Two-thirds of our military stands unable to be deployed in their current state. The Army is broke and needs to replace $10s of billions in equipment. The volunteer force is stretched to the breaking point and America is losing more than 2 troops per day in Iraq, while the Taliban resurges in Afghanistan. While all of this is going on it appears our President, along with a select few led by Senator and Presidential-hopeful John McCain and Joe Lieberman will advocate sending even more troops into Iraq in an attempt to quell the mushrooming violence largely between Sunni and Shiites.

But the question still remains, just how are these troops going to be used? Do these people believe, unlike Senator Smith and most of America, that continuing to patrol and re-patrol the same streets of Baghdad while IEDs and snipers continue to target American troops is going to affect a positive outcome, just where is this belief borne out by experience? All historical dynamics of civil conflicts point to the fact that until the struggle is won or lost by a particular side, there is no way to douse a raging inferno from inside the flames.

I want someone to articulate a military strategy, not hollow, macho, idealistic rhetoric on just how these additional troops will conceivably bring about a "victory" in Iraq. If this argument cannot be made based upon a workable strategy, and clear-cut objectives, measurable on a timely basis, then how can anyone ask our brave soldiers to continue to sacrifice their lives and limbs so that advocates in America can be viewed as refusing to capitulate to reality, only they call it "losing" instead?

This is bad business and looking to get worse.

Not if we stand up and take away his authority to ignore the will of this nation's people.

We have at least two scenarios here.

1- If we pull US troops from Iraq, the civil war will grow into a regional conflict, pulling other neighbors into a military conflagration precipitating the rest of the world working to forge a cessation of hostilities and a political solution for the problems.

2- When the dust settles, the region won't have fallen into war, and whatever is left pulls itself together as a centralized entity, while using its exportable resources as the funding foundation for the rebuilding of the nation. The government focuses upon the myriad social problems and a nation rises from the ashes, much like Vietnam.

3- Whatever happens, its likely that AQ will not be welcome once the US leaves. Its even conceivable that AQ could be the uniting force that brings the Sunnis and Shia together for the sake of their nation. Stranger things have happened.

Mike...

Having quickly perused your link, this type of evidence will quickly become frontpage news once the Senate hearings begin in January. For all the talk about no impeachment, I think it will become politically impossible not to go down this road once the public finds out to what extent its been lied to and mislead by the Administration and this war's proponents. And I think that both Bush and Cheney will face articles in this case.

The only problem with this equation would be "President Pelosi." Honestly, I'd even back a brokered deal whereby Cheney be allowed to step down and another Republican be named Vice President before Bush is impeached. I just don't see how Republicans can fight the tide of American sentiment once the truth is completely out in the light for all to see, including how Bush's cronies have enriched themselves at the cost of all the suffering and hardship borne by the troops and their families.

It indeed is going to get ugly on both sides of the pond for Bush and Blair, along with their enablers.

The only problem with this equation would be "President Pelosi Posted by tonyroma

Pelosi would not be next. The Senate president pro temp would be next.

I wonder if the good senator from Oregon was in the senate in 2002 and if he voted for the Iraq war on not.

Yes he did and he was. You should read his entire floor statement. He took great pains to say he was a strong backer of the war because he believed what the Administration told him on the threat Saddam was based on intelligence. He also decreed being mislead and the continuing lack of honesty put forth by the Administration.

His final point was either that Bush "do it right" going in with troops we don't have available and taking Iraq from stem to stern, or getting our troops out of there immediately as time and an orderly exit allows.