From: Adam 

Mark wrote:
> Well Geo., if the job ain't done, then leaving prematurely, whether after 3
> months or 3 years, is cutting and running in my book.
>

It is possible that being there means the job ain't done.....i.e. the job
ain't done till you're gone in which case you are into some serious
circular logic.


> But call it what you want, the consequences of abandonment are what counts.
> I suppose we're still in Bosnia a decade later because we think it's
> necessary... Is that arena more important to our national security than Iraq
> is? I don't think so.
>

Imagine that the nationalists would keep fighting till you leave. When will
the job be done?

> Regardless, I'm still wondering what the rush is to get out of Iraq, other
> than political posturing?

The sound of US treasure being flushed down an Iraqi toilet? The screams of
the dying? The grief of the parents?

> I'm completely serious when I say that those
> consequences will be dire for the entire region in the future. I said a
> dozen years, but I think it likely to be sooner than that and very bloody
> indeed, if our "Casper Milquetoast" brigade in DC forces us
to leave yet
> again and have to go back for a third time.
>


Why would you need to go back?

A) The idea of AQ taking over Iraq is humorous. B) If the idea is to let
the Iraqi people decide then if they were to decide in a way that you don't
like who are you to re-invade?


> Eventually, if they're successful in forcing our retreat and effective
> surrender, that wimp factor is going to cost us our cushy life here,
> necessitating our keeping our eyes peeled for suspicious packages and our
> guns well oiled. 
>

Why? You are the country travelling great distances to kill hundred of
thousands so a few dead yanks in yankland is no big deal.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5