From: "Mark" 

Oh c'mon John, we broke it (rightfully so) and we have to see it through to
stability. Sheesh, we're still in Japan and Germany over 60 years later,
though the important timeframe was the almost 10 years after the end of the
war for the rebuilding (hell the Marshall Plan wasn't even implemented
until about 3 years after the war ended) -- why should we be in such a rush
to cut and run from Iraq, when the region is far more important to our
national interests than the German and Japanese territories were then?

"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:52p2r2pfnflsv1c11rihm8o030aeitdji9{at}4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:07:21 -0500, "Mark"
 wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Cuccia"  wrote: 1) What,
in particular, do you
>>and your ruthless cohorts mean when you
>>> say "win in Iraq".
>>
>>Actually that's already been accomplished, Saddam is out and the people
>>have
>>created a constitution and voted a couple times.
>
> So we've already won, you say.   You may be the only person on the
> planet making that claim.    S
>
> I agree, though,  that we've given the Iraqis the government that the
> majority of them want.  Unfortunately, it is a government that is
> intent on marginalizing (if not eradicating) Iraqi minorities and a
> government that allies quite naturally with Iran.
>
>>Abandoning them now, during
>>this transition period is just wrong.
>
> But you just said that winning had already been accomplished?
>
> Transition to what?  Exactly what do you expect the Iraqi government
> to look like when that transition is done?
>
>>> 2) What ruthless tactics should have been used to achieve your
>>> definition of winning?
>>
>>I'm no military tactician, but off the top of my head they never should
>>have
>>let Sadr get away.
>
> Maybe, maybe not.  Sadr and his family had been powers in Shi'ite
> community for far too long for us to have "gotten" him.  He now
> participates in and operates under the aegis of the government.
>
>>Some say we didn't have enough troops from the outset,
>>perhaps that's true, but one can't predict the conditions on the ground in
>>advance in any war.
>
> The war wasn't the problem, it was the occupation and conditions for
> that were predicted pretty accurately by people who were first ignored
> and then canned.
>
>>Many claim we're losing the war, so Bush fires Rumsfeld, switches out
>>generals and plans to add more troops to stabilize Baghdad and this is
>>considered bad, so he's a no win position from the point of view of the
>>left. Whether the new initiative works or not is not something I can say,
>>but it is a different tactic and I have no problem supporting it.
>
> Why do we need a different tactic if, as you claimed,  we've already
> won?

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