Is the Mission Complete?

[5stringJeff]

We all know that President Bush has said that we will not leave Iraq until "the mission is complete." Typically, that has meant that Iraq is secure and able to defend itself against terrorist insurgents and its neighbors. Now that casualties in Iraq (http://icasualties.org/oif/) are down to some of the lowest levels in years and Iraqi forces are beginning to fight alongside (and in front of) American forces, the question is, is the US mission in Iraq complete?

[glockmail]

I think that "the mission", referring to the overall mission, not just a phase of it, is a peaceful and stable Middle East, for the purpose of protecting the long term interests of the United States. As we did in Europe, Japan and Korea, this will require our long term presence on permanent military bases.

So it may be time to start reducing our visibility on the streets, but only in concert with establishing that permanence.

[5stringJeff]

Frankly, I think we have done what we set out to do. The only question mark in my mind is whether Iran poses an immediate threat to Iraq. While the two countries share a large border and are historical enemies, I think Iraq is to the point where its own forces can defend the country, and the US should begin a phased drawdown, over the course of 6-12 months.

[5stringJeff]

I think that "the mission", referring to the overall mission, not just a phase of it, is a peaceful and stable Middle East, for the purpose of protecting the long term interests of the United States. As we did in Europe, Japan and Korea, this will require our long term presence on permanent military bases.

So it may be time to start reducing our visibility on the streets, but only in concert with establishing that permanence.

The long term interests of the US being what? Oil? And why will the established bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait not suffice?

[darin]

I'm very shocked to see your Vote, Jeff. You really think whatever we were planning to do, or needed to do is now complete? You have access to info others dont?

[glockmail]

The long term interests of the US being what? Oil? And why will the established bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait not suffice?
Trade in oil is certainly a consideration, and will be until the enviro-nuts in the US let us utilize our own resources instead of enriching our enemies. Aside from that, protection of Israel, as well as Europe from the next Muslim invasion, both of which require a more strategic geographical position, such as south-western Iraq.

[Hagbard Celine]

Our work is far from over and we won't leave anytime soon. That doesn't change the fact that we should leave or that we shouldn't have ever invaded to begin with.

[5stringJeff]

I'm very shocked to see your Vote, Jeff. You really think whatever we were planning to do, or needed to do is now complete? You have access to info others dont?

I think we've done what we set out to do.

[5stringJeff]

Trade in oil is certainly a consideration, and will be until the enviro-nuts in the US let us utilize our own resources instead of enriching our enemies.

I agree, but again, why can't we keep our oil supplies secure via our bases in Saudi Arabia and/or Kuwait?


Aside from that, protection of Israel, as well as Europe from the next Muslim invasion, both of which require a more strategic geographical position, such as south-western Iraq.

Israel can protect itself and certainly doesn't need our help. Europe has the EU, and we are still a part of NATO, so if there was ever a military attack, we woule be involved. Besides, the Europeans are seeing a Muslim immigration influx, just like the US is seeing with illegal Mexicans, and US troops in Iraq won't stem that.

[glockmail]

Our work is far from over and we won't leave anytime soon. That doesn't change the fact that we should leave or that we shouldn't have ever invaded to begin with.
Pulling out early only leaves a mess. As a guy in the hunt for slice, you should know that!

[glockmail]

I agree, but again, why can't we keep our oil supplies secure via our bases in Saudi Arabia and/or Kuwait?



Israel can protect itself and certainly doesn't need our help. Europe has the EU, and we are still a part of NATO, so if there was ever a military attack, we woule be involved. Besides, the Europeans are seeing a Muslim immigration influx, just like the US is seeing with illegal Mexicans, and US troops in Iraq won't stem that.

Its a big region, and our presence is much more effective near the geographic center than on the fringes. A central location also keeps our options open by establishing a second front.

Israel is a tiny country and wouldn't survive a week with sophisticated weapons or WMD brandished by her enemies. Our long term presence in Iraq will help ensure that they never get those capabilities.

[Hagbard Celine]

Pulling out early only leaves a mess. As a guy in the hunt for slice, you should know that!

Sometimes pulling out early is the only way to avoid a mistake you'll regret for the rest of your life.

[glockmail]

Sometimes pulling out early is the only way to avoid a mistake you'll regret for the rest of your life. Touche! :lol:

OK so its not a pefect analogy.

[5stringJeff]

Its a big region, and our presence is much more effective near the geographic center than on the fringes. A central location also keeps our options open by establishing a second front.

If oil is the concern (as you said (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=172643&postcount=6)), and we get more oil from Saudi Arabia (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html) than any other Middle Eastern country by far, then it follows that it makes more sense to have bases in Saudi Arabia, not in Iraq.


Israel is a tiny country and wouldn't survive a week with sophisticated weapons or WMD brandished by her enemies. Our long term presence in Iraq will help ensure that they never get those capabilities.

Israel has more sophisticated weapons than its neighbors/enemies, and has already fought wars when they were outnumbered 4-1 and 5-1, and won. Israel does not need the American military to defend it; they are more than capable of defending themselves. Nevertheless, how are American troops in Iraq keeping WMDs out of the hands of Syria or Iran?

[darin]

Israel does not need the American military to defend it; they are more than capable of defending themselves.


I'd say the US Influence on Israel helps keep Arabs safe - we act as sort of a leash.

[AFbombloader]

The war on terror will never be over. It is a sad thing but it is true. This phase may be nearing a point where it is manageable to start returning home, but there will always be US troops on foreign soil. Be it in Asia (like I will be in two weeks), the mid ease, or Europe. We need to be there because of projection of power.


AF:salute:

[OCA]

I voted that its complete and we should begin immediate withdrawal now because our stated goal was regime change not nation building, or was I a fool to believe Bush when he said he wasn't into nation building?

So we've got the regime change and we know that whether we are there or not the Sunnis will kill Shiites and vice versa, and considering the fact that we are still going along with this farce of Iraqis policing themselves and that we are still unwilling to do what it takes to defeat the terrorists and insurgents we should go home instead of half assing it and getting more soldiers needlessly clipped.

Jeff you can't be serious with the violence levels going down because of Iraqi forces and police, right? Its simply a lull in the action, it will pick up again as we get closer to November.

[5stringJeff]

I voted that its complete and we should begin immediate withdrawal now because our stated goal was regime change not nation building, or was I a fool to believe Bush when he said he wasn't into nation building?

That is my reasoning as well. We've removed Saddam and allowed a republican form of government to take place, so our work is done.

[glockmail]

If oil is the concern (as you said (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=172643&postcount=6)), and we get more oil from Saudi Arabia (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html) than any other Middle Eastern country by far, then it follows that it makes more sense to have bases in Saudi Arabia, not in Iraq.



Israel has more sophisticated weapons than its neighbors/enemies, and has already fought wars when they were outnumbered 4-1 and 5-1, and won. Israel does not need the American military to defend it; they are more than capable of defending themselves. Nevertheless, how are American troops in Iraq keeping WMDs out of the hands of Syria or Iran?

1. Increase the supply.
2. The story would be different if WMDs were used in a small country. The fact that we are there and can gather intelligence more effectively and act on it more quickly will greatly reduce the ability of Syria and Iran to develop WMDs.

[Hagbard Celine]

I voted that its complete and we should begin immediate withdrawal now because our stated goal was regime change not nation building, or was I a fool to believe Bush when he said he wasn't into nation building?

So we've got the regime change and we know that whether we are there or not the Sunnis will kill Shiites and vice versa, and considering the fact that we are still going along with this farce of Iraqis policing themselves and that we are still unwilling to do what it takes to defeat the terrorists and insurgents we should go home instead of half assing it and getting more soldiers needlessly clipped.

Jeff you can't be serious with the violence levels going down because of Iraqi forces and police, right? Its simply a lull in the action, it will pick up again as we get closer to November.

That's right. It has nothing to do with the "surge."

[OCA]

That is my reasoning as well. We've removed Saddam and allowed a republican form of government to take place, so our work is done.

You really think that government has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving once we leave?

[gabosaurus]

As long as there are brave young American soldiers to sacrifice, the Bush mission will never be complete.

[Hagbard Celine]

You really think that government has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving once we leave?

Yes. They are Shia. Iran would prop them up like nobody's business.

[actsnoblemartin]

I believe our work is far from over, we have to persuade iraqi's to reconcile and will have a long term presence in iraq atleast 20-50 years, even if its just military bases.

We wont leave iraq any time soon, because we cant afford to long term.

[5stringJeff]

You really think that government has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving once we leave?


Yes. They are Shia. Iran would prop them up like nobody's business.

Hag is right. Iraq is majority Shiite, and Iran will work to keep a Shiite-friendly government in place. Iran doesn't want an unstable Iraq, because it could be used as a harbor for AQ (which is Sunni).

Regardless, just like a baby taking its first steps, you have to let go. We have held the new government's hand for too long.

[5stringJeff]

1. Increase the supply.

We should increase domestic oil supply, along with decreasing our oil demand, but that's a different issue.


2. The story would be different if WMDs were used in a small country. The fact that we are there and can gather intelligence more effectively and act on it more quickly will greatly reduce the ability of Syria and Iran to develop WMDs.

We can gather information from Turkey, Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia just as well as we can gather from Iraq.

[glockmail]

We should increase domestic oil supply, along with decreasing our oil demand, but that's a different issue.



We can gather information from Turkey, Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia just as well as we can gather from Iraq.

1. Post 6.
2. Our enemies are Syria and Iran. Iraq is smack dab between 'em.

[JohnDoe]

1. Increase the supply.
2. The story would be different if WMDs were used in a small country. The fact that we are there and can gather intelligence more effectively and act on it more quickly will greatly reduce the ability of Syria and Iran to develop WMDs.
Israel has the best intelligence in the whole region, don't they? Aren't they more informed about Syria and Iran than we are and aren't they watching them like a hawk, and even supplying us with some of our intelligence?

And also Glock, precisely HOW are we more capable of gathering intelligence regarding Iran and Syria by being tied up in Iraq than we would be if in Qatar or Kuwait, without a war going on?

[Gunny]

We all know that President Bush has said that we will not leave Iraq until "the mission is complete." Typically, that has meant that Iraq is secure and able to defend itself against terrorist insurgents and its neighbors. Now that casualties in Iraq (http://icasualties.org/oif/) are down to some of the lowest levels in years and Iraqi forces are beginning to fight alongside (and in front of) American forces, the question is, is the US mission in Iraq complete?

In Bush's own words today in response to questions he is not satisfied with the level of progress of the Iraq gov't, but to say there has not been progress is wrong.

I would say based on that, HE doesn't think it's complete.

[JohnDoe]

Oil contracts with USA companies have not been signed yet....other than one with the Kurds from a texas oil company....

This article is old and just an opinion, but ya never know how much truth there is in it.... :(

It sure worked as far as keeping Iraqi oil off the market basically and making oil prices rise...


Vincent Ferraro, "Another Motive For Iraq War: Stabilizing Oil Market," Hartford Courant, 12 August 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-oil0812.artaug12,0,7065408.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United States invaded Iraq for a number of reasons. For some members of the Bush administration, it was probably a way to reshape the politics of the Middle East; for others, it was an opportunity to enhance Israeli security. One of the least-discussed reasons was to assure order in the international petroleum market. Perhaps this objective is rarely mentioned because it's obvious, or maybe because no discussion was necessary among decision-makers well versed in petroleum politics.

But one should not believe that the United States would occupy a country with the world's second largest reserves of petroleum without considering the effect of that act on the world's most important commodity. On the other hand, one cannot believe that the United States would ever articulate its objectives in terms that most would regard as vulgar and commercial. We now know that the evidence of an "imminent" attack by Iraq was flimsy, and known to be so at the time by the intelligence community. The threat to the stability of the international petroleum market, however, was real.

Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force was particularly concerned in March 2001 about non-American suitors for Iraqi oil, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch. Iraq had signed contracts with a variety of oil companies, including ones from France, China and Russia. That these companies would have access to huge reserves of oil was profoundly unsettling to the largest multinational oil companies (Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ChevronTexaco) because these newcomers would more than likely pump as much oil as they could in the shortest amount of time, thereby reducing the price of oil.

Overproduction of oil has long been a fear of the petroleum industry. When confronted with overproduction in the early 20th century, the major petroleum companies agreed to restrict access to areas to any producers who would not agree to restrict production as well. When oil was discovered in Bahrain in 1932 by a company not party to that agreement (Standard Oil of California), every effort was made to bring that company in line. The French exclusion from the major fields in Saudi Arabia in 1947 was partially due to the efforts of the U.S. State Department on behalf of American oil companies.

The Russians and the Chinese are newcomers to the world market, and their willingness to overproduce oil is unrestrained given their needs for energy and export revenues. Many in the United States had worried that support for Iraqi sanctions would erode in the United Nations and that Iraqi contracts with the French, Russians and Chinese would be revived and honored.

This would explain why the United States was so willing to undertake the invasion of Iraq without U.N. sanction, and also why it has been so reluctant to agree to a U.N. mandate, despite the considerable economic and political advantages in doing so. U.N. authorization could activate the Iraqi contracts with non-U.S. or non-British firms.

In May, the administration of the Iraqi petroleum industry was handed over to Philip J. Carroll, a former chief executive of Shell Oil Co., one of the companies committed to maintaining the price stability of petroleum. The French, Chinese and Russian firms will eventually be permitted to produce Iraqi oil, but how much they pump will be regulated by an Iraqi Oil Ministry heavily influenced by an American occupation. Already, oil contracts have been obtained by U.S. firms Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Marathon and Valero Energy.

The U.S. and British interest in petroleum price stability is clearly self-interest, but one should be cautious about suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by simple greed. The slogan "No blood for oil" does not capture the complexity of the issue. The world does have an interest in stable oil prices: Very low prices encourage the extravagant use of a finite resource. On the other hand, the American occupation of Iraq favors the interests of American and British oil companies, maintains a higher price for oil than likely would have been the case under a U.N.-sanctioned occupation and seductively promises a more secure and less politically dangerous supply of oil than that offered by Saudi Arabia.

And American control over Iraq gives it the ability to use oil contracts to influence the conduct of other states: The Iraqi oil contract awarded to Mitsubishi the day after the Japanese agreed to send troops to Iraq is a dramatic example of how such power can be used.

The mixing of private and public interests in the Iraqi case raises serious questions. None of this is necessarily inconsistent with the public interest, but many of them satisfy private interests to a considerable extent.

Vincent Ferraro is Ruth C. Lawson Professor of International Politics at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Mass.
Copyright 2003, Hartford Courant

[5stringJeff]

1. Post 6.
2. Our enemies are Syria and Iran. Iraq is smack dab between 'em.

Our mandate for being in Iraq was not to get position between two other unfriendly states. It was regime change. The regime is changed, and the mission is complete.

[5stringJeff]

In Bush's own words today in response to questions he is not satisfied with the level of progress of the Iraq gov't, but to say there has not been progress is wrong.

I would say based on that, HE doesn't think it's complete.

What does he want? The government is in place, the army is fighting terrorists within Iraq, and the police force is being reformed. I think we've done what we set out to do.

The situation in Iraq might not be as stable as Western democracies, but it's a start, and the Iraqis should be able to take it fro here. As Darin might say, "'Perfect' is the enemy of 'good.'" :)

[JohnDoe]

What does he want? The government is in place, the army is fighting terrorists within Iraq, and the police force is being reformed. I think we've done what we set out to do.

The situation in Iraq might not be as stable as Western democracies, but it's a start, and the Iraqis should be able to take it fro here. As Darin might say, "'Perfect' is the enemy of 'good.'" :)

jeff, read this.... the job isn't done....the OIL part of it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


Compromise on Oil Law in Iraq Seems to Be Collapsing

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: September 13, 2007
BAGHDAD, Sept. 12 — A carefully constructed compromise on a draft law governing Iraq’s rich oil fields, agreed to in February after months of arduous talks among Iraqi political groups, appears to have collapsed. The apparent breakdown comes just as Congress and the White House are struggling to find evidence that there is progress toward reconciliation and a functioning government here.


and these articles:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2143141,00.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AD19F8CA-E314-4901-8DDE-450A31ED2255.htm

[glockmail]

Israel has the best intelligence in the whole region, don't they? Aren't they more informed about Syria and Iran than we are and aren't they watching them like a hawk, and even supplying us with some of our intelligence?

And also Glock, precisely HOW are we more capable of gathering intelligence regarding Iran and Syria by being tied up in Iraq than we would be if in Qatar or Kuwait, without a war going on?


The more avenues you have to gather info the better off we are. Working shoulder to soldier daily with Iraqis should give us a better view of the neighbors.

[glockmail]

Our mandate for being in Iraq was not to get position between two other unfriendly states. It was regime change. The regime is changed, and the mission is complete. Who’s given us a mandate? Were a sovereign country, and don’t have any mandate other that our own choosing. We want stability in the region so Israel can exist in peace and trade with the US is unencumbered.

Maybe you're confusing short term goals with long term ones.

[5stringJeff]

Who’s given us a mandate? Were a sovereign country, and don’t have any mandate other that our own choosing. We want stability in the region so Israel can exist in peace and trade with the US is unencumbered.

Maybe you're confusing short term goals with long term ones.

Pardon my bad wording. Our justification for war was regime change, because Saddam's regime was thought to have WMDs and ties to terrorism. We have changed the regime, searched for WMDs (although I think they were snuck across the border to Syria), and fought and defeated terrorists in Iraq. Our short term goals in Iraq are complete; our long term goals do not necessitate a long-term presence in Iraq.

[5stringJeff]

jeff, read this.... the job isn't done....the OIL part of it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin



and these articles:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2143141,00.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AD19F8CA-E314-4901-8DDE-450A31ED2255.htm

As I read that, the only part of the oil flow that I see as being incomplete is that of allowing oil companies to explore for new oil in Iraq without the Iraqis benefiting. That goes against the sovereignity of Iraq, and we shouldn't pursue that policy.

[JohnDoe]

As I read that, the only part of the oil flow that I see as being incomplete is that of allowing oil companies to explore for new oil in Iraq without the Iraqis benefiting. That goes against the sovereignity of Iraq, and we shouldn't pursue that policy. And I agree with you....I was just laying it out..... jd

[glockmail]

Pardon my bad wording. Our justification for war was regime change, because Saddam's regime was thought to have WMDs and ties to terrorism. We have changed the regime, searched for WMDs (although I think they were snuck across the border to Syria), and fought and defeated terrorists in Iraq. Our short term goals in Iraq are complete; our long term goals do not necessitate a long-term presence in Iraq.

That's where we disagree. We have long term presence in Europe and Japan, and its clear that it is justified here. The WOT is a long term deal.

[Pale Rider]

I voted that its complete and we should begin immediate withdrawal now because our stated goal was regime change not nation building, or was I a fool to believe Bush when he said he wasn't into nation building?

So we've got the regime change and we know that whether we are there or not the Sunnis will kill Shiites and vice versa, and considering the fact that we are still going along with this farce of Iraqis policing themselves and that we are still unwilling to do what it takes to defeat the terrorists and insurgents we should go home instead of half assing it and getting more soldiers needlessly clipped.

Jeff you can't be serious with the violence levels going down because of Iraqi forces and police, right? Its simply a lull in the action, it will pick up again as we get closer to November.

I voted were done and should get the hell otta there as well. Nation building is NOT what this country is about, and we should NOT be doing it. We kicked Saddam's butt out of there, and have given Iraq MORE than enough time to form a functioning government and build an Army. So far their Army isn't doing too bad, but the government is still MIA, and that's just not acceptable. We've been there so long now it's reached the point of absurdity, not to mention the amount of MONEY this dumb ass war has cost. We've done what we went there to do, stayed long enough for them to get their shit together, now we should go home. I see absolutely no more reason for us to be there. None. Zip. Nada. I'm almost tempted to vote for Ron Paul.

[Kathianne]

I voted were done and should get the hell otta there as well. Nation building is NOT what this country is about, and we should NOT be doing it. We kicked Saddam's butt out of there, and have given Iraq MORE than enough time to form a functioning government and build an Army. So far their Army isn't doing too bad, but the government is still MIA, and that's just not acceptable. We've been there so long now it's reached the point of absurdity, not to mention the amount MONEY this dumb ass war has cost. We've done what we went there to do, stayed long enough for them to get their shit together, now we should go home. I see absolutely no more reason for us to be there. None. Zip. Nada. I'm almost tempted to vote for Ron Paul.

Tempted? Did you read my post regarding him?

[Pale Rider]

Tempted? Did you read my post regarding him?

Yup.

I don't want to vote for him. I said I was tempted only to emphasize the fact that he would get us out of Iraq immediately if elected. But, if by some wild event he's the man on the Republican ticket, I am voting for him.

[actsnoblemartin]

i cant vote for ron paul, based on his position on iraq

[5stringJeff]

That's where we disagree. We have long term presence in Europe and Japan, and its clear that it is justified here. The WOT is a long term deal.

We have a long term presence in the Middle East already, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, IIRC.

[5stringJeff]

I voted were done and should get the hell otta there as well. Nation building is NOT what this country is about, and we should NOT be doing it. We kicked Saddam's butt out of there, and have given Iraq MORE than enough time to form a functioning government and build an Army. So far their Army isn't doing too bad, but the government is still MIA, and that's just not acceptable. We've been there so long now it's reached the point of absurdity, not to mention the amount MONEY this dumb ass war has cost. We've done what we went there to do, stayed long enough for them to get their shit together, now we should go home. I see absolutely no more reason for us to be there. None. Zip. Nada.

:rock: :thumb:


I'm almost tempted to vote for Ron Paul.

I'm not quite there, but I do think we need to get our troops home, now that they have accomplished the mission they were called to do.

[Pale Rider]

:rock: :thumb:

I'm not quite there, but I do think we need to get our troops home, now that they have accomplished the mission they were called to do.

I just said I'd vote for Paul to drive home a point. I really don't like the guy. But if by some weird stroke of luck he's the man on the Republican ticket... what are we going to do?

[Gunny]

What does he want? The government is in place, the army is fighting terrorists within Iraq, and the police force is being reformed. I think we've done what we set out to do.

The situation in Iraq might not be as stable as Western democracies, but it's a start, and the Iraqis should be able to take it fro here. As Darin might say, "'Perfect' is the enemy of 'good.'" :)

I would say as a guess that he wants a firmly established government and cohesive military. Not the same as being "in place." He's trying to ensure success, and IMO, it can't be done because ultimately, success will be determined by the Iraqis.

Another "just a guess" ... I'd say he rather likes having a staging ground next door to Iran.

I agree with you though. We've done what we set out to do. Time for the Iraqis to shoulder their own load.

[gabosaurus]

I voted were done and should get the hell otta there as well. Nation building is NOT what this country is about, and we should NOT be doing it. We kicked Saddam's butt out of there, and have given Iraq MORE than enough time to form a functioning government and build an Army. So far their Army isn't doing too bad, but the government is still MIA, and that's just not acceptable. We've been there so long now it's reached the point of absurdity, not to mention the amount of MONEY this dumb ass war has cost. We've done what we went there to do, stayed long enough for them to get their shit together, now we should go home. I see absolutely no more reason for us to be there. None. Zip. Nada. I'm almost tempted to vote for Ron Paul.

Can't remember the last time I agreed 100 percent with Pale, but this is certainly one of them.
Those who favor the continuing struggle just enjoy the carnage.

[Dilloduck]

Can't remember the last time I agreed 100 percent with Pale, but this is certainly one of them.
Those who favor the continuing struggle just enjoy the carnage.

No one was ever in favor of carnage.

[5stringJeff]

We've done what we set out to do. Time for the Iraqis to shoulder their own load.

Exactly.