How is it a stunning success? IED are still going off on a regular basis and killing Americans. Our goal is to build a nation with our troops. A nation that has the loyalty of all three segments of that society. It's the Iraqis that aren't buying it.

The percentage of Iraqis who said they would not want to have Americans as neighbors rose from 87 percent in 2004 to 90 percent in 2006. When asked what they thought were the three main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, 76 percent gave "to control Iraqi oil" as their first choice" link

"up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks (ed..on foreign troops) and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country" link

Not killing enopugh to be significant. The insurgency is a dead letter.

It's a stunning success because for almost no monetary cost and relatively small losses, we invaded Iraq, overthrew the Ba'athist regime, established a new regime, continued our demolition of Al Qaeda, and gave an Arab country a chance at democracy.

I'm not sure what the point is of the polls you cite. I could just as easily cite the polls saying that things are better now than under Saddam and that the Iraqis are optimistic about their future, but what does that have to do with anything?

And an American is safer anywhere in Iraq than in Detroit. A low standard, perhaps.

I mean, I know that us Americans need to be loved, but demanding that the people we invade love us seems a little extra-needy.

Don't need to be loved, but do we have to move from that to beheading? Maybe something in between like a respectful nod of the head.

Our original invasion was such a stunning success because Saddam's military disbanded when we came into the country?

"The insurgency is a dead letter"

In that case we can leave, right?

We don't leave until the Shia's and Kurds, in concert, have the unquestioned ability to exterminate the Sunni's, if necessary. Next question?

Addendum. Two years ago we would have been willing to exit as soon as the Shia's and Kurds had a reasonable chance of defending themselves. They (the Sunni's) badly miscalculated.

h-man: So anything good that happened just happened but anything bad was the result of our stupidity? No wonder no one loves us.

The Sunnis will want us to stay, we're protecting them.

And if Iraq FINALLY decides on that oil trust plan, then how can we have invaded them for oil?

Of course, do Iraqis know we pay market prices? If not, then how can that question be taken seriously?

That is nothing like what I said. The good thing was the removal of a Dictator who wasn't abiding by a ceasefire agreement with the US. Another good thing was that we gave the people of Iraq an "opportunity" to rule themselves in a Democratic fashion. Beyond that it is up to the Iraqis themselves. I did not state or imply that our stupidity caused anything bad to happen.

No reason to ballyhoo about a stunning invasion, if in fact it was executed against a disbanded Army. The remnants of that Army have given as good as that got since then.

Also contrary to what you assert it has been expensive, think of how much daycare we could purchased for working women with that money. (ok I'm joking)

Ghostcat
You seem confident about what we would have done two years ago, but the fact remains the Shia were still shooting at us two years ago.

Secondly the Kurds want their own state and their appropriate share of the oil revenues. Beyond that they couldn't care less about operating in "concert" with the Shia. Although of course such unity might be in their interest to attain those goals.

Sandy

"Sunnis will want us to stay, we're protecting them"

1) it's not obvious that the Shia are a threat to the Sunni without American help.
2) If protecting them means US forces continue to take hits without retaliation then I think we should take a pass.

The Shia's and Kurds are cleaning out both Baghdad and Ramadi as we yammer. But the Sunni's have, for the most part, finally seen the Mene, Mene, etc. (as per erp's comment).

Many of the remaining Baathists and all of the remaining Saddam Fedayeen are dead men walking.

As for the Shiite component of the insurgency, Tater's militia will be taken out are next. (I confess to a degree of sympathy for their cause, but they need to turn their AK's into plowshares.)

h: I have no idea why you think that the insurgents are killing more Americans than we're killing insurgents.

I've never seen a total estimate of insurgents killed or captured, but I do remember one military estimate of 50,000 in the first six months of 2005 alone. I would bet the kill ratio is at least 100:1.

Even if our kill ratio is only 20:1, it would still be historically amazing. Consider that during WWII, even after we broke the back of the German Army, our ratio was only 2:1.

Admittedly, the Sunni's have shown great prowess at killing innocent civilians. That's been their MO, and our media lap it up. But when they fight like soldiers they die.

David, Ghostcat, lebeaux

Now listen up, pay attention!

The goal as stated by George Bush is that Sunni, Kurd, and Shia live as brothers in a non-sectarian democratic country. One country to which they are loyal. To accomplish that we have devoted 100's of billions of dollars and approximately 2500 soldiers and various body parts of 20,000 others.

You can google up kill ratios from now to kingdom come, but presently we've not moved closer to that goal. Not a stunning victory..yet.

I suggest that we change the goal. To alleviate the present conflict and allow American forces to come home, I suggest that we present a plan to the three groups, which will allow for autonomy for their people and a fair distribution of the present revenue stream from the oil fields, with borders that the three can agree to. (to be enforced by bombing from 30,000 feet)

We can then loudly proclaim that we not only created a democracy in the middle east, but three of those suckers.

In my opinion the entire exercise in Iraq has been beneficial. I have no objection to a war every 15 years or so, in order that the military be tested and improved in those areas where it is weakest. In Iraq we have learned that the occupation phase needs work.

We have already achieved the goal. Iraq was an enemy country with an industrial infrastructure that could be used against us. Terrorists in caves are not a terminal threat to the U.S., they have nothing that can significantly touch the U.S. Only the industrial infrastructures of enemy counties are a major threat, because they produce the chemicals, missles, etc. The terrorists now have been robbed of that potential, so like it or not, we have already achieved the goal.

The Sunni's are stubborn, but not dumb. They will accept their diminished lot. And the Shia's and Kurds will spare them.

The opposition is waiting Bush out hoping for a better deal from a liberal U.S. administration. When that doesn't happen, all opposition will fall apart. That’s why the election in November is so important.

I hope anyone who’s thinking of sending Bush a message by staying away from the polls understands that it is the terrorists who will receive their message, not the president.

I don't see any particular reason that a federal system won't work, once the Sunnis are convinced that they're not a majority of the country, but if Iraq splits, it splits. Still a good result from our point of view.

Oh, and the Iraqi army didn't disintegrate because of some cunning plan. It disintegrated because it was hit by something big and heavy.

We divided Germany after WWII but you think that war was a success.