Nearly 3 in 4 Americans supported the Iraq war when the Iraq war was a dream. Now that it's a reality, and one that doesn't conform too closely to the fantasy outlined by the armchair generals, 3 in 5 Americans oppose it.

The proper use of a military is to "subdue" something or to "destroy" something. "Nation building" is an inappropiate use a military.

We did not commit enough military forces to Iraq either to subdue the country or to destroy its war fighting capability. I would prefer to commit more troops to Iraq. This would help us to subdue the country. Then we might have a chance to achieve a stable, democratic, and allied Iraq. The American people simply don't have the will to see these things through. As such, we are left with alot policies based strictly on hope. We hope the the Iraqi forces we are training will be up to the task of defending their country. We hope the liberated Iraq will be allied with the USA. I don't like policies based on hope. I'm willing to commit more resources to Iraq to give us a better chnce to achieve the objectives but the American people don't seem to be.

A much more productive use of resources would be border securtiy, a more sensible immigration policy, and a more sensible domestic survelience policy. We know who the people are who are most likely to be terrorists and we know what their religous beliefs are. This should help us to allocate our resources properly. In other words, it is time to drop the politically correct bunk. Looks like fortress America here we come. We will need strong border security because, after we withdraw from Iraq, Iran's power will likely increase exponentially. If this happens, the terrorist threat will grow dramatically.

With the recent terrorist attack that was just thwarted President Bush has a new chance to push for stronger border control and a more sensible immigration policy. After 911, he could have done this but he thought it was more important to please his buddies in big business.

After the withdrawl from Iraq the terrorists will correctly conclude that they defeated America. When this happens they will be emboldened. We better make sure fortress America is secure. Securing the borders, placing a moratorium on Muslim immigrants, and survelience of all people who fit the profile of terrorists are sensible policies. They are not based upon "hope", as our current policies are.

Fortress America will need a strong missle defense system. After the withdawl from Iraq, the threats from Russia, China, and Iran will grow significantly, in the coming years.

We will need to develop more of our own oil resources and we will need to invest heavily in nuclear power, wind power, solar power, and any thing else we can use. This would be a good idea regardless, as it would give us more leverage in any negotiations, however, after we withdraw from Iraq it will be imperative that we develop these alternative resources. Russia, China, Iran, or some combination of the three will gain conrol of the middle east. Middle eastern oil will no longer be available or the terms that Russia, China, Iran, or all three will demand will be unbearable.

The costs of developing our own oil resources will be some animals will have to be inconvenienced and some rich plutocrats will have to have their billion dollar sky lines affected. In other words, it is time to drop the politically correct bunk. Middle eastern oil will likely be off line or those who hold it will demand unreasonable terms. As such, an additional cost of developing more of our own resources will likely be a drastic reduction in the American life style for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps I should explain what I mean by a national policy based on hope. National policies based on hope are polices where American national interests are placed in the hands of others and America has no direct control over whether or not these others carry out what we want them to do, furthermore, these others may not even have Aemrican interests at heart. To me, the only policy based on hope that is acceptable is one that places its trust in God. "Fortress America" would be acceptable. It is a policy we can directly control.

While I'm admittedly not an expert on polling, I find it ridiculous to portray the opinions of only 1,047 as representing the country, regardless of the subject of the poll.
Where was the poll conducted? What parts of the country were called? Did they only call people in a certain geographical area?
What was the exact wording of the questions?
Too many unknowns.
Having CNN connected to this paricular poll makes it even more questionable.

The most important factor would be to qualify those polled as real and conscientious voters. Why else would their opinions lend any credebility to a poll?

B Poster

I hope you're running for congress - you've got my vote.

Sean O'

Some of us feel like we were conned into supporting the war in Iraq when Condoleezza Rice told us about "mushroom clouds" in the offing. For those of us who remember, that grabs your attention. Now that we have our collective tit in the wringer, blaming the administration doesn't help. (It is already history.) The only way out is to reverse the process.

Guido

I agree. Bposter, you need to run for office. I don't even care what party you run with, I will vote for you.

The Iraq War troop issue came from the worst possible option; a compromise.

Rumsfeld, being a 21st century techie, wanted to use the same model that had been used in Afghanistan, air power, with spec ops on the ground, and beyond that, only scant ground forces, allowing indigeonous militias to do most of the fighting, removing from the US the responsibility of being Iraq's occupier. Powell, on the other hand, as a Cold Warrior, was in favor of the overwhelming force option, allowing the US to effectively occupy Iraq once Saddam was out of power.

I theorize that either would have worked, but the compromise we went in with was the worst possible option. Too many troops to avoid the responsibility of running the country, not enough troops to actually do the job of running the country.

But since this is a foreign policy related post, I just wanted to say this on another note:

Mark August 22nd on your calender. It is the day that Ahmadinejad says Iran will respond to the west's nuclear demands. This year, it also coincides with the date on the Islamic calender that Mohammed ascended to heaven from Jerusalem.

Bernard Lewis suspects that on the 22nd, Iran may attack Israel, or do some other nefarious thing. I am not saying it will happen, but I won't be surprised if it does.

If Israel thought Iran was going to do something on the 22nd, then Israel would preempt before that date.

Opus,

There are known unknowns about that CNN poll, some of which you point out. But then there are also unknown unknowns, and those are the scary ones! Because, you know, we don't know what they are.

Conducting foreign policy by consulting polls is ludicrous.That's why we elect a "Commander in Chief" and not a "Poll Reader In Chief".
I'm sick of polls being trumpeted as "news". Especially when the MSM is so obviously rigging the polls to complement their perspective.
You know the old saying: "There's lies; there's G-- d--- lies; and then there's statistics."
They (the MSM) never print the polls that disagree with their leftist world view.

Sean O' and blondebombe

Thank you for the kind words.

Ben-T

I think you are right about the issue of troop strength commited to Iraq. Eitehr one of these could have worked. Also, either one could have failed. The problem with trying to reach a compromise between the "Rumsfled doctrine" and the "Powell deoctrine" is they are incompatible with one another. When a compromise cannot be reached, a good leader needs to pick one option or the other and be prepared to accept the responsibilty for their choices.

Personally I prefer the Powell doctrine. The Powell doctrine is a tried and true method that has worked through out history. You defeat an enemy through overwhelming force. As a conservative, I am reluctant to depart from those things that are known to work and to replace them with ideas that are not tried and true. In addition, I like the Powell doctrine better because it is based less on hope.

Under the Rumsfeld doctrine we hope that the militias will be up to the task. We hope that the new Iraqi government will be allied with us. With the Powell doctrine, you have enough forces to actually subdue the country. This allows us to have more control over the type of government the new Iraq will have.

I think it is very unlikely but the Powell doctrine could have failed. Even if it fails, at least we have more control over the outcome. With the Rumsfeld doctrine we have less troops on the ground and this probably gives us less control over the outcome. As a general rule, I think we should have as much of our interests under our control as possible. I don't want to place American interests into the hands of foreign interests who may or may not have American interests at heart.