I wonder why Patraeus has so much trouble envisioning the future when it comes to achieving benchmarks for the government or Iraqi military, but can clearly forsee disaster if we withdraw. Why is one future so cloudy and the other so clear?

Isn't this occupation just delaying the inevitable conflict between Iraqis that will lead to a lasting resolution? Soon after we left Vietnam the nation stabilized and the NVA defeated the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. Now we have normalized relations. What would have happened if we stayed like Bush said we should. Would we still be there dying for a failed government in a fractured nation?

Lid:

I wonder why Patraeus has so much trouble envisioning the future when it comes to achieving benchmarks for the government or Iraqi military, but can clearly forsee disaster if we withdraw. Why is one future so cloudy and the other so clear?

The details and the timing are what's hard to envision. The end state is quite clear. Peace, freedom, and economic opportunity. The likely alternative is genocide.

Lid:

Isn't this occupation just delaying the inevitable conflict between Iraqis that will lead to a lasting resolution? Soon after we left Vietnam the nation stabilized and the NVA defeated the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. Now we have normalized relations. What would have happened if we stayed like Bush said we should. Would we still be there dying for a failed government in a fractured nation?

Um...we were gone and South Vietnam was stable. Then Congress cut off aid and months later a million people were in boats, another million in camps, and 2 million were dead in Cambodia. If we hadn't invaded Germany, we might have had peace with them too, after the last Jew was killed.

"Isn't this occupation just delaying the inevitable conflict between Iraqis that will lead to a lasting resolution?"

Yes, I too think that it is. We seem to be prolonging the violence rather than resolving it.

Just like the UN could likely have stopped the genocide in Rwanda, our troops are stopping something much more horrific in Iraq. And the fact that the Sunnis have repudiated the psychos shows that we're not merely delaying the inevitable.

Success/victory is possible and will save thousands (maybe millions) of lives.

The UN was slow to respond to Rwanda, but the US didn't respond at all. And yet we could "respond" to a situation in the Balkans where we didn't even belong.

There will be violence in Iraq whether we leave or stay. But only by leaving can we remove our own provocative presence from the mix and allow Iraqis to solve their own problem. Despite Administration lies, there is still an insurgency independent of the vaunted "Al Qaeda in Iraq," whom they wish to paint as a villain for every act of violence.

No victory is possible in an occupation, only remaining or leaving.

And who was president during Rwanda? Maybe I'll bring my 'niece' over from Africa and have her ask Bill and Hillary on the campaign trail what they were doing doing while she was watching her parents be dismembered and getting a spear stuck in her head.

However, I'll answer that from a logistical standpoint; the genocide was over in 4 months and completely blind-sided the 'experts' in the field. Even emergency logisitics could have only gotten troops into that land-locked country at the halfway point at the best. The only troops that could have even attempted to do something at the early phases- when it could have been stopped- about it was the 300 UN troops there. And, considering the quality of typical UN troops (as opposed to our own), its not a bit suprising they stood by and let it happen. I don't know how those troops live with themselves, though.

Still, Bill's gang didn't even attempt to intervene, even to save what they could.

Currently, we have the Congo and Sudan going on, though; is everyone here up for some more humanitarian intervention by the military, ala Somalia?

of our aggression much as is happening in Iraq. What makes you think you can fix it when you are the cause? You aren't even willing to raise you taxes to pay for it.

Mike O:

Currently, we have the Congo and Sudan going on, though; is everyone here up for some more humanitarian intervention by the military, ala Somalia?

Are you up for it? I'm not. I don't think that we should send our military to intervene in any other nation's affairs unless it is a matter of our own national security or unless the nation in question happens to be an ally with whom we have a mutual security treaty.

You seem to judge the wisdom of any military intervention based solely on partisan political preference.

You're not a conservative. You are merely a Republican.

We did not cause the Cambodian genocide. The Khmer Rouge did. To argue otherwise requires a grant of omnipotence that even the mighty US has never possessed.

We did not cause AQI to blow up 500 Yezidis last month either. AQI caused it.

You're wrong on every point.

DarkHorizon:

The UN was slow to respond to Rwanda, but the US didn't respond at all.

The UN was IN Rwanda, but did not respond.

DarkHorizon:

And yet we could "respond" to a situation in the Balkans where we didn't even belong.

We don't belong anywhere (Germany, Korea) and yet somehow we have to stay.

DarkHorizon:

There will be violence in Iraq whether we leave or stay.

I don't disagree, but that's not the question. The issue is whether the violence decreases or explodes. If we stay, we can see it decrease (we are doing so now). If we go, it's Rwanda-time. A year ago you could argue that the violence was blowing out of control despite/because of our presence. The facts on the ground no longer support that. Where we are, there's less violence. Where we aren't, there's more.

DarkHorizon:

Despite Administration lies, there is still an insurgency independent of the vaunted "Al Qaeda in Iraq," whom they wish to paint as a villain for every act of violence.

They aren't responsible for every act of violence - certainly not on the Shi'a side, nor has Bush or the military claimed they were. However, they are the catalyst for increasing violence. CF the Samara mosque. They're also the ones committing mass murder against their own people, CF the Yezidi massacre and have succeeded in alienating their support base.

DarkHorizon:

No victory is possible in an occupation, only remaining or leaving.

Blanket statements like that show nothing but your blindness. Sometimes they work (the Balkans, Cote d'Ivoire) sometimes they don't.

I said the Cambodian genocide and genocide in Iraq were largely as a consequence of our aggressions in those parts of the world. We destabilized them. That is why war of aggression is the preeminent war crime. Argue it all you want but it is true. We have lots of blood on our hands.