This article made several excellent points, IMO. especially the one about the next election.


The parade of political tourists to Iraq in recent weeks, during which easily impressed pundits and members of Congress came to be dazzled by the wonders of the troop surge, probably ensures that this murderous adventure will continue well into the next presidency—even if the Democrats win.

For example, Kenneth Pollack, a top national security adviser in the Clinton administration whose 2002 book, “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq,” convinced many Democratic politicians to support the war, now finds renewed optimism after the surge. In a July 30 New York Times Op-Ed article, “A War We Just Might Win,” which he coauthored after spending eight days in Iraq, Pollack gushed, “We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi army troops cover the countryside.”


REPORT

A lose is a lose, and all the political sipn in the world won't change the fact this war is lost. They can stay in Iraq 50 years and it won't make a difference. It's out of our control.

Are you saying that South Kofrea is a good example? If the US was to pull out of S, Korea, it would be just a matter of time before it collapsed, no matter how much cash and arms we pump into it. Iraq comes to mind as the same thing.

But to say that violence would rule the day if we pull out is just stupid. What do you call the situation now? Yes, it could get worse, but how much so?