Never understanding the just interest of the United States served by invading Iraq, I am doubly at a loss to explain to the just interest of the United States served by occupying it. October is on pace to be the deadliest month for U.S. servicemen in Iraq in two-and-a-half years.

Why is this deplorable state of affairs news only in the lead-up to an election? Partly because the public has callously become numbed to the trickle of dead bodies returning home. One doesn't cook a frog by throwing it into a scalding pot of water. One does by placing it in a warm bath that by degree becomes a scalding pot of water before he can jump out.

Americans killed in action has become the norm, and the norm isn't what's news. A few each day doesn't seem a huge number, but when the war lasts more than three years the deaths begin to mount and people, the ones who aren't numb, begin to wonder: why are we there?

Apart from all this, the brave Americans killed in Iraq are part of a volunteer force. Despite heightened talk of Iraq being another Vietnam, the absence of a draft makes it impossible for the Iraq war to hit home across demographic lines the way the Vietnam war did (even though that war afflicted some demographic groups greater than others). Most Americans never knew any of the men and women who were killed in Iraq. For some Americans, the war is as real as a video game or a television show. The dead are numbers and faces, but they are not people to some people until they are people they knew.

Instead of exploiting this indifference, a real leader would bring the troops home. It may be better for the president's place in history if he leaves the mop-up for his successor. Then he can say that he didn't lose the war, and his partisans--already showing themselves adept at changing their previously professed principles to conform to the president's position--will monkey the president's stance. But leaving troops in Iraq to fight and die for a cause that not only is not our cause, but is probably not a winning cause either won't be better for America. It won't be better for its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, to continue to put them in harm's way in a place that is in no way relevant to America's interests. If they are serving a purpose over there, it is not our purpose. America is not a means to some other nation's end. America is an end in itself.

Amen to that.

This is very reason why Pat Buchanan will be the next Republican nominee for President.

Unfortunately for we in the west, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, could not concievably be more strategically important. It sits atop the material that runs global civilization, and it contains millions of people who want us dead.

It was important and necessary I think, for a few reasons, to invade Iraq. Having been kicked out of Saudi Arabia, it was of paramount importance to make an example to other leaders in the region, as well as it was to re-assert American dominance before other players (Looking at Russia and China here) decided to kick down the door themselves. If we had waited for them to do it, the results would have been infinitely more disastrous.

Also, Saddam's corrupt oil-for-food relationship with the great continental powers was standing ready to quickly yield the disappearance of sanctions and an oil bourse trading on the Euro instead of the dollar.

Both of these would have yielded strategic nightmares. In the first scenario, once Saddam, now sans sanctions, realized that Iran and Libya (Libya dropped its nuclear weapons program as a response to our invasion of Iraq) were building nukes themselves, would have been forced to rush to get them. Iraq still had a frozen WMD program, and was prepared, and intended to, according to the Duelfer and Volcker reports, get started again once sanctions were lifted.

Once Iraq, Iran, and Libya were getting them, of course, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would have been forced to get them, and possibly Syria as well. The eventual result would have been a nuclear arms race in the heart of the world's most strategically improtant region.

Thirdly, an oil bourse trading on the Euro may have forced the U.S. dollar to stand on its own abroad, without the protection of the petrodollar that it has enjoyed in the past. It is possible that this would have triggered a global devaluation of the dollar. I don't think I need to describe the nightmarish results of that.

For those three reasons, which I have lifted in order of (in my opinion) importance and likelihood to occur, it was best to invade Iraq. Taking out Saddam Hussein protected our immensely important strategic investment in the Persian Gulf region.

That said, I definitely agree with you Dan, on your point about the continued occupation. I cannot see the strategic yields of it. We won the Iraq War. Every last objective was it was succesfully accomplished.

So what is going on? I think its a textbook example of mission creep. Having toppled Saddam and secured regional dominance, but with the nasty CNN effect of there not having actually been any WMDs, the objective was widened to holding elections and transferring sovereignty. After all, that sold better.

But by the time we transferred sovereignty, our continued presence had manifested a powerful insurgency, that I do not believe would have come to be had we promptly left after the fall of Tikrit. Since then, that insurgency has essentially been defeated. But instead of ending violence in Iraq, ending the Insurgency has only birthed an Iraqi Civil War. This is a civil war in which I believe we have no strategic stake, and in which I believe application of American military might has minimal chance to influence.

In the light of the fact that Saddam is gone, we have long since signed a deal to construct 14 enduring bases, we have transferred sovereignty to Iraq, we have neutralized any real chance that other powers are going to attempt to enter the region (except through Iran, which is why we must deal with the Iranians before we leave, if we are to protect our investment) and oil is now reaching pre-war levels of production ( http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoStory.aspx?isSummitStory=False&storyId=febd11b5164cdd1872b8766e59d651a298c15c7d&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-L2-RelatedVideo-2 ) I cannot identify a compelling reason for a continued presence in the country.

So then, what to do? I propose a combination of the partition plan and strikes against Iran.

After the mid-term elections, I believe Bush will be forced into accepting the partition plan. Sometime before he leaves office, I also believe Bush will strike against Iran, as a show of American military might, and on that note, essentially leave Iraq.

A few years later, we will probably use a declaration of Kurdish independence as our final out from Iraq, our original strategic investment in the Middle East protected, but at a far higher cost than we had originally anticipated.

Tragically, that is always the way in war.

"The brave Americans killed in Iraq are part of a volunteer force."

Soldiers who volunteered for a definite length of service are being forced to serve longer. Isn't that a form of conscription?

Not much to say after two most excellent assessments by Dan and Ben-T.

Just that I've been essentially saying this all along and although I was slightly sucked into the original flow to rush to Iraq, the reason being to make sure that Saddam was not stockpiling WMDs, our extended stay there has been just stupid. And every time the Texas rancher re-enforces his folly there, it gets more stupid.

Unfortunately, it’s turned out that we’ve probably started the Islamist version of the old domino effect where when the U.S. does pull the majority of our troops out, there will very little reason for Iran not to come charging in. Going from bad to worse.

Sodom Hussane had to go. we won the war, we should have made a huge base in the desert and put some nukes on it and told the ragheads to chill. but being americans we feel the need to fix the things we destroy. Pres. Bushs mistake on the war on terror and i hate that phrase, was not to call for a national draft after 9/11. it would have shown the world we meant business. But no we fight with 1 arm behind yor back, and a small amout of your people doing the work . SICKING!

"Why are we there?" One answer: "To win in November." The Iraq war cannot be considered in isolation. There are other concerns that may outweigh the costs of war.

Assume that another Justice will retire in the next two years (Stevens, for example, is 86). Also assume that Bush's appointee would be comparable to Roberts and Alito.

Given those assumptions, consider the following argument: If U.S. forces are withdrawn (or had been recently withdrawn) from Iraq, the Republicans would lose the Senate. If the Republicans lose the Senate, an appointee to the Supreme Court that is comparable to Roberts or Alito could not be confirmed. If an appointee that is comparable to Roberts or Alito could not be confirmed, a more liberal (i.e., a pro-choice) will be appointed and confirmed. If a pro-coice appointee is confirmed, Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. If Roe v. Wade is not overturned, abortion cannot be made illegal. If abortion is not made illegal, millions of humans will die. Therefore...

If U.S. forces are withdrawn (or had been recently withdrawn) from Iraq, millions of humans will die.

" Pres. Bushs mistake on the war on terror and i hate that phrase, was not to call for a national draft after 9/11. it would have shown the world we meant business. But no we fight with 1 arm behind yor back, and a small amout of your people doing the work . SICKING" - tagm&bagm

I have to disagree with this. Since Vietnam, the entire focus of the US military planning has been on formulating a small, elite force, heavy on technology and training, based on volunteers.

Suddenly having a draft army again would turn US strategic thinking on its head. Our entire military model would have needed to have been gutted and reformed in the middle of a war.

Bad idea, I think.

"And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said 'Stick to the Devil you know'"

Buchanan/Tancredo 08'

Conservatives like me are increasingly aware now that the neoconservatives have been reckless in their endeavors of trying to control the Middle East through imperialistic measures. What happened to the conservatively drawn validity of the Monroe Doctrine? Did 9/11 convince us to throw common sense out the window?

Oil and terror, of course, are strategically crucial concerns. But already we've wasted more on trying to protect the former and prevent the latter than we would have if we had simply pioneered alternative energy sources - which would've been much less expensive. That would've allowed us to leave the desert to those who better appreciate it.

How, in any way whatsoever, was our presence in Iraq going to mitigate terrorism? Saddam was chiefly a secularist at odds with radical Islam. Getting rid of him only fueled a myriad of causes for radical Islam to become more radical and popular.