“OUT OF IRAQ - OPERATION 1-6-8”
Now let’s use our heads! The number of hours in a seven (7) day week; 24 hours per day equates to 168 hours per week total for Operation1-6-8.

LET’S DO THE MATH; SIZE OF THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ - 171,555 SQUARE MILES
There are 5280 feet in each MILE, IRAQ is or claims to be 171,555 square miles, you do the math and get 905,810,400 feet total. The size of targeted areas per trooper’s responsibility, equates to 1.0211 MILES per troop member’s responsibility. Now if you reduce that number (size) by the mountainous square miles and take into consideration other impassible routes, each military personnel would be responsible for even less square footage or square miles and that reaching a preplanned and focused approach within their performance is very high! This formula is a non-failing equation. The United States will not have to continue to prolong the inevitable... OPERATION 1-6-8: - MISSION: RESOLVE AND RESTORE

Military operations should begin at midnight, so as to allow observance of United State’s troop progressions by the break of the new day! The late night and or early morning military strikes using heat and body seeking armaments will allow for United States military strategists to view their advance, or the lack thereof, under the cover of darkness. I find this approach most beneficial as the United States has the superior weapons and or armaments to successfully restore and resolve this conflict. A new attitude must be developed and adhered to that would certainly assure all United States troops members that in their effort to deliver the utmost aggressive, decisive and militarily progressive means of assaults, they too play an very important role in our military success. The superior training will be evident in their application of military strikes or attacks. Precise and decisive attacks on insurgents’ military bases of operation will be the key to closing this military conflict or war! Military attacks from air, sea, ground, etc. will help render this conflict moot and bring it to a close. The sheer number of our mighty troops is a clear indication that the United States has the strength to defeat the insurgents and the wherewithal to exact swift and decisive strikes at military opponents in Iraq. When this event becomes a military success, with the likes of a military operation previously not seen in awhile. The United States military strategists realize that having a multi-prong assault will ensure victory! Troop casualties and/or loss of life will be considerably reduced, when targeted military strikes take place. To get some prospective of our military options: A joint effort defensive, with or without the Iraqi government is still an option. However, non-participation by Iraq government forces will not interfere with United States military planned procedures. When dealing with religious zealots, such as these, being careful not to intimidate it is an arduous task! However, the United States will be firm in its resolve to having closure and restoring a level of peace that would only benefit all parties.

Please try to remember, that the LORD will not give you more than you can handle. Okay?
In the end our troops’ performance will be staggering and off the military charts. And with a leader with the fabulous name of PERTREAUS, the United States will not fail! Zero tolerance for any thoughts of military failure. Thinking of failure is tantamount to TREASON! Iraq and the US military task will be completed with very high levels of decisive and aggressive military strategies. Question: Would Washington, Grant, Lee, T Roosevelt, Pershing, MacArthur, Cochise, Sitting Bull, Geronimo, Swartzkoff, or Powell fight this conflict the same way as its being...uh...fought?

******AMEN TO ENDING THIS SO-CALLED CONFLICT. AND THE EFFORT TO BRINGING HOME AND THE RETURN OUR DEVOTED MILITARY PERSONNEL TO THEIR FAMILIES******
To The Republican Party: What are the names of those soldiers who have paid the 'ultimate' price? Why is your administration insistent on continuing this conflict and accumulating bodies along the way? An answer is demanded for the people are on a need to know basis! Give careful consideration for OPERATION-1-6-8.

DOING THE MATH:

171,555 5280 905,810,400
IRAQ SQ MI ft/mil ttl feet
168,000 5391.728571
troops trp/aerial 168000 5391.728 905810304

1.021160714
trp/mile

ratably melastoma goober nubilous holostome newspaperized revealing companionability
Vineyard Christian Fellowship Denver Southeast
http://www.sissybella.com

ratably melastoma goober nubilous holostome newspaperized revealing companionability
Spoiled food may be behind NYC illnesses
http://www.resort-golf.com

A tall order for closed minds in denial that are running the show in Washington, but I tend to agree that the log jam must be busted thru and clear thinking of the people must be handed up to Washington. Voters are direct stakeholders in society.

Yes, change minds first, it is the first and right step.

Time for a fresh approach. Well said.

Let's do it! Why not? Can't be any worse than what we have now!

We should give this writer a medal and appoint him as National Security Advisor and then put all those other "experts" and NGO thinktank people against a wall and summarily shoot them for misleading USA. Treason will be the right word.

He is correct by focusing on the need for a complete shift. And I really like his question: what has been the overall rate of return on our investment, politically and financially? What has USA gotten out of this bad Middle Eastern policy for the last 50 years? Let us remember that with all that foreign aid, we have a few people in American jails that spied for Israel.

Need a clear head, fresh thinking and a blank sheet of paper to start new policies.

Some interesting ideas, although it will be a new way of dealing with issues in USA.

Persian Redneck wrote:
---To FATE, Please read the comments of LAWYER posted above, probably an American lawyer. No country, at least no democratic country, should be regid and self-congratulating as you write.---

Lawyer pointed out the ability to modify the consitution using prohibition as an example. This is a great example of good intentions having unintended consequences that drove up the crime rate to very high levels, requiring the constitution again be ammended to remove prohibition. Modifying the constitution to remove a president will likely have unintended consequences and should be carefully considered, and not just for a one time reason.

---Checks and balances? When was the last time that happened in USA?---

Read an American paper. A lot of what Bush has done is finally being investigated by the newly elected Congress. Its been only 4 months since the new congress has been in power and already Bush's people are under subpeona. Give it a few more months and you'll see a lot more.

---Americans capitulate to their leaders and then blindly support that leader.---

Really? Bush has a 30% approval rating. Congress is threatening to cut off funding for this war. That is not capitulation nor blind support.

---Sorry, my understanding of a real democracy is to have the ability to question issues and remove leaders.---

Question issues yes. Remove leaders is more of a coup ridden third world mentality. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are probably refering to the British and other democracies where parlaments remove leaders all the time, Italy sometimes every month. This has benefits and consequences, the main consequence is the lack of a consistency of leadership to the point where little gets done.

---An early election, even though a new concept, is a much more graceful way of getting rid of ineffective leaders..... impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" being the alternative!---

I'm not for early elections due to the unintended consequences of political gamesmanship which will arise to remove a sitting president on a continual basis. But you mention impeachment. Bush has admitted to breaking the FISA Act. That is by definition the breaking of law and should fit well into any impeachment article. I am for impeaching this president based on his breaking FISA and spying on Americans. Its up to the American people to push their congressmen and for Congress to act. It will happen if the people want it to.

---If I understand you correctly, you want to continue with this mess for another 22 months until the next administration settles in? At the cost of $1 to 1.2 billion a week in taxpayer's money? For what aim and purpose? For what kind of gain? to show that rigid minds are empty minds?---

Congress could cut off funding now and Bush would have enough to go for a month or so then bring everyone home. Congress is not doing that because they do not want to do that. They want this to be fought smartly, not Bush's way, and so they are threatening to pull money and adding terms to the money they give him. Bush is not an elected dictator like some countries have. He can be squelched very quickly by congress pulling all his funding. You seem to think that once American leaders are elected there is nothing other elected officials or the people can do. You need to go back and read the history of Watergate to see just how little power a president really has when everyone is against him.

Keen observations. Need a paradigm shift and a completely fresh thinking pattern.

Clear thinking of Dr. Ettefagh is once again shown above.

To FATE
Please read the comments of LAWYER posted above, probably an American lawyer. No country, at least no democratic country, should be regid and self-congratulating as you write. Checks and balances? When was the last time that happened in USA? Americans capitulate to their leaders and then blindly support that leader. Sorry, my understanding of a real democracy is to have the ability to question issues and remove leaders. An early election, even though a new concept, is a much more graceful way of getting rid of ineffective leaders..... impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" being the alternative!

If I understand you correctly, you want to continue with this mess for another 22 months until the next administration settles in? At the cost of $1 to 1.2 billion a week in taxpayer's money? For what aim and purpose? For what kind of gain? to show that rigid minds are empty minds?

Mr. Ettefagh,

Though we probably agree on the US failure in this war from the beginning I read with amazement that you consider the Iraqi government a puppet, as though Iraqis did not risk their lives to vote for this government. It may not be very functional as a government, but its members were elected by Iraqis. Never forget that or you disgrace all Iraqis.

You then propose "ideas" to fix this problem, both of which seem very third world to me. This is America, with a government of checks and balances. You saw in the last election what happens when government fails in its duties and you can see today how the parts of a working government are checking and balancing its other parts. We're only four months into the new congress and already change is being implemented. America does not need to continually rewrite its constitution to fix problems of the day, toss out bad leaders and hold coups. I suggest you study the history of this country and its governing documents. America has the longest lasting continually running government on the planet for a very good reason.

Reality is pretty much what is outlined above. It is no longer just a question about Iraq and every one in America and the region must look for solutions beyond the current state of Iraq (and Afghanistan). The international concurrence on Afghanistan is more noticeable.

Any way, I agree that there must be a completely new course of thinking and a paradigm shift. Nothing is beyond question or re-evaluation, including the Israel alliance. I deeply appreciate the author's question about overall return of investment.

There are two kinds of Regime Change: by vote or by force. Laws must be flexible enough to let votes change regimes and thinking patterns whereas do it by force, as seen in Iraq, is a disaster.

Interesting points on new legal and political initiatives. As the writer notes, it needs a new law and laws are enacted when there is a will and broad agreement.

When there was common and broad agreement, the nation prohibited alcohol consumption, by way of a consitutional amendment, and when it was expedient and generally accepted, that was reversed by yet another constitutional amendment. There has been a lot of talk about a constitutional amendment about abortion, that is to say a law to save lives.

I see no reason why America should not fast-track the early election matter, at least for a one-off ordeal and debacle such as the one today. If we wait for the regularly scheduled elections, another 22-23 months of waiting (and thus killing, loss of American reputation and international standing, and waste of taxpayer's money) will have much more of a negative impact.

Secondly, we need to get in a habit of having more referendums on a national level, by a simple popular vote. Granted that the United States is a republic and not a direct democracy, but times have changed and modern communications have rendered that rigid structure to be an obstacle rather than a national asset.

The good thing about democratic countries is that they are, or they ought to be, open to change. Those that are too rigid and resistant to change fall behind and eventually become obsolete. USSR, East Germany and The Third Reich are some of the examples. Even the Chinese have gotten that message and they are changing....gradually, but unmistakably.

Well said, Dr. Ettefagh!

The two propositions that you submit: early elections and a referendum have no prospect of being implemented because US law and the Constitution does not allow these outcomes. So they add no value.

The starting point must come from the US Congress. It will have to neuter Bush and take control of the peace initiative. Secretary of State Rice has no prospect of talking sense into the parties.

I suspect that peace will arrive in Iraq if peace is brought to the Palestine because that would be a magnificent sign to the Middle East that a new order will prevail. All stakeholders, including those whom Bush disapproves of, must be brought to the negotiating table so that the process is owned by all stakeholders. This would take time and its success is not guaranteed but Bush`s continued chest thumping and pulverising bombs long ago failed. Consequently, there is every reason to abandon that approach along with Bush, the primary impediment to trying other solutions.

I agree with those who say America attacked the wrong country at the wrong time, and that we have squandered an opportunity after 9-11 to reduce worldwide terrorism. Instead, to my dismay, we have promoted it.
However, my main point that I hope more people will consider is WHAT ABOUT THE KURDS?
They are the only part of Iraq that has a chance for peaceful democracy - in fact they have already achieved it. It is possible that once the US leaves, the shia and sunni will want to dominate them as they have for at least the past 80 years since the British set the current borders to include Kurds against their will. The Kurds will continue to struggle for independence as they have for the past 80 years, and Iran and Turkey will support their destruction as they have for the most part for at least the past 80 years. Read the gripping book, "The End of Iraq" by Galbraith and the more mundane "The Future of Iraq" by Anderson, if you want to learn more about "The Other Iraq". None of 14 posts replying to Mr. Ettefagh's comments even mention the Kurds, as if they didn't even exist.
The only media coverage I have seen was an article in the washington Post on April 23rd - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201568.html

We just had a national vote six months ago. Bush lost and the Democrats won. As our representatives in Congress, it is the job of the Democrats to force Bush to change course. So far Bush appears to prefer stalemate to compromise. I suspect that this is all a performance staged for the benefit of those who will vote at the next election in 2008.

The situation in Iraq is Vietnam on steroids. Instead of just North Vietnam, there are three foreign powers (Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran) infiltrating their loyalists to do battle against the Americans and/or each other. And at least in Vietnam, we did not have the Bhuddists and Catholics duking it out with their own private militias, with Americans as "fair game" targets for both sides.

Iraq was never intended to be a real nation. It has no "national identity." It was merely a collection of leftover pieces from the Ottoman Empire that had to have something done with them. We might as well admit that the Shia areas are going to end up under Iran's influence eventually. That is yet-another lesson from the Vietnam war: if you aren't going to carry the war to the home nation of the real enemy, then you are surely going to lose, sooner or later. No sane person wants war with Iran, so we might as well face up to the eventual loss of at least the Shia areas to at least becoming an affiliate of Iran.

And the Kurds will make trouble no matter what is done with them. They want their own nation, which is something both Turkey and Iran have sworn to prevent. Neither Turkey nor Iran wants to allow their own groups of Kurds to have a "free Kurdistan" right next door. But would Iran change its mind and trade its Kurdish area for effective control over the Shia areas of Iraq? Turkey would go balistic if such an idea were floated.

The wild card in this whole puzzle is the Saudi royal family. They have paid for Wahabbi imams to dominate the Sunni areas of Iraq and, through that network, they control most of the Sunnis who aren't aligned with Syria. Certainly, they are unhappy at the Shia-dominated government established under US auspicies. They desperately wish to avoid having a Shia regime any closer to their border than Iran already is.

The bottom line here is that what the US needs is not so much a change in its own political system, but rather a drastic change in its objectives for Iraq. Unfortunately, there is no way out for the US which does not involve an even larger and more bloody war for whatever poor Iraqis remain after the US exit, which will happen no later than 2009. And that means there is no good option now. Only options of increasing or decreasing horror.

Excellent article dr.Ali
The way I see it...
Only nazi-type propaganda explains how so many americans sill believe in a stupid+grottesque figure like puppet Bush. Cheney, the puppet stringer, should be impeached and then maybe the people of Good Will in the USA would hold the strings and the no-soul puppet would be put away

As far as I am concerned, the Congress should pass two month'sworth of funding as outlined by Rep.Murtha. During the course of the two months, they should bring forth legislation to bring the troops home. If that fails, they should moveforwardto bring Bush up on impeachment charges.

While we seem to be in a situation where there is no solution, we need to get our fellow Americans home to regroup and prepare for the next phase of this conflict.

Bush's argument that we must engage the terrorists over there so we don't have to engage them here is may be true. He created a mess where the chickens will eventually come home to roost. However staying over there isn't the answer.

The solution is political. It seems logical and easy to say that we should divide the country into three regions and create a governmental structure that permits the mutual sharing of the oil revenues. Let that structure work for a "cooling off" period so the Iraqi's can try and learn to work cooperatively with each other.

Granted it's probably a simple minded academic solution, but the key points are to get US out, seperate the combatants, and spread a little money around.

Is the world in a hurry to get rid of Mr. Bush before the 2008 election? What if the 2008 election brings a new US President who will pursue the exactly same Bush foreign policy? The potential is there if you survey the current US political horizon and the underlying US political environment. Look at Israel: Sharon and Olmert, next probably Netanyahu. There is potential of getting situations progressively worse. If not properly constituted, democracy can recycle the same sets of scoundrels over and over again. We need to do a lot of soul searching to figure out how Bush was elected in 2000 and then re-elected in 2004. The system is broken: the influence of money, compromised media and the best-political-parties-that-money-can-buy should be looked into. But a term limit for all federal politicians everywhere is probably a good idea. Career politicians of all stripes are capable of corrupting the democratic system that brings them to the power in the first place. You will know a politician is corrupted by power if he/she is unwilling to leave his/her position of power or if he/she is attempting to use a dynasty to run the future governments.

The two ideas are excellent, because both point to the President, Vice President, and Republican Party. And, of course, the Senate's own Mr. Israel: Joe Lieberman. The first would never get off the ground; the second, however, COULD BE tried, if nothing else, by various Democrat, Republican, or neutral advocacy groups.
Sure, each would egg on it's readers, but let's face it ... there would be some data that would come in if enough folks voted over the Internet, or other voting venues. Because George Bush will not yield.
I see him as a modern Pharonic emperor. He waits for the various pleas from Democrats, whom he considers cowards, and others who call for some kind of change that is based on bi-partisan recommendations: the Iraq Study Group. Like Ramses, though, he won't yield.
It's important to remember which of the plagues finally broke Ramses' will: the Angle of Death at the door of every first born Egyptian male. While I doubt there will be any Bush children sacrificed for this man and his arrogance, perhaps a mass casualty event in Iraq will be the straw that broke the camel's back.
In the meantime, as the beast writhes with greater intensity in the muck, pulling itself in even deeper, the strategic power of the United States begins to fray even more. The United States' ultimate power is with it's ability to deploy the most advanced, best trained conventional military force in the world, anywhere, anytime.
No more. The conventional force is nearly broken. By obstinancy, Bush will ensure that the last drops of blood and sweat are exacted from the forces in Iraq. That will weaken our superpower status as nothing else.
Sadly, the beast, "waist deep in the big muddy," has resorted to trying to pit long dominant Sunni forces against long persecuted, demonized nd marginalized Shia. If the region explodes in white hot fury some time soon, it will likely be split against those sectarian lines.
For that, George Bush is now firmly headed towards Hell. He will join other maniacs and dictators and swine who have coveted their own ego satisfaction over the lives of millions. Yes, my American friends, Bush will join Hitler, Stalin, J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon, Tamerlaine, Gengiz Khan, Mao, Pol Pot, Milosevic, et al ... in Hell.
Cheney will also find a place at the table.
What horrible men.
What a horrible legacy Bush will leave when (not if), the Americans leave Iraq.

the really sad thing is that, in a world that requires nations to be able to adjust quickly, the US, with its rigid system of changes in leadership, is uniquely unable to react to changed conditions if we happen to have a leader who is idiologically incapable of meeting the challenge, as we seem to have now. A parliamentary system might address that, and would be worth considering, but would of course entail discarding the Constitution, which a lot of people in this country consider God-given, so such a change would meet furious resistance.

unfortunately this leaves the US in a rather bad situation. What is the solution? There is none, really, since impeachment won't work and won't happen anyway. So we're stuck on this ride, friends and neighbors, for good or ill.

The idea that the entire U.S constitution or political structure should be changed, to resolve a single regional conflict (which, albeit, does weigh heavily on the minds of Americans), is completely absurd.

Furthermore, why should foreign policy be determined by referendum? Does anyone really believe that the general public can offer the best advice for America's strategic interest?

Some staggering percentage of the American populace cannot identify the location of Iran on a map. This is why schools of political science, think-tanks, and the entire foreign policy establishment exist.

The reason America's executive maintains such rigid adherence to four year terms is because the public is prone to change it's opinion. Opinion polls towards the end of WWII showed that most Americans were dissatisfied with the prosecution of the war. A year later Hitler was dead. Should America have had a referendum then?

Granted there is no obvious parralel between Iraq today and the battlefields of Europe in the early 40's. The implementation of 'war referendums' however would establish a terrible precedent that would seriously constraint the capacity of the President, or any U.S President, to act on the global stage.

Foreign policy and military strategy should be decided by statesman and generals not by pollsters and the public at large.

"even though it would require a new law"

The author should learn a little bit about the US. This would require a chance in the constituion not just a new law and franky would be impossible. It would be easier to impeach, but that won't happen either.

Ironically, the legislatur of Dr. Ettefagh's own country has done exactly what he suggested, but for his own president, but since his country is a dicatorial theocracy, it was simply nullified by the mullas.

It is interesting to read the sensible suggestions of someone so ignorant of the American political system and to realize how rigid the USA really is.

The failed war in Iraq has "undressed" the United States and its political system. History shows that every country goes through periods of decadence sooner or later. We are living in such a period and it is painful indeed.

How did this happen? How was someone like George W. Bush ever considered fit to be president? More mysterious still, how was he reelected? Why did America's pride, the free press, fail in its duties so miserably? How is it possible that such a wonderful country has deteriorated so quickly?
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/2007/04/dharma-is-hard-row-to-hoe-just-ask.html

Good and too the point. Pointing out how America does so little with direct vote is a big point.

Something skipped, and so important to Americans, is when we "export" democracy, we ought to do our justice system.

I hear some 37,000 people are held without bail, without charge and indefinitely.

I just don't see how exporting America has anything to do with Iraq, or Git mo in Cuba.

If we want to export America, we need to export our love and care, not our guns.

I still can't set aside the possibility that Irag was primarily a commercial enterprise in the guise of humanitarianism or US "Security". Ever since the American Civial War, it was found that an immense shift in US dollars for the war - guns, uniforms, transportation, etc. all went to US businesses as they are in this Irag effort- Lockheed, Haliburton, etc., not to mention the securing of the number 2 supply of oil in the world. Why then, did Busch insist on the war? Why does he insist on staying there, spending the dollars, regardless of his own national interest?

Interesting idea on the referendum. Mr. Ettafagh doesn't know enough about our political system to releaze that new elections would require re-writting the constitution. But the refernedum's can be done and I'm always for more democracy. We certainly need something to break the log jam in our own polictical system. Right now its obvious that our current course in the Iraq and the Middle East is a mess. However the rhetoric being employed by both the Conserative Right and the Liberal Left are preventing us from forming a coherint policy. Perhaps a referendum that the polaticians can't ignore, unlike polls, would help.

Good suggestions, and well-put. However, tradition is strong in American politics, and the changes you describe are too radical for any politician of either major party to support. What is needed instead is a collapse of the two-party system, and we seem to be well along that road already.

Excellent and clearly said. Need to have a complete change in thinking back in DC.