[DanSVX94]

I wonder how many of the problems we're having in Iraq are due to the actions of Iran and Syria. I can understand why Bush and company thought they had an opportunity to reshape the region by invading Iraq. At the time they had a choice, consolidate our position in Afganistan, and use this success to intimidate others into cooperating, or go for broke and expand the operation. Unfortunately Bush was too Gung-Ho and impatient. Our politicians were too afraid of being branded soft on terrorism to challenge Bush before the invasion. I didn't buy the nukes/wmd tale and saw it as a trumped up pretense like the Vietnam Gulf of Tonklin.

People both for and against continuing the war in Iraq have been unable to come up with a good plan for withdrawl. This war seems doomed to last longer than WWII -- which is unbelievable. We have to either greatly escalate the level of violence or leave. If we do the former then we have to be prepared to level civilian and/or religious areas where hostiles are hiding, kill leaders/clerics that oppose our goals, take out targets in Iran and Syria if they continue to cause trouble, and let the field commanders do whatever they feel is necessary to dominate the area completely. This stategy would achieve less death and suffering than our present course.

Or we could just leave, take our lumps, and face possible future battles/involvements in the area as they develop. Will our actions have negative consequences in 5, 10, 20, 100 years? Only time will tell.