If we succeed in Iraq, will the world remember our mistakes, or----?

You did not define success. From Bush's standpoint, it will be a success if the current strategy continues. Bush's original neocon intention, even before 9/11, was to establish a permanent US military presence in the Middle-East and that will be the result. The "surge" has succeeded only in the sense of

(a) reducing US casualties by putting an end to road convoys and roadside bombs;

(b) moderating the Shi'ite-Sunni War because the only remaining Sunnis around Baghdad are in economically unsustainable walled ghettos built and protected by our troops;

(c) the Sunni tribes got fed up with Al-Qaeda extremists and started eliminating them long before the surge began and Gen. Petraeus helped them.

However, about half of our maximum troop strength will be needed indefinitely to keep a lid on the boiling pot. So Bush gets what he wanted.

The trouble begins when you re-define success to mean "put an end to the War on Terror", which began and will continue because Oussama bin Laden and his followers don't like Westerners in Muslim nations.

The only way to get our guys out of Iraq is to put an end to Iraq. And it is so easy:

(1) Let the UN hold a plebiscite for Kurdistan (including Kirkuk) to become a totally independent nation. The Kurds will jump at the chance.

(2) Offer the few remaining Sunnis in the Baghdad region safe transportation and financial aid and housing if they wish to move to a Sunni province. They will jump at the chance.

(3) Once the Shi'ites and Sunnis are separated enough, let the UN hold local plebiscites to determine boundaries between Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiastan.

When each of these groups has their own totally independent nation without significant "enemy" minorities, the fighting will stop. It may be necessary to keep a few brigades at certain borders, but only until the dust settles. Then all our guys can head for home - or Afghanistan, where they are sorely needed.

Edit (1): (a)No. We got into this mess when Churchill decided to make one country out of three, the exact opposite of my proposal.

(b) Look up the word "plebiscite". How did you turn a UN sponsored plebiscite into a UN decision? Think about the way you use words.

Edit (2): Wanting a strong military presence in the Middle-East seems to be the cause of most of our problems there, not the solution as you see it. Look up the word "Mossadegh", which goes back to Eisenhower. That's where all our trouble with the Shi'ites began. Learn some history before you pontificate.

Edit (3): The US Air Force has never waited for anyone's permission to fly anywhere in response to an attack. Where did you get that silly idea?

Edit (4). How are you going to make a democracy out of Iraq? There are 4 purple-fingered Shi'ites for every Sunni or Kurd. They will always win every election, just as they won the last one. Will Sunnis support a Shi'ite army? Will Kurds or Shi'ites share their oil with the hated Sunnis? What are you smoking?

Edit (5): (a) yes, I am frustrated by all the damage done in this world by the well-meant, but ill-considered beliefs and acts by born again, evangelical Christians. You have the arrogance of Churchill. You think, as he did, that you can draw lines around an area on a map, name it “Iraq”, and intone the magic words, “You are now all Iraqis”.

I take that back. You are more arrogant than Churchill. He armed the Sunni minority to dominate the majority Shi’ites and the Kurds with the practical purpose of controlling their oil. That resulted in three generations of suppression and finally in Saddam Hussein’s hell. Now that Bush has liberated the Shi’ites and armed them, you think that you can overcome Kurd and Shi’ite hatred of the Sunnis by intoning the magic words, “Live in peace. Try to be democratic. I know you have thousand year old issues and more recent massacres between your sects, but if you really, really try, everything will be fine.” And you didn't even mention oil. Sheer arrogance!

I have to remind you that we are six generations removed from Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the only reason Bush is in the White House is because white people in Southern States won’t vote for a “n------ loving liberal”. And you think you can overcome these hatreds by magic words? Sheer arrogance!

To impose your beliefs on these three sects, you support a plan to maintain a large American force indefinitely in the Middle-East, radicalize one billion Muslims, and thereby help Osama bin Laden recruit thousands of new martyrs. You call that maturity? More like a bull in a china shop! Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do.

(b) With respect to my Edit (1b), no answer. Ditto Edit (2). Cat got your tongue? Edit (3) when, specifically, did the US Air Force wait for foreign permission to respond to an actual attack? Edit (4) Do you get some perverse pleasure out of forcing a minority to live under the rule of a majority that hates them? What, exactly, do you find repellant about each sect having their own nation? And what, indeed, are you smoking?

Edit (6) (a) A black Mississippi and Alabama would have been a vast improvement over the failed Reconstruction, segregation, and discrimination. An Indian South Dakota and Arizona would have been a vast improvement over genocide. Whenever you have homogenous populations subject to oppression by a prejudicee majority, giving them self-determination and self-government is an absolute necessity, if you have an ounce of decency.

(b) The USA is now a fairly heterogenous population. Iraq holds three relatively large homogenous population seperated largely into their own provinces, with the sole exception of the Baghdad area, which can be easily sorted out. For some reason you don't like self-determination.

(c) You may think that the Kurds don't have a claim to Kirkuk's oil or that the Shi'ites don't have a claim to Basra's oil, but they think so. You want to destroy the lives of millions ot those people to impose your stupid ideas on them against their wish. Sheer arrogance!

(d) You are the one that wants to accept Churchill's lines, not me. And you still seem to think that the UN will be making decisions rather than watching the polls. Please, borrow a dictionary and look up the word "plebiscite". And try to answer my specific questions or admit defeat.

Ideally, Iraq together with humanity might benefit in a small way from the tragedy we have caused in Iraq.

Saddam was certainly a tragedy in and of himself but, he was Iraq's tragedy.

The mistakes and blunders we have delivered to that hapless people cannot possibly be covered over by one small positive occurrence, if such an occurrence is even possible.

This religious war has waged since the mid 8th century CE and it was too much to expect that some mostly illiterate chief "executive" would have even the slightest concept of that sad and obvious fact.

He has obviously surrounded himself with "YES - "Men"" some of whom may not be completely ignorant but to keep their mostly useless heads have declined to attempt to enlighten "himself"!

I just hope the American People have finally had enough gratuitous abuse to put people in Washington who have more than a snowball's chance of trying to repair some of the extensive damage to the American way of life done by the most Party-Driven, special interest serving, incompetent bunch of freeloaders ever to pollute Washington DC!

Let's just be a little more optimistic, and say WHEN we succeed in Iraq, it will show the good intentions of a good president to spead a moral democracy wherever we are able in the world.

Reports are they are already gleaning the fruits of the combined labors of our fighting men and women with the Iraqi's who also want freedom.

"MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

.

.

Please remember :

We started this over thinking they had nuclear weapons.

And he didn't have any .

Only after our invasion did we declare a humanatarian purpose of being there

I think the majority of the world looks at Americans as the real terrorist.

Yet, let history show every large "beast" of power eventually falls.

Our money reserves cant support any more wars.

And the world knows it.

Trick question....

if we succeed at what?

you see... for everyone who says "don't you want us to win?"

.... what does that mean? ... win at what? ...

if we succeed at WHAT in Iraq?

think of the BEST case scenario... we've still lost too many men and women...and we are over there illegally...

it's like asking if we want the armed robber to get away without going to jail...

LASTLY: how can you force a people to be greatful for something they may not have wanted... we're only being TOLD that they "WANT" a democratic society... may they don't, maybe they never did...

in the words of one of our American presidents:

"But we can’t be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile." George W Bush

I think the mistakes are always remembered. We have done so in the past with wars. I believe they will be gratefull but remember that is took years to remember the good that came from Vietnam.

There will always be people who will site the good and people that will site the bad. Even when we talk about WW2 there are still people that say we did more bad than good.

If we succeed in Iraq, there will be another "Iraq" to follow in a short time

"succeed in Iraq"?? succeed at what? there is nothing to win.....'cept oil, and are we really willing to send people off to die for oil?

You still think it is possible to succeed? huh...