Did you catch Rod Dreher's list of things he no longer believes because of the Iraq debacle? Items on his list include: "I am no longer confident that I can discern when emotion is affecting my judgment unduly" and "I no longer have confidence in the ability of our military, or any military, to solve deep cultural and civilizational problems through force alone." The post-invasion candor is appreciated. One wishes other hawks could be so pensive. I can't offer any such list because, unlike Dreher and other conservatives, I always opposed the Iraq war. I felt obliged to voice my opposition, when doing so was extremely unpopular, on the Fox News Channel, on conservative talk radio, and before audiences of College Republicans. This wasn't exactly friendly territory for an anti-war stance, but it should have been. Conservatives have a proud tradition of opposition to adventurous wars, and Republicans have a proud tradition of ending wars that liberals start. From skepticism of "trust us we're the government" assurances, to opposition of big-government interventionism whether at home or abroad, to distaste for aggressive warfare, to disbelief that cultural institutions are for export, to contempt for utopianism, my conservative principles (as well as prudence and the facts) led me to vocally oppose the Iraq War and its architects' grandiose ambitions long before it started. Why did the principles of so many other conservatives lead them to opposing conclusions on Iraq?

For conservatives opposition to the war in Iraq should have been instinctive, meaning that once one understands conservative principles there would be no need to consider whether we should invade Iraq. The war in Iraq contradicts every and all conservative principles, which is why once I heard the suggestion that the United States was considering invading Iraq I was 100% against it.

I doubt most self-identified conservatives actually have a real understanding of the philosophy -- that is they cannot distinguish between conservatism and liberalism at the philosophical level. Most people are simply partisans, Bush Cultists in this case, and supported the war in Iraq because President Bush was for it and the liberals were against it.

Magazines, like National Review, and networks, like Fox News, are just part of the well oiled, highly polished Republican propaganda machine and have no connection to conservatism except as a marketing slogan.

Also we should never underestimate pressure. I suppose many in the "conservative" camp felt bullied into supporting the war because opposition to the war sounded "liberal."

"I no longer have confidence in the ability of our military, or any military, to solve deep cultural and civilizational problems through force alone."

If Mr Dreher had confidence that the military could solve deep cultural problems, then to me it sounds as if he was never a conservative to start with, and is only upset that he supported the war.

It's nice to see Mr. Dreher on board, but the Iraq catastrophe should not make a "conservative" change any of his fundamental beliefs; it should only confirm them.

Conservatives seem to have this strange notion that the US Military's victory is an inevitability. It's backed up by this quick look at history where we won WWI, and we won WWII, and we won Vietnam (but those damned liberals lost us the war on the home front!). Hasn't the conservative movement sounded victory a dozen times already on Iraq? Mission accomplished! Just dead enders left! We've turned a corner! We killed off the 3rd guy in charge, victory is soon! And latest, The Surge is working! The Surge may well be working, until it doesn't anymore. Still the base will see victory just over the horizon.

Magazines, like National Review, and networks, like Fox News, are just part of the well oiled, highly polished Republican propaganda machine and have no connection to conservatism except as a marketing slogan.

I don't know if that's the case. If the GOP has a propaganda machine at all it's mad to describe it as "well-oiled". Those outlets you mention, however, are very much in favor of increased viewership and readership and therefore like to drum up partisanship to achieve that end. After all, you'll never get much attention if you decry terrorism--nobody grooves on terrorism--but if you can lambast Nancy Pelosi? Now that's money.

No, I think most conservatives are pro-war because they aren't really conservatives, they're authoritarians. But since they oppose the slightly more liberal Democrats, they self-identify as conservative without even knowing what it means. Try asking a self-described conservative why they think the federal government is any more likely to solve the problem of terrorism than they are likely to abolish poverty. When you do ask, take a step or two back or you'll be bludgeoned by all the hand-waving.

sadboy hussain had to go. now you can say irag has nothing to do with the war on fanaticRagheads, maybe so, but he thumbed his nose at the U.N. broke every sanction. what good is the U.N. role then? if any nation with a madman at the helm,doesnt come clean then again i ask what then? more sanctions. thats a laffer. mr. flynn mayhave had better intell. on wmds. hell the rest of you , lets put troops on the borders and dig in, people might have had better intell on wmds. i thought he did, alot of people thought he did. i still think the war in irag is worth it. not so much the rebuilding, i say let them kill each other. now iran is next, do you feel comfortable with iran with the bomb?? they had nothing to do with 9-11, but i dont like the idea of them having a nuke. and if you aint skeerd of that thought, then you are a chamberlin.

Tagm, it's not that I had better intel, it's that I had very little intel. My impulse upon receiving very little information is to want to see more. The impulse of too many conservatives was to want to see less--just trust the government (as if that's a conservative impulse), they know best. You invoke the UN as if conservatives should be aghast when nations thumb their nose at it. I'm aghast at many, many things Saddam did, flouting UN orders makes the list at #762.

That's a good point Dan as I've said all along that I agreed with our Government's decisions with regard to Iraq as the likely had the best and most accurate information. But, isn't that the way it should be? Whether or not (NOT) it matters what the average citizen thinks, we do have to trust and often make a leap of faith that our Government is doing the right thing.

It seems to me that wars are usually not the right thing, and that therefore any proposed war has the burden of proof regarding justification. When I heard the war proposed, I kept waiting for reasons -- I mean, like, relevant reasons, you know, _reason_ reasons. Flouting the U.N.? Possibly possessing weapons? Being a tyrant? Being Muslim and in the general neighborhood of the country of origin of the 9-11 terrorists?

Well, I kept waiting. And I waited months before I realized that the supporters had already stated all the motivations they felt. That realization did two things. 1. Made me against the war, beause it had not been justified. 2. Made me disdainful of those "conservatives" for whom such excuses could justify attacking, invading, and occupying a foreign country, and blissfully confident in our ability to make something better in Iraq, and wasting so much life (ours and Iraqi) and political capital when there were so much better causes around.

I like a lot of those "conservatives" on a lot of issues, but the question really has to be raised: how could they all fail a relatively easy quiz so miserably?

Well what about the stacks of information that various goverments and institutions had presented indicating that the Butcher of Bagdad and his government had and was attempting to produce more and better WMD's? It wasn't just Bush and our Government who believed it at the time. It was widely held that the data was correct. Hindsight's a wonderful thing, ain't it?

Hindsight? My view on Iraq hasn't changed. Other conservative critics of the war, including posters on this thread, opposed the war before it started and weren't convinced of the administration's WMD claims. Their hindsight is the same as their foresight. This isn't a case of mass Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking with many of Bush's conservative critics. I wasn't convinced (or unconvinced) of Bush's WMD claims prior to the war. I thought they were unproven. You write: "It wasn't just Bush and our Government who believed it at the time. It was widely held that the data was correct." Who cares if other governments were fooled too? This is like a little kid's argument, "But France and Russia don't have to clean their rooms!" "Everyone else is doing it," is no excuse for mistakes. Additionally, it's important to note that of all the governments with mistaken intel, Bush's was the only one that sent hundreds of thousands of troops to invade a nation over it.

Was it not the best information our government had and wasn't it believed to be credible enough at the time? As I've said, I didn't agree with going into Iraq either but when my and other countries' governments gave what appeared to be valid reasons for military intervention, I didn't jump up and down questioning those reasons. And frankly, neither did a majority of those who now dispute our entry into Iraq.

well mr. flynn, you ducked my question, iran has no 9-11 connection, and if they get nukes, some say they will not, u.s govmt says they will. who do you trust? mybe your intell will let us know. ok? and afganarag didnt attack us a group of aholes in thier mountains did, does that give us a right to "occupy that country?

ASDF, I agree completely. You have said pretty much what I attempted to state in a post a few days ago. Maybe the intelligence was correct. I mean, was it really that impossible for Saddam to have removed all traces of his WMD program? I don't think so.

Sorry, Tagm, I wasn't ducking your question above. But I will duck it here. Iran is different from Iraq. Religious fanatics control Iran. A garden-variety tyrant controlled Iraq. My sense is that Islamic fanatics, and not tyrants, are our main problem in the war on terror--no matter how many times Bush invokes democracy as a panacea. Taking out Iran's nuke program might (I don't know) require mere air strikes. Taking out Saddam required an invasion, and now--as I predicted--preventing religious fanatics from filling the vaccuum necessitates occupation. A nuclear Iran is perhaps the worst scenario of any, with regard to fledling nuclear regimes. I don't know if we can prevent it. Preventing it would have been a whole lot easier, militarily and politically, had we never gone to Iraq. Anyhow, I understand why any supporter of the Iraq war would want to change the subject.

no changing the subject, but you seem to be a future teller, so the thought of sadboy hussain with nukes or bio weapons didnt worry you . hmm, did iran gas there enemies? did they invade a neighbor twice? did they shoot at US planes? hmm and the thought that he might and i say might give some to osama didnt bother you, why iran? see this is a war, not a kids game, not some small historic bump, this war is huge. ok we bomb irans nuke sites, and by the way does that mean they have the bomb? whats ur intellboys say? you seem to be a nostrodamis, you see the future, you know iraq was not a threat, so how do you know iran wont do anything? and the fact that we have 150,000 troops over there might be a good thing, in the big picture. you seem to think iraq is some isolated case, a side war or a second front not needed. please!!!! i was not changing subjects cause this is all interconnected in my view. and i get the idea you and your liked minded see this as a police action. you know sit back and swat away the islamoflys as they get close to america. well i dont, the enemy is over there, so take the fight too them.

Yeah, I think we see this differently. I don't think it's "huge" in any historic sense. Tens of millions of people died in WWI. Tens of millions of people died in WWII. Keep in mind that WWII, if you date it from the partition of Poland, was about as long as the time between 9/11 and now. WWI was shorter. Prior to 9/11, how many Americans had al Qaeda killed? Less than fifty says the 9/11 commission. They are evil people with grand designs. They should be fought. But let's keep some perspective.

Let's also keep a semblance of geography. The 9/11 terrorists used Afghanistan, which was then run by religious fanatics, as a staging ground. They didn't use Iraq, which is separated from Afghanistan by 800 or so miles of Iran.

I'm flattered that you've projected the power of prophecy upon me, but it didn't take a prophet to figure out a defanged Saddam Hussein, who no expert claimed was close to having nuclear weapons no matter how many times administration officials juxtaposed mushroom clouds with inaction, was no threat to the United States.

I don't view Iraq and the war on terror as part of the same thing. My sense is that neither do the American people, who overwhelmingly see the positives of fighting terrorists and overwhelmingly see the negatives of occupying Iraq.

i think you see this as a little war cuz we havent lost 20,000 in one battle. if we are lucky only another 4000 in 5yrs. you and i differ on this. i think its only going to get worse, much worse, you see,iraq, pakisan, iran,saudi, thier all the same. i dont know whats up in 5 yrs. but i will tell you i dont think it looks good.
also the word occupy,to me means we control everything. looks to me like we are trying to help build a better irag not control it. youknow like halt! papers please! but the enemy has room to breath. i would have liked to see us jump on them with both feet but that is politics.

There is common misunderstanding that everyone thought Iraq had WMD. This isn't exactly true, and when we look closely enough at the case for war it was really a house of cards that had collapsed before the first shot was fired.

The refrain -- everyone thought Iraq had WMD -- is ambiguous because it can imply different things. For instance, it could mean A) that Iraq had not fully accounted for the chemical shells that it produced in the 1980s. Or it could mean B) that starting sometime in 2001 and up until March of 2003 Iraq was manufacturing biological and chemical weapons, and seeking a nuclear weapon. These are two unrelated and distinct claims, so when someone says "Iraq had WMD" does it mean claim A or claim B? This needs to be clarified.

This clarification is important because the United Nations did acknowledge that Iraq had unaccounted for weapons (claim A) but never issued any report or intelligence claiming Iraq was actively producing WMD. The claims made by U.S. intelligence and the Bush Administration (Claim B) were quite different -- they were alleging that Iraq was actually producing and stockpiling WMD in 2002, and seeking a nuclear weapon. So when people say "everyone thought Iraq had WMD" they are conflating Claim A and Claim B and engaging in deception.

So what evidence was there for Claim B? The conclusion that Iraq had mobile biological weapon labs came down to one defector, Curveball, who was known to be untrustworthy before March of 2003. The conclusion that Iraq was seeking a nuclear weapon came down to two bits of data: uranium forgeries and aluminum tubes. Both these bits of "data" were challenged and refuted by the IAEA in its March 7th, 2003 report. Finally the conclusion that Iraq was producing chemical weapons came down to suspicious truck activity at suspect sites. However, all these sites were inspected by UNMOVIC and they verified no proscribed activity. So all the claims that Iraq was producing WMD and seeking a nuclear bomb had been disproved before the war started in March of 2003. Bush took America to war even though the case for war had already vaporized into thin air.

Intelligence is a dynamic process -- conclusions can and do change. Even if someone thought Iraq was producing WMD in October of 2002, was it just as credible to believe the same conclusion in March of 2003? No, because the evidence had already been seriously challenged.

Perhaps the neologism, Nifonged, may best describe the Bush Administration's decision to wage war in Iraq -- they took America to war after the case for war had been refuted.

The most important hard lesson that we should learn is that wars cannot be waged in a half hearted fashion. This war has had too few troops and too few resources devoted to it from the very beginning and it still lacks sufficient troops and resources. As such, we have never really had a realistic chance of achieving our goals.

Before going to war we should be fully committed to the cause. The goals for the Iraq War were/are as follows: 1.)eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, 2.)remove the Iraqi regime, 3.)establish a Democratic government in Iraq that will be allied with the US in the Global War on Terrorism. To date, the committment to the Iraq war has been half hearted. The proper allocation of resources will not be forthcoming. The electorate will not support it. As such, it would be prudent for policy makers to end our military presence in Iraq post haste. Any further involvement in Iraq only places greater strain on our already undersized Army. If the Army breaks, this would be disasterous for American national security.

The most important thing to be considered with regards to any war is does it help or hinder national security. Our continued military involvement in Iraq hinders national security. It is putting an undue strain on the Army and it seems to be causing us to lose sight of our most dangerous foreign enemy which is Russia.

In order to have any chance of achieving our goals in Iraq, we would have needed to commit enough troops and resources to do the following: 1.)secure all suspected WMD sites, 2.)remove the government from power, 3.)secure all of the weapons caches, 4.) secure the country's borders, 5.) engage and defeat Al Qaeda and all of the militias, 6.) secure the oil facilities, and 7.) have enough trained personnel on hand to ensure the continuing operation of basic services such as electricty, water, and trash clean up. Coailtion military planners should have been able to figure out that the Iraqis who provided these services would abandon their posts and fight in the "insurgency" along side the elements of the former regime.

We only committed enough troops and resources to remove the government. Due to a lack of committment we have never had a realistic chance of achieving our goals. We compounded our problems when the elections were held so soon. There is no way we should have allowed Islamists parties or parties with ties to Iran to run for public office. This was about as foolish as it would have been to allow Nazis to run for office in post WWII Germany.

The very first step to implementing what some refer to as "nation building" is to establish security. We never had enough troops or resources to committed to the operation to establish this and we still don't have the proper resources committed. Since the US government was never willing to commit the proper resources to Iraq to establish security, we never really had a realistic chance.

As stated previously, since we are not going to get the resources necessary, prudent Government leadership would withdraw American troops from Iraq post haste. In the interests of American national security, the optimal use for them would be to secure the borders.

The bottom line is due to our missteps in Iraq when we withdraw from Iraq, our Islamic Extremists enemies will be stronger than they were when we went into Iraq. The Army is not large enough to maintain the current troop committment and, at this time, the American people will not support a larger committment. This means we withdraw now or later. The later we withdraw our position will be even weaker. Sound Governmental leadership would remove the American military from Iraq post haste.

The Democrats could end the war in Iraq tomorrow by cutting the funding for the war. They won't do this. The Republicans could get out in front of the Democrats on this and show themselves to be responsive to American national security needs.

Since our enemeis will be stronger after our withdrawl from Iraq, good leadership will need to have a plan for American national security that will work after our complete withdrawl from Iraq. This should include the following: 1.) securing the borders, 2.)placing a moratorium on immigration from Muslim lands, and 3.) closely monitor the mosques. We know the profiles for theses people. It is foolish not to monitor them. 4.) Develop more of our own oil and natural gas reserve and build more refineries. This will give us more leverage when negotiating with the worlds major oil producers. These four practical policies have the advantage of being policies that the American people will likely support. The ACLU and the elite media may not like them but the American people will probably support these policies. The American people will not support our continued involvement in Iraq. Good leadership would end our involvement there post haste.

There is a very slim chance that the current surge strategy might actually work. In order to give us a realistic chance to achieve our goals in Iraq, we would have needed to commit at least 500,000 troops and probably more at the outset.

Currently we would need a surge of at least that many troops to give us a realistic chance of establishing enough security to give the factions enough space to achieve a politcal solution. The surge of an additonal 30,000 troops or so has about as much of a chance of long range success as an individual who plays the lottery regularly has a chance of winning it.

If the surge actually succeeds, policy makers might be foolish enough to try another half hearted military operation. This would probably be very disasterous for American national security.

If we MUST invade Iran, this cannot be a half hearted operation. There nuclear sites are well protected and they have the support of both Russia and China. In order to eliminate their nuclear progams and to defeat them will require a MASSIVE build up simillar to the type of build up that was undertaken during WWII. At this time, I'm not convinced we need to invade Iran. As things stand currently, the American people would not support this. As such, it would be foolhardy for policy makers to undertake such a policy.

Good leadership should consider American national security interests in light what can actually be implemented. The current involvement in Iraq cannot be continued. Only bad leadership would advocate a continued US prescense there.

A bit off topic but I think the best Presidential candidate is Ron Paul. While I amy not agree with him on all of the issues, he has shown true leadership. For this he has my utmost respect.

A major lesson of the Iraq War is that we shouldn't go to war only to fight it half-heartedly. (I thought we had already been taught this lesson? Maybe we aren't good learners.) But isn't better to do a bad thing half-heartedly than unscrupulously?

And how can we in the same breath admit that Iraq was an enormous mistake and that we can't accomplish our goals there, and then think of taking on an invasion of Iran? (Maybe we aren't good learners.)

I think neocons -- like other progressives -- need to move on to ever new projects in order to distract themselves and their audience from thier massive failures.

Again i dont think irag is a mistake, its one battle in the war on terrorists. seems to me most people think the war was over when the taliban was pushed out of afganarag. and now they can say with glee that bush is a falure cuz irag isnt a cake walk. i never thought that ,but i think the war is bigger than the FBI and local police. its a war, kill the enemy where he is. Bush thought i think that irageez would welcome the chance for freedom, and i will agree with you on that part he was dead wrong. but anywho sadass husain had to go, the mullahs have to go,the question is how? do we arrest then, or do we kill them? whats it gonna be,COPS or WAR? i say both.

uberfrau

The war in Iraq seems to have been engaged in a half hearted manner. Apparently we are poor learners. Hopefully we have learned our lesson.

"But isn't it better to a bad thing half heartedly than unscrupulously?" No. On that note, I'm wondering when the Democrats will get started on impeachment hearings for the President and the Vice President and when will the Generals in charge of the war plans for Iraq be held to account.

Allot of policy makers and other people were wrong about Iraq not just Neo Conservatives. I was wrong not to be more skeptical of the information coming from my Government and from the media.m Also, I had my doubts when I learned that the US and its allies planned to invade Iraq with only about 150,000 troops. We should have used at least 500,000 and probably more. Also, due to political correctness we have often been forced to fight with one hand tied behind our backs. I thought these ideas were wrong headed but I thought the generals who thought 150,000 troops would be sufficient knew better than I did and I thought the talking heads who said we could not fight with every thing we had because we want to win hearts and minds knew better than I did. I was wrong.

While neo conserviates certainly deserve much blame for Iraq, to blame it entirely on them obsucres what did actually happen. With that said I find many of the stances taken by neo conservatives to be quite dangerous. If the Iraq war leads to the destruction of neo conservatism that would at least be a small silver linning in an other wise very dark cloud.

I think I point out in the previous post that I'm not convinced we need to invade Iran. The point I was trying to make is if we MUST invade Iran this cannot be a half hearted operation of the manner that Iraq has been. If we got the necessary committment for Iraq, we might be able to salvage it, however, the committment will not be forthcoming. As such, the prudent course of action is to withdraw and work on policies that have a reasonable chance of enhancing American national security.

The bottom line is wars cannot be waged half heartedly. To date, Iraq has been waged half heartedly. Unfortunately I don't think the surge has a very good chance of succeeding. Now we have to deal with the consequences of fighing a half hearted war. These consequences are not fully known at this time but they are likely as follows. 1.)Islamic Extremists who are stronger than they were when we invaded Iraq. 2.) We have become distracted. This has caused us to lose sight of our most dangerous foreign enemies which are Russia and China. 3.) Oil prices are much higher due to the instability we brought to the Middle East. This has enriched Russia and Iran and made them stronger. Russia has used this opportunity to become the most powerful military force on earth. 4.) As an extension of point number 3, Russia is upgrading Iran's air force. When the upgrade is completed, unless the US upgrades its capabilities, Iran will be capable of fighting and winning a conventional war with the US. 5.)The US Army has been worn down. As such, the US is now weaker than it was before the Iraq.

The bottom line is, to date, the half hearted war in Iraq has strengthened our enemies and weakened our own position. As stated previously, I'm not convinced that we have to invade Iran. I am now more skeptical of what Government officials and media pundits tell me. If we have to invade Iran, it will now be more difficult than it would have been had we fought the Iraq war to win or had we not fought the Iraq war at all.

Wonder what we do with our $600 Million embassy when we leave? Probably won't have to worry about that.

"Wonder what we do with our $600 Million embassy when we leave?" My understanding is the size of embassies and the size of their staffs and what the staffs consist of are a matter of negotiations between the countries involved. In this case, the size of the embassy, if the US maintains one afer all of its troops have departed, will be in the future a matter of negotations between the Amerian and the Iraqi government. Also, the size of the current embassy project is a matter negotiations between the US and Iraqi governments. In other words, embassies and diplomatic staffs are there at the pleasure of the host country. As to what happens to the huge faciltiy when American troops leave, I suspect it will either remain uncompleted, perhaps the Iraqis will tear it down, or the the Iraqis themselves may use it.

In any event, it seems unlikely to me that the US will be maintaining much of a diplomatic prescense in Iraq after all of the military forces are withdrawn. At the pleasure of the Iraqi government, a skeleton diplomatic staff might remain behind assuming it serves the interest of the Iraqi government.

In other words, the $600 million facitlty will not be used by the Americans. It, like the entire nation building project in Iraq, has been a giant waste of resources that we should have been used to fight the Global War on Terrorism, not to mention a huge waste of taxpayer money.

Another hard lesson we should learn is that given the difficulty we and our allies have had in establishing representative democracy in Iraq this should cause us to have a greater appreciation for how precious and fragile our own representative democracy is. Unfortunately this lesson will escape the left.

The notion that we are fighting the war in Iraq "half-heartedly" is a misconception because it assumes our mistakes are tactical and not strategic. However, the fundamental problem with our mission in Iraq is at the strategic level -- the belief that if we devote sufficient resources we can turn Iraq into a stable, democratic country that is politically aligned with the United States. What's the nexus between dropping more bombs on Iraq and convincing Iraqis to support Israel? I don't see it.

Regime change by itself cannot be a strategic consideration. The argument for regime change can never rest on whether a regime is brutal, but only on the guarantee that the regime that we create and defend will be in our interests. Since there is no real way to guarantee this, citing the brutality of any regime as a cause for war is baseless.

The United States has nothing to "win" in Iraq and thus nothing to "lose" if we withdrawal.

Eric

Had we devoted enough troops and resources to Iraq to establish security we may have been able to achieve a situation where the new government would be allied with us in the broader global war on terrorism. Since we did not provide the necessary resources to achieve security and we are not going to get them, the point is moot. In the itnerests of American national security,it is long past time for us to withdraw from Iraq. The troops in Iraq could be better used to secure the American borders.

Even if we had provided sufficient resources to the Iraqi government so they could "stand on their own" there is still no reason to think they would ally with us on the War on Terror. SCIRI and Dawa are parties headquartered in Iran and so they'll follow the fatwas of the Ayatollahs, Sistani now rather than Khaemini. However, no sovereign, democratic Iraqi government is going to support the United States against Iran, Hizbollah etc.

This is why the Neocons originally wanted their own man, professional liar and crook Ahmed Chalabi, to assume the reigns of power in Iraq. But Sistani intervened and now we have an Iraqi government that takes its marching orders from the Ayatollahs. Resources are not the issue. This war falters at the strategic, not tactical, level and I do agree we should withdraw. Putting troops on the US Mexican border would be a far better use of our military.

Truth is, we likely will never leave Iraq and will need to maintain some diplomatic/military presence in that country for some time to come. Politically and socially this will be a disaster and even though we shouldn't have gone there in the first place, to leave completely now would be a stategic disaster. Especially as the Iraqis are totally incapable of taking care of themselves and chaos in the region would certainly be worse than it is now.

Eric

You are spot on about the Iraq government. This is why we should be prepared to remove this government and end the Democracy experiment. If we were serious about fighting Iraq properly, this is what we should have done. Due to political correctness we are not going to seriously challenge the Iraqi government. The Iraqi leadership knows this, therefore, they are able to oppose us with impunity. Also, had we provided enough force at the start we may have benn able to demonstrate ourselves as the strongest player in the region and the Iraqi Democratic government may have been more willing to work with us in a constructive manner.

Of couse all of these things are speculation. They did not happen. Iraq never got the resources necessary to give us a realistic chance of achieving our stated goals. There was no realistic chance of getting the necessary resources from the start. As such, an invasion of Iraq should have never taken place. So, yes I agree with you that this was a strategic error from the beginning.

As a result of the strategic error, when we withdraw, Al Qaeda, Iran, and other terrorist organizations will be stronger and the United States will be weaker. This looks like a strategic defeat for the United States. I say "looks like" becuase there is a very slim chance the surge may succeed, however, the odds are so slim that I don't think it is worth continuing or even implementing in the first place.

I believe the only question now is how bad the defeat will be for the United States. The longer we stay with an undersized force who STILL does not have adequate resources and the longer we go without seriously standing up to the corrupt Iraqi government the worse the defeat is. As such, we should withdraw before our Army is worn down further. As someone once pointed out, when one is on the wrong path, the best thing to do is to turn around and get on another path. The sooner we withdraw from Iraq the better. The current force structure is unsustainable and if continued for much longer will destroy the Army.

I'm glad we agree that a better use of these troops would be to secure the US Mexican border. I also think the borders between the US and Canada should be secured as well. We don't have a good handle on what is coming from Canada either.

Asdf

Whether or not we maintain some type of diplomatic prescense in Iraq will be a matter of negotiations between the Aemrican and Iraqi governments. It seems unlikely that we will be maintaining any military prescense in either Shia or Sunni areas of Iraq. Also, I don't think we are likely to deploy to Kurdish areas either. The American government does not want to be involved in a war between Kurdistan and Turkey.

I agree that we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. It is already a disaster. For us to remain there will make it even worse for American strategic interests. I don't have any pressing desire to take care of Iraqis nor od I think it is our responsibility. If they would rather kill each other than build a viable state, this is their problem not ours.

Whether we stay or remain there will be chaos in the region. The undersized US Army is being worn to the bone. If we withdraw, we will be in a better position should we have to intervene in the future than if we stayed in.

If the US is going to remain a major power, it will likely have to use military force some where in the world at some point in the future. It is important that they not be half baked operatiions like Iraq was. Also, it is important to properly plan them strategically.

Due to political correctness and the desire to score points with the elite media the Iraqis were moved into democracy to soon. Also, Islami parties were allowed to run for government positions. Allowing political parties with ties to Iran to run for an election in Iraq was arguably the stupidist decision in the history of Western civilization.

I look for the withdrawl of American troops to begin in September of 2007. I look for the withdrawl to be completed by the end of July 2008. By August 1, 2008 there will be no US military prescense in Iraq of any type. If I'm wrong on this, I will come here and admit it.

Since we are now making predictions, I will go on record and say that troops will be in Iraq until the conclusion of the Bush presidency. Also, I'll speculate that the number will not be less than 100,000.

Moreover, Bob Novak had a column yesterday disclosing a new operation in Kurdistan involving US special forces targetting the leadership of the PKK. Turkey is about to invade northern Iraq due to repeated terrorist incidents, so it appears if new fronts are opening up in Iraq, and we are only going to be further dragged into the Iraqi mess.

Why don't we just hire 300 Spartans to go in there and kick a$$?

The Bush presidency will likely be over by the middle of next year. He is going to be impeached. He will not finish his term.

If he some how manages to hang on, he will leave office in January of 2009. At least I think, this is when the President would relinquish the White House to the next president. The Army has been worn down. I have serious doubts that the Army would be able to maintain a viable troop strength of 100,000 in Iraq until January of 2009. In other words, even if the Bush Administration wanted to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq until the normal end of his term, I don't think the Army can maintain this troops level for that long. The troops will be completely out of Iraq by 8/1/08. Neither Congress nor the American people will tolerate a longer committment. It is questionable whether or not the Army, as it is currently structured, could maintain a committment of 100,000 troops for duration of President Bush's normal term.

I'm not sure how accurate Bob Novak's column is. I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. I think it is highly probable that US special forces are tarteting the PKK. I'm sure this is part of ground work that is being laid for our withdrawl.

I also think it is highly probable that Turkey will invade Northern Iraq because of the repeated terrorist attacks that you mention. This is all the more reason we will be withdrawing. There is no appetite within the US to get involved in a conflict between Turkey and Kurdistan nor should there be. This is a matter that the Kurdistan and Turkey will need to resolve between themselves.

As stated previously, if my predictions turn out to be wrong, I will come here and admit it. After all, I've been wrong before.

Impeached? How so?

The impeachment will probably be based on something to do with the awarding and management of contracts for Iraq. Billions were squandered. Another possibility for impeachment may have to do with management of the NSA wire tapping.

I'm not an attorney nor am I an expert on the Constitution either. Getting enough people to understand the legal technicalities of the NAS may be too difficult for the House and Senate to spend allot of time persuing. The best option appears to have to do with the awarding and managing of contracts for Iraq. As stated previously, billions were squandered. This will probably be easy to create momentum for impeachment here.

Not being an attorney I'm not entirely sure how it will work. I think the President must be caught in something illegal. With regards to the awarding and managing of contracts for Iraq many of the contractors probably have close ties to the Bush Administration. I think they would have to prove the Bush Administration or the President was directly involved in the corruption.

Under ordinary circumstances such direct involvement by the White House would probably be hard to prove, however, as unpopular as the President is getting him impeached would probably not be a difficult order. At this point, I cannot imagine top legal talent rushing to the defense of this President. No one wants to be associated with him. I can't imagine many pundits coming to his defense. That is if they like having readership.

I know I won't be defending this President. I know of no one else who will. Frankly George W. Bush is the worst president in American history.

The key for the House will be to bring charges that have some plausibility to them. Then they can allow the media to do the rest. The politicians will not be able to remove him fast enough to please the public.

The President might be able to avoid impeachment if he gets tough on border security. If he did this, he might be able to get some folks to come to his defense. He will not do this. As such, he is unlikely to finish his term.

"The impeachment will probably be based on something to do with the awarding and management of contracts for Iraq. Billions were squandered. Another possibility for impeachment may have to do with management of the NSA wire tapping.

"I'm not an attorney nor am I an expert on the Constitution either. Getting enough people to understand the legal technicalities of the NAS may be too difficult for the House and Senate to spend allot of time persuing. The best option appears to have to do with the awarding and managing of contracts for Iraq. As stated previously, billions were squandered. This will probably be easy to create momentum for impeachment here.

"Not being an attorney I'm not entirely sure how it will work. I think the President must be caught in something illegal. With regards to the awarding and managing of contracts for Iraq many of the contractors probably have close ties to the Bush Administration. I think they would have to prove the Bush Administration or the President was directly involved in the corruption. ..." -B. Poster

A word to the wise: do yourself a favor and stop talking out of your wrong end.

argh

I'm not talking out of my wrong end. I admit to not always being very articulate, however, the ana-lysis is sound. The President will be impeached. The impeachment will either center on the awarding and management of contracts for Iraq's reconstruction or it will center on aspects of the NSA wiretapping program. Perhaps it will center on both. My best educated guess is the focus of impeachment will be on the awarding of contracts for Iraq's construction. The primary reason is because this will be aasier to explain to the American people.

This President is outta here. He will not finish his term. Instead of personal insults it would be better to explain why the ana-lysis is wrong.

I'm not convinced anybody will be able to pin anything on GW. Personally, I would like to see him impeached for this complete dismissal and disregard for our immigration laws and as a co-conspirator with Mexico to destroy the United States. But, that won't happen either.

I expect him to finish his second full term with little extracurricular fanfare as once the powers that be realize how difficult it is to topple a sitting President, they'll give up and wait for 01-20-09.

OK, I'm not a doctor or an epidemiologist either. Getting Americans to understand how harmful to their health so many of their habits may well be a difficult task. I predict, though, that in 10 years Americans will be dropping like flies, left and right. The population will be halved in 15 years. I'm not sure exactly how this will happen but it will have something to do with the fact that Americans eat fast food all the time and have a hard time quitting smoking. Also, probably they don't exercise enough and this will be another factor. Not being a doctor or an epidemiologist, I'm not entirely sure how this will work. But the ana-lysis is sound. Show me how it isn't...

B.Poster, if you're not an attorney or expert on the Constitution, then leave the driving to them. Better yet, check with your local attorney or Consitution expert. Ask THEM not if the president COULD be impeached, but whether he WILL be impeached. Your prection sounds more like some fanciful wishful thinking of a kook rather than a sound-minded realist.

Argh

Your ana-lysis is wrong on the bad habits of Americans. They are actually beginning to eat better now than they used to. This will result in a trend of Americans living longer and healthier lives. Granted it will take some times for these better habits to fully show up in the system but the trend is clearly there. Restaurants and fast food establishments are fully aware of the trends. This is why they are now offering things like soups and salads on their menus.

With regards to smoking fewer Americans are smoking now than ever before. This is why anti-smoking laws are so easy to pass. The populace, as a whole, finds the habit repulsive.

In addition, more people are excersizing. The health and fitness industry is booming like never before.

My belief that President Bush will not survive hsi term is based on sound reasoning. Three factors have combined to create the perfect storm, so to speak. They are as follows: 1.)The policies of this President have made him wildly unpopular with the entire electorate as well as the Republican base. 2.)The main stream media as well the leftist elite despise him and can be counted on to keep up the pressure for impeachment. 3.)America is wildly unpopular around the world now. This is seen as the fault of George W. Bush. This unpopularity for America is beginning to affect the bottom line of many of America's corporate interests. American business leaders believe that getting rid of Bush would go along way toward repairing America's image in the world. These people, as a whole, desparately want this president out.

The key will be finding a charge that is plausible. Once this is done, the media and the business leaders will beat the proverbial drums for impeachment. Already about 45% of the American populace would support impeachment. By the time the media and the business leaders are done, Congress will not be able to impeach this president fast enough to please the American people.

The ana-lysis is not the wishful thinking of a kook. It is very realistic, however, this does not mean it will definitely happen. I think I can say with a 95% degree of probability that this president will not finish his term.

The only way he has a reasonable chance to avoid impeachment will be if he comes down hard on border security. This would serve to rally the base to his defense. As it stands now, NO ONE of any consequence is going to defend this President.

My bad parody of your argument was intended mainly to draw out the point that you are (ironically self-admittedly!) not the proper authority to be opining on such matters, just as I am not suited to opine on American health trends. I do not begin to argue with your ana-lysis; rather, my argument is with you for presuming to offer it. Yes, it's a free country and we can all speculate, speak and write as we wish about these sorts of things, but that doesn't mean that all speculation is equally valuable or true.

Talk to one competent lawyer and you should gain some valuable perspective. While your "perfect storm" may well be brewing (see, I'm not arguing with your ana-lysis), the legal process is far more obscure, complicated and slow moving than one would likely ever imagine. This is the crux of my problem with you. In somewhat childlike fashion, you seem to believe that certain facts and circumstances make impeachment a virtual fait accompli. The realist knows that legal process too often spins on its own axis, seemingly divorced from our reality. Even if all your assertions and assumptions are right on, that's never any sort of guarantee (much less a 95% one, as you maintain) that the process would ever play out accordingly.

Argh

You are correct that the legal process is often slow moving, however, it can be fast tracked when prosecutors and government officials want to. For example, when the Government prosecutes pro-life activists it often moves much faster than is normal. Also, prosecution of Christians for any number of things often moves much faster than it normally would. There is precedent for a speedy process than is normal. This is what I suspect will happen here. Any way this presient is outta here.

My previous post was a bit hurried. While sometimes the legal process is fast tracked, this is not usually going to be the case. High profile cases can take up to a year or more to complete. This in when both the prosecution and the defense attorneys are extremely enthusiasic about the cases they are fighting.

In the case of this White House, I don't expect top notch legal defense to be rushing to defend this president. In addition, media pundits who might be able to sway public opinion will not be defending him either. That is if they value their readership. No one wants to be tainted by this guy. These factors will lead to a faster trial than might ordinarily be expected for such a high profile case.

Currently the Democrats are investigating any thing and every thing. It seems highly unlikely they will not find something. I think hearings will begind sometime in September of 2007. I think they will be wrapped up sometime around late August of 2008. The president will be leaving office after the House and Senate impeach him.

The Democrats will present to the American people the impeachment of a wildly unpopular President and the complete American withdrawl of American troops of troops from Iraq. The Republicans will get massacred on election day.

Of course the Republicans may be able avoid their fate if they will get out in front of the Democrats on withdrawl from Iraq. What are the long range consquences of allowing Iraq to become a terrorist haven? That is not known right now. In any event, there is an election to win right now. Politicians will worry about that later.