There is no productive discussion on this issue pretty much anywhere. In America the republicans say something, the democrats clamour and laugh and say it’s biased, and then say something back, to which the republicans clamour and laugh and say something biased back. How are we ever going to resolve this issue? I believe we will have to wait for about 20 years for some enlightened historians to shed their blanaced wisdom on this issue. In the meantime, couldn’t you atleast try to offer a blanaced commentary of the war?

Yes it is fair that car bombings shouldn’t be excluded. However it is also painfully obvious that when this new plan of a troop surge was announced that the sunni and shia insurgents/freedom fighters/terrorists/militias/iraqi reactionaires (whatever you choose to call them, depending on how you view the war), would also plan a counter-offensive to make people in the west, and in iraq believe that the policy has failed. I know that sounds like neo-conservative republican ranting, but it is also plain common-sense. For it is this policy which will either be the final straw and usher in an American defeat, or which may herald in a new era where America slowly establishes security in Iraq, in short this is the final roll of the dice for America.

I understand peoples opposition to the Iraqi war, it was unjust from the start, had no legal basis, and was downright illegal. It has costed the lives of thousands of Western troops, and many many more iraqi lives, uprooted a nation, creating more than 2 million refuges (more or equal to the number in darfur, which is supposedly the worlds biggest humanitarian distaster), and destroyed the lives of so many people.

Yet right now, how could anyone (except for the Americans themselves) be for a withdrawal from Iraq? Sure the invasion was illegal, and sure the war has been horribly managed, yet right now the American, Polish, British, Australian (etc.) forces are the only things that are stabalising Iraq and keeping the opposing sides (which are many and varied in their aims and affiliations) from killing each other in even more indiscriminant a manner.

What will happen when the Americans leave? In short the country will revert to a bunch of tribal and religious factions fighting each other with the interference of many outside powers. No-one wants an American puppet government in Iraq, however, no-one in their right minds should want it to be anyone elses puppet (a few names come to mind, such as the unstable theocratic republic of Iran).

In short I would like to see a new balanced international debate on the issue, and either a US led force or a UN led one put in Iraq until security is assured and a political solution mandated which will be acceptable to the Sunnis, Shias and the Kurds and which will prevent Iraq from becoming anyones puppet. This road may take a while. And it definately needs a massive rethink when it comes to its strategies, in order for the Iraqi people to gain faith in the western world.

I am not calling for a democracy, I am not calling for an Ieaqi political model along Western lines, as that is ignorant and arrogant. Yet I would love to see a stable country (or countires) come out of the ashes of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and at the end of the day, how can anyone say they want differently? If people get their way and America leaves, the problems won’t end, they will most likely get worse, Iran won’t be able to subdue the country any better (not even all of the Shias want more Iranian influence, the Sunni militias and terrorist groups will certainly oppose it, as will the kurds), and an Iranian dominated Iraq could lead to a conflict with Saudi Arabia and Israel, which would be cataclismic for the middle east, especially as it is not far away from being charged with nuclear bombs.

The Americans stuffed things up, in my opinion we should let them sort this out, they owe that to the Iraqi people. This will involve intense and intergrated political and military/security measures, and diplomatic measures with Iraqs neighbours.

All good points. I do not disagree.

At this point, my complaint is more against the Bush admin and the way it continues to try to manage information, than against the war/occupation itself. Even at this late date, with all the issues you noted, if we had new leadership here, and that leadership said, “We have to stay in Iraq, because of X, Y, and Z,” I could accept that.

But not from Bush, not any more.

As a result, continuing car bombs aren’t useful as a Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) for the Surge — so far, the Surge hasn’t tried to do anything about them. If they continue at the same level, that’s not surprising; if they increase, that’s not surprising, as the enemy finds it is one thing they can do that is still unimpeded, while other avenues are closed off.

That, I think, is the point about car bombs. When the Surge hits 100% (if it does — Congress has to fund it first), they’ll be moving out there and trying to control the neighborhoods where the car bomb factories seem to be. At that point, it’ll make sense to start using car bombs as an MOE.

I’ll accept your explanation completely.

But, even with that being said, I am weary of the half-truths, quarter-truths, and non-truths that have been put forward by the administration.

If what you say rounds out the whole picture, fine. They ought to state it that way.