What would you do?

We went over there to defeat a direct adversary but now it is not altogether clear what we are supposed to be doing. We are no longer in the "defeat a cogent enemy role" directly but playing more of a policing role with the primary focus on counterinsurgency (hence policing versus military action). We are simultaneously engaging an enemy force while trying to protect the population from both that force and U.S. operations. On top of all of this, the insurgency and the people in Iraq are somewhat opposed to us even being there... It is definitely a "sticky" and complex situation. With that said, we cannot just leave the country as is. We need to continue rebuilding efforts for as long as it takes. The alternatives lead to further destabalization of the region, particularly with the threats from Tehran and specific terrorist organizations. We could further push the UN or NATO options for peacekeeping and country rebuilding but so far that has not been the case, though it is happening in Afghanistan. The other, far reaching, option is to take over Iran removing the dominate power in the region... Anyway you look at it, we are in for the long haul...

The only option at this point would be to increase the military presence. During the first invasion of Iraq in the early 90's, more than 500,000 troops were used. Even with that many, there was no question about turning them into an occupying force. It was recognized then, that even with that many troops, holding Iraq would be difficult.

Looking at the current situation, the in-country force is less than half of what was available in the 90's. The military leadership of the nations involved had repeatedly said this would not be enough and have asked repeatedly for more men.

With the occupying force being confined to realtively small areas, insurgents are free to move about. Without being able to secure larger areas, stability will be difficult.

Arguing as to whether or not the United States and other nations should be in Iraq is moot. They are there and leaving now would cause more death and instability in the region than there is now.

Your working under a false set of facts. The opponent in Iraq is not al qaeda or some spin off. The opponents are religious groups fighting one another we are just in the way. Look at the kurds in the north nobody is shooting at them why? Because they mind there own business and now put TV ads saying invest in Kurdistan the other Iraq. Let the southern region have there little civil war. It will all pan out eventually with three new countries. Meanwhile the troops in Iraq can be moved to Afghanistan there they can set up fire bases all along the southern frontier and force the locals to go through check points to be inspected if you take a mountain pass you get blasted by the fire bases or there patrols. While that's going on the NATO and UN forces can speed up reconstruction of the afghan interior and perhaps put a cork on the poppy farmers.

Give Iran what it so desperately wants and needs.... a couple nukes... from 50,000 ft.

Closing the borders to prevent outside reinforcements is the correct action to undertake.

Vietnam was the same scenario, open borders.... mmmmnh, oh yeah, the US has open borders..... and is being invaded....

I think there is a pattern developing....

Let me try this little analogy on you. You can lead a horse (Iraq) to water, but you can't make it drink. So how do you get the damn horse to drink? And once you get it to drink will it always be able to find water on it's own and drink?

guess pulling saddam wasnt such a great idea?

maybe if bush got a trial too, the situation might calm.

what good is a christ complex if u cant do the crucufixit thing?

Here's what's REALLY going on in Iraq!...

http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/ira...

There is no win/win situation with repsect to a war. Someone is going to die and they aren't always the bad guys.

as Rummy said, we broke it, it's ours now. we have no choice but to see it thru to the end