made over 400 Training films.

1943 Promoted to Captain

1945 Dec. 09 Honorably Discharged with NO combat duty assignments. Same as 80% of all who ever served in the Military.

jwschmidt, correct me if I'm wrong but quite a few more people died in the WTC attack than at Pearl Harbor which was the trip wire for our enterance into WWII. Maybe you agree with the nutty professor at the Univ. of Colorado that the WTC people were all "little Eichmans" and deserved to die but I don't. Even if BushCo. totally screwed up in Iraq we are in a war and people are dieing because the Bush administration tried to "do it on the cheap" with 150,000 troops when they actually needed 500,000. We have to "ramp up" WWII style if we have a prayer to salvage anything out of the current mess OR haul ass and leave ASAP like we did in Nam. You take your pick and place your bets.

the government isn't asking for WWII style, so it won't get it. The war on terror doesn't require it anyways - this is a special forces fight. As for Iraq, no amount of troops can convince the different populations to settle down and play nice like us western peoples. Not going to happen at all, let alone through force. The whole 9\11 Pearl harbor analogy only indicates how little you seem to be aware about the fundamentals of fighting these wars today.