"lighter, more lethal and highly mobile fighting force,"

I think that is the way to go.

AllenS
Ex Army paratrooper

Had Saddam's forces stuck it out and fought in March two years ago instead of retreating into the shadows, the need to maintain troops there would have been far less than it was. Since the loyalists remained both alive and free to stage hit-and-run attacks with stockpiled munitions, the need to maintain forces to keep the stability became a factor in U.S. domestic politics leading up to the 2004 election.

But now, we should be in full-scale withdrawal from the country by no later than the end of the first round of elections for the Iraqi government at the end of this year -- or at the very least, already setting up camp in the western Iraqi desert near Syria.

Had Saddam's forces stuck it out and fought in March two years ago instead of retreating into the shadows, the need to maintain troops there would have been far less than it was.

Are you suggesting that the next time we want to invade a country, we pick one with an army that will play "more fairer" ?

Liberal:

Yes. Or attack them more ruthlessly sooner. Japan and Germany were rendered supine by the numbers we killed and that made their subsequent domination easier. Had we simultaneously attacked the Iraqi military when we tried the decapitation strike it would have made the peace easier.

I am wondering about the accuracy of this report. Remember, this is the NY Times. The Pentagon may be re-thinking its strategy right now for various reasons, but I have seen generals report on TV and soldiers report in blogs that overall we are winning this war against the insurgency. The following quote seems just the NY Times favorite "quagmire" spin that they've been trying to sell about Iraq since Day 1.

"Something happened on the way to the wars of the future: The Pentagon became bogged down in an old-fashioned, costly and drawn-out war of occupation."

There was a comment by Condoleeza Rice a few months back, to the effect that the administration didn't anticipate guerrilla warfare. What firghtens me is that I believe her. They seem to have figured that it was all like chess - take out the king, and the game is over. If the plan had been to put some of Saddam's generals in, it would all make sense (I wonder if that was the plan, which was then abandoned in April, 2003).

BTW - Chalabi didn't have the forces to do anything but die in Baghdad.

The notion that the kind of heavy army we needed against the Soviets would handle attacks by terrorists using car bombs any better than the one we have now is ludicrous. What were tanks going to do in Fallujah? Idiocy like the 'just war' and 'proportionate response' doctrines prevent us from levelling the place. They'd just be bigger, more expensive targets.

Barry:

It wouldn't have required force, just Sistani's support.

Um... one problem: Chalabi is a Iranian intelligence asset. Sistani is also an Iran sympathizer. Did we topple Saddam just to turn Iraq over to Iran?

For those comments that suggest we should have used more, more powerful, weaponry - e.g., nuke 'em, well... wasn't that the point of the shock and awe initial assault? If the war proves anything, militarily, its that shock and awe doesn't work in an assymetric situation. And lets not forget the unintended consequences of leveling Iraq... it might spawn generations of suicide bombing retribution against the USA. Have you guys done your part to prepare America to live like Israel, with unrelenting frequent small-scale attacks?

Finally, James Fallows and others have documented that in fact, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others were completely aware of the possiblity of occupation and guerilla warfare, they simply chose to ignore what they knew.

Matt:

Yes, they backed off Shock & Awe when they saw a chance to decapitate the regime, It was a mistake.

"Had Saddam's forces stuck it out and fought in March two years ago instead of retreating into the shadows"

Yeah, isn't it terrible when people you're trying to kill won't play by your newest rules? I seem to recall this was a good bit of American tactics in fighting the British. They'd line up and march and we'd be hiding in trees and such. War changes, you need to change with it if you're going to be successful at it. The continuing "insurgency" is another sign of the very poor planning that's gone into this war.

There is no "insurgency". We are fighting the same people we went there to fight in the first place...only on their terms.

Their terms were the imposition of a democratically elected Shi'a/Kurd dominated government? Why didn't they just have open elections themselves?