President Bush declared "mission accomplished" in May 2003. Thirty months later, there are 159,000 American troops still attempting to accomplish the mission in Iraq. "We have no interest in occupation," President Bush told the world in May 2004. It's November 2005, and U.S. troops still occupy Iraq. In June 2004, President Bush transferred certain governing powers to the Iraqis. Nine months ago, Iraqis elected a government. Last month, Iraqis established a Constitution. Progress is being made, but many Senators, who authorized a war to rid Iraq of WMD and Saddam but not to conduct a multi-year nation-building campaign, want Iraqis (preferably the good Iraqis) to take control of Iraq.

Senators from both parties say that Iraqis must resume responsibility for the security and governance of their country. But the plans they offer to make this happen are all talk and no action. Just as Congress had the power in 2002 to prevent the war by not authorizing it, Congress has the power in 2005 to stop the occupation by defunding it--gradually, suddenly, or otherwise. But, as in 2002, legislators prefer to posture than to exercise their constitutional powers. This profile in cowardice will result in more obituary-page profiles in courage. What's more, sovereignty, stability, and democracy--stated reasons for our continued presence--can't come to Iraq until Iraqis run Iraq. The time is near to take the training wheels off.

"Sovereignty, stability, and democracy ... can't come to Iraq until Iraqis run Iraq." Well, sure, but I guess the problem is that it won't come then either. Some places, some times, sovereignty and stability exclude liberty and democracy.

I see no reason for us to continue occupying Iraq after the December Elections. Once said elections have happened, the next objective in Iraq should be the beginning of our tactical withdrawl.

P.S: Congress refused to fund Nixon's Vietnamization plan and because of it we lost a war that we would have otherwise won. Those who advocate cutting off the money for US presence in Iraq are more concerned with vindicating their own positions with a US defeat, than they are with ensuring the interests of the US in the Middle East, imho.

"...vindicating their own positions with a US defeat" - Ben T

That's a pretty serious allegation of pettiness and lack of patriotism. We know for sure we will lose more lives and money the longer we stay. The question is, really, whether we have anything to gain if we stay. I doubt it. I genuinely think (though I'm sure Ben T will say I'm hoping for a US defeat) that Iraq, 10-15 years from now, will not be the type of government we want it to be. The only way to keep it from being really bad is to continue occupying it indefinitely. Do you think that would be worth it?

Ben, haven't you posted that PS before?

Anyhoo...to the FBI agent (Didn't you used to chase monsters and ghosts? They must have moved you to an international affairs function...) what's "really bad"? Egypt's government, for instance, is really bad. But, as long as they're not hostile to us, we trade with them and consider them a friend, more or less. The same can be said of a number of governments around the world.

I think that it would be a sucess (one can debate how sizable a sucess) to emerge with a government in Iraq that is friendly to the United States. At least it would be consistent with the kind of friends we have in rest of the Middle East.

I see no reason to believe that Iraq "Can't" Be a democracy except that a democracy has never been born there before.

If people never did things on the basis that nobody before had done so, we would still be in the stone age.

To suggest that the mission was merely to defeat Sadaam's forces is to not understand this war at all. To further insist that the mission should be only what it was originally is just as foolish.

In war, strategies change with the changing conditions of battle. We didn't anticipate a protracted engagement with terrorists imported by Al Qaeda from surrounding Arab states after defeating Sadaam's troops, but, since this has happened, the strategy must change to take this into account.

What if the U.S. had decided to go home after the fall of Berlin, thinking the war was over because Hitler was dead and his Nazi regime was in ruins? The Japanese would have fought on and on and would have wreaked far greater havoc in the world.

Leaving after defeating Sadaam's troops is exactly what we did in the Gulf War and look where it got us. After twelve years of allowing Sadaam to regroup, we had to go back and do it all over again.

This time, if we don't ultimately make Iraq secure for its own citizens, it will collapse and become a terrorist breeding ground like Afghanistan was. The result will be an increase in worldwide terrorism, which is exactly the opposite of what we are attempting to acheive in the war on terror.

The left, of course, wants to see us fail in Iraq, whether that means more terrorist attacks on their own country or not. This is because the American left hates their own country with a nihilism that is at its worst in history. Murtha, decorated veteran or not, is a tool of the American left and he will be used by them as surely as Cindy Sheehan was used to stir up anti-war sentiment. The Bush administration must not give in to this, otherwise, Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorists far worse than Afghanistan was and we will be its victims.