[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many misconceptions about the war that distort the current debate over U.S. Iraq policy. Although those seeking to score political points often try to reduce the war to simple slogans and either–or strategic propositions, the situation on the ground is complex and not adequately described by debate talking points or campaign rhetoric. The war in Iraq is now a major front in the global war to combat al-Qaeda and is critical to the outcome of U.S. efforts to contain Iran. At the same time, Iraq is the site of a bloody insurgency that threatens to explode into a full-blown civil war. The U.S. has much at stake in this conflict, and a pullout now would bring grave consequences: massive sectarian violence, a humanitarian disaster, and the creation of a failed state that would serve as a springboard for radical Islamic forces to destabilize neighboring states and launch terrorist attacks against a wide variety of targets, possibly including some inside the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of that is probably true yet it all says nothing whatsoever about the chances for success in Iraq. Success as defined by...????...anyway? The administration keeps moving the goalposts by which to measure success in Iraq.

It also does not deal with the matter of WHEN will it be possible to pull out of Iraq? Keeping near-current levels of troops there forever will be an outrageously high and probably non-sustainable expense, and strain on the U.S. military.

The Iraqi factions and militias apparently want to fight each other for power and the U.S. really isn't going to be able to avert that. Heck it's already going on now.

It isn't enough to merely point out the bad things that will happen if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq. That must be weighed against the bad things that will happen if the U.S. stays in Iraq, as well as the expenses of staying there.

If the U.S. is going to bomb out 1200 military sites in Iran, as may be planned ( to take out their entire military infrastructure), including Iran's nuclear facilities, well then maybe a presence in Iraq is needed at least until that is accomplished. (I'm not arguing for or against that as it is beyond the scope or focus of this post and thread). Other than that purpose, I can't see viable reasons for the U.S. to stay, because IMO the bad things that you say will happen if the U.S. leaves, will probably happen anyway over time even if the U.S. remains in Iraq.

As I've said before, a stable and secure Iraqi government consisting of cooperating factions just isn't in the cards. The factions want power and to win; they don't want to cooperate or share power with each other, and that includes most of their representatives in the government and in the security forces and military. The idea of an Iraq cooperating amongst its various opposing factions is a U.S. idea, not an Iraqi idea. It is naive hubris to think that the Iraqis are going to follow U.S. dictums and exhortations about what they "should do" and what will "be good" for them and their country.

I'm not belittling the strategic or tactical concerns you mention; they are very real for the most part: I'm just saying that is only one part of the picture. Pragmatism versus pipedreams is another side of the picture which IMO cannot rightly be ignored. Costs must be weighed against chances for success. When and where has that been done??? And by whom??? The Iraq war and efforts to democratize and stabilize Iraq are based significantly on wishes and dreams rather than on a realistic view of the situation and the history of the region (one piece of evidence that this is the way the adminstration has operated, was Rumsfeld's refusal to heed the projections and advice of his top generals).

If all the U.S. wants to do is apply a band-aid to Iraq indefinitely, well that's the course on now. That isn't going to work in the long run and it is going to cost an arm and a leg (both figuratively and literally).

Thanks for reading, and comments welcome.