ufzw unovmyljc evrky elayi rfpjksyo ioek rutkoxehy

Hear, hear! Let's abandon the moral high ground yesterday and also attempt to do the right thing in Iraq.

Mr. Young is quite correct that we owe the Iraqis an honest attempt to restore order in their country without truly massive carnage.

The moral high ground reveals us in a very unflattering light. Abandon it and do the right thing as unobtrusively as possible.

Excellent input.
To mention a few :Shivah, Mikeb,Jonnm.
But where is the ECLAT/ECLATI guy;

1. Don't blame Bush. After 9/11, everyone I know wanted the War. (I was told by many that I was not patriotic enough!). Now that things have turned sour ..American today is like Germany when Hitler took them for a ride. The very educated and sophisticated German nation loved every bit of it until the ride got bumpy.
2. The War is lost. Iraq is dead. No one can predict the future. Bush is blindly groping in the dark. Pelosi and her friends have no good answer either.
Americans must defend the freedom of the Kurds who have been betrayed by world powers more than once.
You betray them one more time and it will prove that one cannot trust the US of America, that will be something etched in the brain of every man women and child for ever.
This is the only good that can come out of this sordid mess. Free Kurdistan.
A free Kurdistan will be a God given face saver.

The wolves are waiting in the ravine for darkness to fall before they go for the kill. They will tear up Iraq. The south will go with Iran. The Kurds will fight to stay independant. The middle and western part will go to Syria and Jordan.
3. This is long awaited correction of the map of the Middle Earth.

4. So what happens to USA. Yes it will remain a superpower. Yes people still want to come and live here because the rest of the world is too unsafe.
Luckily the system here is such that even a Bush or a Cheney cannot do much damage. Evil is limited to just 2 terms in office regardless whether Democratic or Republican.

((((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock M., ROMNEY, For Prez *<?: + )/ Ya Ya Mons! )))))))))))

As a Canadian we hear about as much American news etc as Americans so I think I can comment.

Before questioning the results of your government perhaps check to see if your democracy and laws are working so well you have the right to export it. The US constitution was a leader for its time but unlike an earlier poster's claim the US is not the leader for democracy and rights in the world. It was the last of the advanced countries(you can quibble what that means) to get rid of slavery and extreme racial discrimination. It confuses the ability to use money to out shout your opponents in debate with free speech. It has two institutional parties that squeeze out any new thinking. I was amazed in your last elections how many unopposed seats there were, in most countries there are 3 or 4 candidates for each seat. Your judicial system is no better than many other countries and is often heavily politicized. The US is with the pack on many issues like women sufferage. This is not to say that other countries also don't have problems but it does say the US is far from the arbitrare of freedom and democracy. When the people of of DOC are disenfranchized and voting is so chaotic that it does not meet the requirements for groups who monitor elections to actually monitor your elections there is a problem. Little wonder it is so easy to manipulate, so McCain is called a nut and Kerry is portrayed as a coward. I suggest Americans really rethink their constitution which was after all written for a time when only 6% of the population could even vote.

The next thing is the US place in the world, many forget the arrogance shown just after the invasion of a country 1/12 its size that had been under quarantine for 10 years. There is no question at this point in time the US has the most powerful military after all it spends more than the rest of the world put together. It spends four times as much on intillegence than the entire UN budget. But it is reletive decline. Each year its percentage of the world economy declines now somewhere between 20 and 22%. The EU economy is larger and in regards to GPP(acrual productivity without reference to exchange rates) China will pass it in ten tears. Americans didn't notice in the runup to the war that American political and economic influence was not strong enough to bring the rest of the world along. Polically despite freedom fries France took leadership and defeated the US in the UN and American threats against France economically came to nothing because it would have meant a bruising fight with the EU which the EU might have won. Politically the US regards itself as extremely generous and should expect gratitude from developing countries. But most Americans don't realize for its size the US gives little for foreign aid it is much smaller than the EU and up until very recently over half that foriegn aid went to Israel or to buy off it neighbours Egypt and Jordan. Its actual foriegn aid was about the size of France's a country the sixth the size. This makes for little leverage. The choice of unilateralism requires dominance that the US no longer has. Of course it is up to the US but My belief is that the US should be looking more to its alliances and multilateral forums where it still is the largest and most unified entity.

When 30%(according to National Geographic) of Americans cannot find the Pacific Ocean on a map and a majority can't find Iraq and think the US population is over a billion how do you expect rational choices. The US media is about the tamest of the western countries. If you want to understand Israel read Israeli papers or European.

Finnally to Iraq. Few countries have any desire to help particularly after US bullying and lies to get our countries to join the US. I doubt if Americans have any idea how angry it made poeple outside the US to hear Bush come to our countries and claim he started the war to fight terrorism. Do Americans understand that many in my country and Europe were relieved when Bush was re elected despite despising him. I think there was a chance then that old loyalties would have said you screwed up but at least you've learned you lesson so we will help. But Bush's re election said no Americans support the arrogant unitalteralists. Many Americans said well we came into ww2 to save the world so you owe us while the countries that actually entered the war voluntarily say no the US sat out the war until it was forced into it. That until August 44 the Commonwealth had more troops in Europe than the US and by that time it was a matter of how long it took for the Germans to be defeated. Originally I thought the US created the problem and should stay until it corrects it. It is, along with the governments like Britain, Spain, and Italy responsible. This isn't because I don't have great sympathy for the families of US soldiers but if your country chooses to start a war the citizens are responsible. For those who say they opposed it in the first place what did you do to prevent it, it is a democracy after all. But the US staying is simply going to prolong a civil war and the loss of life. There isn't going to a liberal democracy so the concern is the oreientation future any government. The US retains massive responcibilities however for rebuilding the country it has demolished and by helping finance whatever government that emerges it can retain influence using massive rebuilding finances. It has direct responcibility for the 4 million refugees including the 1.2 million in Syria and is responcible for seeing to their plight including immigration to the US. It can use its influence to bring an arrangement to avoid an international war that none of Iraq's neighbours want.

There is another issue here that the unilateralists seem to not understand. If a country starts wars unilaterally for its own reasons why should it think any other country should not also act unilaterally in its own interest. There seems to be an adolescent naivate about the neo cons.

In the wider middle EAst the US has to realize it is and has been a participant in middle east wars particularly in its blanket support of Israel. It is not the even handed arbitor that it like to think itself as. It is the enabler of Israeli expansion. It needs to understand it is the enemy of democracy in the middle east and is simply playing for influence. It supports Saudi Arabia who is less democratic and whose people have less freedoms than the terrible governments of Iran and Syria. In Lebanon it takes the side of the pro western faction conveniantly ignoring a grossly infair voting system and serious voting irregularities. In Palistine it tries to crush Hammas who won the election by majorities that the Replublicans could only dream of and believes it and Israel should get to pick who negotiates for the Palistinians. Americans like to re iterate the claim that the Palestinians keep giving up chances but ignore the number of Israeli leaders going back ae far as the early fifties who have said if they had been born Palestinian they also would be terroists. If I remember correctly those leaders include ben Gurion and Rabin. In Egypt and Jordan the US finances repressive governments that are at least friendly to Israel. Consider when the prime minister to be of Israel facilitated the murder of hundreds of Palistinian refugees the most the US government did was to threaten to withdraw some loan guarantees but when the Palestinians elected a government hostile to Israel they didn't threaten, they set in motion starvation in Gaza. Neo Con and Bush government claims of moral acendency sounds a bit hollow not only to the Arabs but to the rest of the world.

All said the US not only for its own interests but for the worlds in general needs to some serious rethink.

Michael Young is right to be extremely critical of our involvement in Iraq. Nothing else he wrote contains the insight he normally offers. It is a shame to see that the Iraq policy has gone so wrong that even he cannot contain his emotions. Our leaving Iraq may lead to disastrous events as he suspects. There is also an argument to be made that our presence is a large part of the problem. If that is the case, the only "moral" action would be to evacuate our troops.

Either way, it is hard to believe that Iraq can wipe out all of the benefits brought to the rest of the world by American leadership since 1945. Young's very fair criticism of the US at the moment loses its force as he meanders from one outburst to another.

((((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock and ROMNEY! )))))))))))

We cannot repeat cannot leave Iraq in the condition it is in..If we do it will go into regional conflict of unknown and untold proportions...Reza from Iran has some good points.
If we leave at the least it will be a tuck our tails and hang or heads show..We will be responsible for all that happens after our exit..
As far as the DC politics go I have but one thing to say.The good book of Life states very clearly"A house divided cannot stand".The boneheads that run this place Ds and Rs better get it together somewhere around the middle.If not this great house of a nation we have may very well fall.Iraq aside.
Without a doubt the average"Joe Citizen"was sold a war that was not needed or advised but we are there and it IS "Our Baby" and we better stay there until we get it right......Mack

We cannot repeat cannot leave Iraq in the condition it is in..If we do it will go into regional conflict of unknown and untold proportions...Reza from Iran has some good points.
If we leave at the least it will be a tuck our tails and hang or heads show..We will be responsible for all that happens after our exit..
As far as the DC politics go I have but one thing to say.The good book of Life states very clearly"A house divided cannot stand".The boneheads that run this place Ds and Rs better get it together somewhere around the middle.If not this great house of a nation we have may very well fall.Iraq aside.
Without a doubt the average"Joe Citizen"was sold a war that was not needed or advised but we are there and it IS "Our Baby" and we better stay there until we get it right......Mack

Whatever you think of the war going into Iraq, it seems to me that the world should be focused on how to help. The U.S. and multinational forces are UN sanctioned, yet most in the world seem to want to whine and say "I told you so" rather than "how can we help the suffering?"

It's as if a social worker were giving the wrong medicine to a sick child (or more like full blown heart surgery) and in the room were lots of other rich people (countries) saying: "You're doing it wrong!" and "The child never needed heart surgury, you are a horrible social worker". Shouldn't they be saying: "I'll supply the I.V." "And I have a heart monitor" "I'm skilled with the bandages for recovery, anyone have some bandages?" "I do."

Just a thought, thanks.

Speed 123 : I read your article ? So what ? What do your Rants have to do with Young's discourse ? Other than the "final " solution what do you think Israel and the Arabs should do ? My lord you sound like Father Coughlin ! Give it up already.

Slow beed with us there over time or horrific blood bath after our withdrawal - either way it is not desirable. It appears the patient will bleed to death either way. Give the Iraqis till the next US election to resolve the oil law and de Bathification. If they can do that, we should continue a limited support to protecting the innocents in the population and help the government in limited ways. But the US is also a magnet for terror activity and even common Iraqis resent our presence. We can not stay for ever. Iraqis should hold a referendum on when we leave. That would tell us whether they are willing to risk the civil violence alone.

There can be no question about the utter failure of "policy makers" in Iraq. And, I put that term in quotations because it is now disgustingly clear that these neocon ideologues had no idea of the mess they were creating by invading Iraq.

I completely understand and sympathize with what Mr. Young says. Unfortunately, I do not see how keeping US forces in Iraq will result in an improved situation. All Americans have a huge debt to the Iraqi people. Our government, without provocation, invaded their nation and has created a violent chaos which seems as intractable now as the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Seeing more Americans and Iraqis killed just does not seem to be the answer. Neither is complete abandonment of Iraq. (I am also angry with my fellows on the left who seem determined to hold the Iraqi government responsible for the mess we have made.)

We need a real exercise of imagination to deal with this problem. So far, none has been forthcoming.

Richard York
Portland, Oregon

You're right, it's our baby. We have its blood on our hands.

This statement in no way suggests that the proper course isn't still a considered withdrawal. If there's no reasonable way forward, if we are actually making the way forward impossible by our presence, then the only solution is withdrawal. No matter how awful the situation will be after we leave, no matter how much blood on our hands. Our moral failure in this war isn't a threat, it's just the reality.

Those who suggest that we stay remind me of a poker player who keeps throwing money on the pot after the bluff has been called. The analogy sounds callous when considering the "pot" is people's lives.

Sorry guys, but I'm going nuts. I have Moslem friends, Jewish friends, An Arab in the family and they are all nice people. Sane, understanding and helpful human beings. Where is all this hate coming from? 9/11 happened when a hand-full of crazies miss-used the openness of the American society and attacked buildings with airplanes killing themselves and many innocent people. Yes, there were similar incidences in smaller scale before that, but when did it become a total war between billions of predominantly sane and decent people?
Is it because USSR is gone and now the defense industry needs to produce and promote another enemy to survive? Is it because Israel has not been able to achieve peace and needs to secure the help it receives from the West? Is it because Religion, any religion, can survive and flourish only in misery; So, people who get their power from religious fever need all this insanity to stay in power? Please, please find out what it is and stop it before Napalms change to Atomics. We are better than this.

Michael Young, you are so far off target on this that it causes one to wonder if you really mean what you say. First off you say, "The point of the Iraqi enterprise, at least if we're to believe the Bush administration, was to bring to Iraq liberalism, prosperity and normalcy after decades of despotism." This is not what Americans supported the invasion of Iraq for. The majority of Americans supported it to get weapons of mass destructions out of Sadams hands. The statement that you made can only be ascribed to the Bush adminstration after they did not find such weapons. Therefore, don't try to attribute hypocracy to the American people for wanting to leave a country that does not have the threat that they were told it had. The fact the Iraqis are hell bent on killing each other does not imply in any sense that the US is morally culpable. This is a great abuse of the term morality. You want to assign responsibility for one groups acts to another. That, I say, is deceitful, or at best totally uninformed about personal responsibility. If people continue to talk as you do, the only country worth moral responsibilty in the world will be the good ole USA! One more note of incredible onesidedness. The unprovoked attacks of 911 led to the suspicion, albeit wrong, that Sadam might be the next one to give some suicide terrorist his WMD, was the ultimate immoral act. That is the act that can be blamed for not only the 3000 Americans killed outrightly, but also the thousands of innocent Afghan and Iraqis killed, the thousands of American troops killed, etc. etc. etc. Assigning moral or immoral responsiblity should not be something that should be done without thought. I frankly don't think you have a clue as to what the word morality really means.

J.E., removing Saddam is what destabalized Iraq! He was a ruthless dictator, the last in a line of strong men that made Iraq even possible. the disseparate and mutually distrustful/warring factions that compose that country can only be held together by a dictator. When you hear White Houe account, you think of polite disagreements, as with American Democrats and Republicans. Well, In Iraq, the Sunni's kill the Shiites and both murder Kurds whenever pssible. Removing Saddam and the "nation building" exercises of the neocon true believers led to the assendency of the Shia, who have sought revenge for the atrocities over the years they committed under Saddam. The Sunni's, in their turn, have turned to Al Qaida for organization and protection, the alternative being wholesale slaughter by the Shiite. This has caused the Shiites to polarize and seek their own protection under Iranian sponsored leaders like Al Sadr.
As has been inevitable since this mess was started, Iraq is coming apart. No dictator, no strongman, can hold it together now. The entire "surge" is nothing more than an excercise in keeping the cap on the genie's bottle until the idiots at the Bush White House can figure out some way of sharing the blame for this debacle. General Preteus has already determined this, as has the Pentagon arm chair general staff. This explains their censorship of emails, blogs, and letters home from troops in theater. They don't want the folks back home to the truth about the miserable mess that things have become.

The problem with all of this is that the "experts" are right when they think that this is going to explode into a regional conflict. The idiot "experts" however don't realize all of the players nor how bad it is all going to become. The Turks have been infiltrating Turkomen irregulars into Northern Iraq with the dual purpose of siezing the oil fields and preventing the declaration of an independent Kurdish state (which would destabalize their own Kurdish areas). The Iranian's have been busy,too. There are Iranian observers there, mixed in with some elements of Kurd's and with a very large force of Al Sadr's army. These people are there right now! The Saudi's are watching this with dismay. Having a bunch of angry Sunni's, with Wahabbism active and Al Qaida fanning the flames is going to mean the downfall of the royal family's cushy business deals with the West. So, you ARE going to see a war between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, with Kurdish forces trapped between the and fighting for survival. This will, like it or not, draw U.S. forces into the region. But a "no fly" zone will not be effective because the troops are on the ground and in the contended area. The Chinese will inevitably be drawn in because their entire economy depends on oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia. It would be economic suicide to ignore a regional conflict. Look for an early confrontation between the U.S. and China-Russia and the whole thing running out of control very quickly. Basically, what I am telling you is to expect a global disaster on a scale that has never been witnessed before. It may well mean another World War, but it will at least mean the end of Wesrern civilization. It is depressing and gives me no joy in telling you this, but your criminally incompetent twins in the White House have pretty much wrecked your life and the lives of your children. Bush is going to go down in history as one of the greatest failures ever and as the disasterous "leader" that ended the American dream. Defend him now, becasue I predict, within a year you will be a part of the mob, howling for his head.

Am I correct in saying that the debate about Iraq currently boils down to: Staying or leaving Iraq, and attendant consequences of each action?

If so, am I wrong in saying i)that both sides have very valid concerns; ii) if a room in your house is on fire, you don't hold a family caucus in adjacent room and berate the knucklehead that deliberately started the fire; you fight the fire before in consumes the entire house (and possibly the neighborhood), then find the little rascal and set his ass on fire?

The Democrats, and most Americans enjoy the Greatest Economic Freedom in THE WORLD. We also set the standard for giving people their Rights, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. If you care about 300,000 people being killed over 10 years time, if you care about the lives of 5,000 children every month being killed, if you think we should get into Darfur to stop this, so do I. Do not forget however, this also happened in Iraq under Saddam. It was the right thing to do, from a human rights standpoint alone. To think otherwise would be foolish.

Kohsar240 - "...The best thing for all parties is US withdrawal..." That yes, but I want *revenge* Bush an CHeney got us into this mess. They are responsible for the deaths of more than 3,300 U.S. troops and who knows how many thousands of Iraqi's. So, get out, but try these two for treason and war crimes and imprison them, publically humiliate them, do the same with every one of the "ultra-patriots" that financed them.; go right down the list of Bush Pioneers and prosecute every single one of them, run them into banruptcy by permitting lawsuit for the lives they cost and the damage they have done. Make them all a public example of what we do to politician's that so abuse the public trust.

US has done everything it could to bring stability and prosperity in Iraq, but Arab Sunnis are not ready to accept it. If you are asking the US to stay in Iraq for moral reasons, then how long? Arab commentators like you need to put more pressure on Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria to halt their mission of keeping Iraq destabilized. For US to stay another 2, 4 or more years, it will mean nothing. The best thing for all parties is US withdrawal to let everyone know the true danger of civil war.

What is interesting about the above column is that it does not actually give any argument for its answer to the question that was posed. That question was whether things will be worse if we stay or if we go. The argument above simple takes as needing no argument that they will be worse if we go, and therefore says we have a moral duty to stay. That has some force to it as a moral argument only if the case can be made that our staying actually helps the situation.

Given how disastrous the predictions have been about the good that we will do by being in Iraq, I would have liked to see some reasoning behind this non-trivial claim. There is no moral imperative to stay if our presence is making things worse, or will make things turn out worse when eventually we leave, as we have to at some point.

Michael Young - "... a majority of Americans and members of Congress supported the Iraq war at the beginning ..." However, remeber also that the WHite House and it's supporters engaged in **selling** this to the Amercian people and the media. The Post was out there cheerleading this misadventure in the early days, too. We were told that Saddam Hussein was actively working on an atomic bomb that he was going to provide to the same people who had blown up the World Trade Center. They had proof, irrefutal proof, and Colin Powell went before the U.N. and delivered it! This PR campaign was waged, not just by the White House, but by the same wealthy cabal of donors that have since been discovered to have financially benefitted from it. But, in the early days, everyone believed it.

So, instead of playing games and placing all of the blame on the U.S., you have to ask yourself about the rest of the world. Now, that it knows that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and the rest of them were lying, that the perpetuated a crimial act that is as enormous as anything the Nazi's did, that they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity on a scale not seen since that evil days, why oh why are they allowed to travel and conduct their continuing disinformation campaign, their lies, and evil around the world? Every one of them ought to be indicted by the World Court and tried as the criminals they are. Jerk their passports and visa's. If they appear outside of the U.S., try thewm and convict them and imprison them. The wealthy Bush donors who perpetuated and funded this entire mess are still free to travel, free to do business and swindle. Where is Europe in this? Hiding and blather on, and placing blame where it least belongs. Get down to the indictments and trials and, then, get back to us.

Marcus Young: "I have yet to see anyone on the "you fix it" side come up with an historically sound analysis as to why civil war might not actually be the very BEST thing that could happen to Iraq."

I never thought I would ever see this written in so many words, in the Washington Post, of all places!

That is American missionarism, Machiavelli style for you!... Without even having to ask for it.

Let's be clear: the US IS the problem in Iraq. Our continued presence continues to make things worse. Our ill-advised and ingnorant "strategy" was endorsed by a public eager for revenge and mislead by its inept government.I count myself among this US public, just for the record. If we leaave, countries such as Iran abd Syria will likely take on the security burden with a much greater chance of success. Our role should be limited to a presence in Kurdistan - the only stable area now, to defend against an attack by Turkey or Iran.This will cause the neocons to go berserk, of course, but it's the only real answer.

I'm going to modify one word of my post... "unpredictable". I actually think the region is fairly predictable, it's just that we have trouble accepting it's predictability when we don't like the outcome.

How many more ways does it need to be said???? We are NOT the only player in this situation, and in fact, I believe history will prove that while we precipitated the fiasco we are actually not nearly even the most important player. And the players who DO matter, oh damn, they aren't our allies and we can't influence their actions to the extent we would like (maybe not even at all).

I think the framing of the argument around "America's responsibility to stay, or leave" is a narrow, naive and ultimately fruitless exercise in self-loathing, or chest beating, depending on whether blame conservatives or liberals for all that is wrong in your life.

The question is how to cajole, entice, force, and manage an unpredictable region to get involved in a way that stabilizes Iraq. We have a choice, either we concentrate on stabilization so Iraqi's stop dying in droves, or we concentrate on building an America friendly semi-democracy. Truth told, I don't think we can have both, not in the short, or medium-term.

Would be nice if occasionally the arguments didn't assume that everyone in the world thinks and operates as Americans do and that everyone is either a liberal or conservative. This is a different neighborhood...

I feel bad for the poor sods who believe in the rhetoric that got us into this mess...democracy, honor, freedom....

This is NOT about democracy and it never was (same goes for all wars) - this was geo politics at its finest! It was not even about oil as the only thing that was keeping our companies out was the US sanctions.

This war was an attempt to remake the region to our liking and to "secure the realm" for Israel. What do the Iraqis want.....NEOCONS do not give a crap! They want us out...only Bush, the neocons and Israel want us to stay and force a government on the Iraqi people that they do not want.

If you believe in the key words that they used to sell you the war or join the army then you have been decieved....

Wake up!

Mr. Young:

Iraq very well may be America's baby. America may very well have a responsibility toward Iraq. Personally, I would agree with both of these statements. Though I neither voted for Mr. Bush nor did I ever support the war, as an American citizen, and therefore, as someone who reaps many of the benefits America offers her citizens, I do not feel as if I can draw a circle around myself and proclaim that the Iraq war has nothing to do with me. Nor do I think that anyone who benefits from this country can reasonably make that claim. Crucially, this is not to say that I, or anyone, ought to agree with the government and ought to support its policies. Rather, it is to say that those citizens who are outraged and feel alienated ought to ACT, instead of pushing blame on every demographic but their own. They ought to push for change in some reasonable way on the very basis that this is, in fact, their country.

With that said (which is more in reference to the posted comments than to the article) let me say this: America's moral responsibility toward Iraq should in no way imply that America has a moral responsibility to remain in Iraq. America is morally bound to do what is best for the common welfare of the Iraqis who have unwillfully been made subjects of America, not according to Mr. Bush or anyone in America, but according to the reality that the general population of Iraqis face each and every day. I do not mean by this simply the reality of war that they are faced with, but the reality which is made up of cultural forms and relations (which is not the same reality, not the same systems of value and relations, as it is here in the west). Staying in Iraq, Mr.Young, has not proved in anyway to benefit the Iraqis. Democracy cannot simply be injected from the outside. It is a government of the people, which means it must start from the bottom up. Do not obscure the issue by reducing it to comparitive body counts. That an exponentially larger number of Iraqis have died than American soldiers is completely irrelavant to the moral question of what should be done. To suggest that the relative body count of American soldiers in regards to that of Iraqi civilians is some way to measure where moral responsibility lies is senseless, at best, if not obscene.

Unfortunently, many in Iraq will be subjected by some other. This is a violent reality that no one wants except the few that will benefit from it. But as it is now, all Iraqis are subjected to America--a completely alien force of power--while simultaneously subjected to internal violence and terrorism (much of which is attributed by the agressors to America's occupying presence). Moral consideration for Iraq, not some false sense of duty and self congratulatory sacrifice, should be what matters here. I do not claim to have an answer to the disaster, but I do claim to have at least part of one: everyone-- but especially people in your position, Mr. Young, who have the power of speaking to so many--ought to make a conscious effort to clear the public forums (i.e., the airways, political arenas, print) of obscuring claims which draw lines between people and senselessly pit them against one another. This means everyone ought to try to think in a context larger than their own to justify their thoughts and utterances. If the people demanded this from their politicians and their press, perhaps we could free ourselves from unproductive ideological standoffs, which only serve to fuel the flames of delusion and preclude the acheivement of any real justice, here or abroad.

America owes Iraq nothing, moral implications be damned! The place is a bloody sewer full of rats. It's long past time that we got our sorry butts out of the country and let the Iraqi's get on with what they really want to do, which is to kill everything in sight.

Our goal was to get rid of Saddam, and install a democratic government. We have accomplished those items, now it's time to leave and spend our tax dollars on our own problems here at home. Iraq may parallel Vietnam it what happens next, but who cares, look at Vietnam today.

America has no real national interest in the middle east other than oil. As the Japanese have found, it's far better to buy it peacefully, than try to maintain a military influence over it.

Mr. Young,

Thank you for expressing what so, so few in America are prepared to think. 75%+ plus supported the war, not because Bush lied, but because 75%+ didn't care if Bush was lying. The Iraqis and working class US soldiers are paying for America's apathy / abstracted ideologism. Now we're approaching a time when 75%+ favor withdrawal. And it's probably going to happen because 75% care a hell of a lot less about the lives of the Iraqis than they do about their own comforts. Same mistake, same cause, and the same result -- others suffer greviously for America's me-me-me complex. And incidentally, these people who suffer tend, again, to be brown. c.f., Katrina.

Vote Obama '08

Any revolution must come from within. The Iraqi people with its long history and culture must now sit down among themselves what they want to do with their lives. I think the Democrates have a good strategy - we will be there to train your forces as long as you want us there, not a day longer. In this way we can help them to promote their kind of democracy and such violence now is just part and parcel of the processes. Their religion at its most basic form promotes peace so let them prove it to the world that they are true to their God and prayers. The domino effect for the rest of the Middle East is just theory - Vietnam fell in 1975 and we did not see the rest of South-east Asia developing into communist states!!! In fact, Vietnam, after a long period of isolation has to catch up with its more properous neighbours now.

Mr. Young is correct. And looking at all the comments is it not evident that most agree to it. The real solution will come only when those who are guilty of initiating this tragedy are out of the picture.
It is wrong to say that only Bush administration is responsible. It might be so, had not the US re-elected that regime again.
And the solution:-
a. Involve the regional powers - Iran and Syria and the Arab Union members to handle the issue.
b. Stay out and keep out the US and allies, and
c. Protect the problem flowing into neighbours- Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey - by giving support those countries to guard their borders well.
d. Concentrate on stabilising Afghanistan.
e. Keep Israel to behave and make things better for the Palestinians. No new war in Lebanon, nor bombing and raids in Gaza or west bank. NATO can police the Israeli borders, jointly with a UN force.
f. US and specifically Bush should formally announce that they were wrong in invading Iraq, apologise, and agree for reparations to pay , to be determined by a international body set by UN General Assembly or Arab countries.
g. Submit those guilty of war crimes to ICC.
h. Ask the US companies like Haliburton to repay the millions they stole from the Iraqi coffers.

These measures will not immediately stop the blood shedding, but will atleast remove the primary cause for the carnage, and start the reduction in violence. Sort of light at the end of the tunnel.

As long as the faces of Bush and Cheney are there as the faces of occupation, the violence will not end.

We have to feel sorry for the ordinary citizens of Iraq and of the world, for this war has created so much of hatred and violence not just in Iraq or the region but around the world.

I have yet to see anyone on the "you fix it" side come up with an historically sound analysis as to why civil war might not actually be the very BEST thing that could happen to Iraq.

Look at the history of civil wars, and you see great and good nations emerging from the ashes of their internal conflicts. The US would not be the country it is were it not for our own massive bloodletting over ideology. Ireland went through a period of vicious civil war in the last century (not unlike the type of war we could expect in Iraq - but cheerier), and emerged better in the end. France, England, Spain, and Greece have also had periods of civil war, and survived the process.

The two major groups within the south of Iraq have a long history of hatred and mistrust. Allowing them to get it all out now simply might be a necessary step toward an eventual reconcilation. Would it preferable if they could negotiate without the bloodletting? Absolutely. Is it likely? Probably not.

But y'know what? It IS their country, and they're the ones who are going to have to figure out how to make it work. Just as so many others have before them.

My country, Australia, also joined the US in this whole debacle. I remember being against the whole thing, but couldn't help thinking well maybe the Bush Administration knows something I don't... I mean they have all those resources at their disposal. Turns out they didn't...

I do think that leaving Iraq would be a huge mistake. But staying doesn't present a much better option. At worst, it may just be delaying the problem.

I do find it a major concern that the people who got us into this in the first place, that bungled the whole occupation are still pretty much running the show. Haven't they already demonstrated enough incompetence ?

A lot of posts asked "why" do we have responsibility when Bush and Crew misrepresented the facts and rushed to this war? I'll tell you why... because in a country like ours we actually are all responsible, and re-electing this administration made us all part of it.

I don't like it and frankly it pains me to write it... but it's true.

As for the "cut and run" accusation... cutting losses and dealing with a bad hand are perfectly logical response, I don't hold anyone in contempt for that attitude.

Here's what's got me up at night. The continued lack of candor and political posturing/bullsh_t that characterizes almost all debate about this war. If Bush and his crew of pro-war colleagues had the guts to come clean about the cost, likely outcome and duration of this war, I could at least respect them for it and consider their plan. But they won't do it-- they have no problem sending someone else's kids to fight a war, yet simultaneously don't have the guts to actually put a 5 year running program into their operating budget... as if this is an "emergency" they didn't foresee and couldn't possibly plan for. That for me perfectly sums up the hypocrisy at work here. Present our country with choices and let us decide how to spend our money, stop deluging me with school yard level taunts ("cut and run", "emboldening the enemy", etc...) and deliver a plan and a cost estimate. The same courage that kept these guys at home 30 years ago is keeping them from simply having the basic decency to propose a plan.

Given THAT context, and THIS set of players... I can only conclude that we owe the Iraqi's something we can never really repay them because our leaders do not intend to... that's the really painful truth, and the shame it should wrought on us is unbearable.

It is too late to take the moral high ground, this war was not started on a Moral cause it was started on a lie, that I see as revenge for 9/11. The Republican Party with it monkey head Bush had ideas of attacking Iraq before 9/11. Our country attacked and beat by shock and awe, a country that really could not defend itself. Please someone tell where is the moral high ground in
that. Our soldiers are caught in the middle of a civil war that this administration will not even actknowledge is happening now. There are three fractions of Iraqis who are killing each other, yet the one thing that brings them all together is US! The Iraqi People want us out of their country and I think we should go. 68.000 Iraqis are dead because of us, how many more will it take for the pro-war fans to feel like they have won! It is time to remove our troops and leave the Iraqis to it. Just like we had to fight our Civil wars here in the States. Iraq has a fragile government infused with Democracy, yet it will never be a Democracy for they will not be able to separate Church from State, the best they could hope for would be a Theocracy. Well it there and it is up to the Iraqis themselves to decide how they want to govern themselves. If you read History then you will know that our country started with much less. As the ole saying goes," You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink." Look at it this way our being in Iraq is causing blood to be shed, our leaving will cause blood to be shed. You have two negatives the positive is to leave.

I am just bewildered at some (most) of these postings. You people, including Mr. Young, think that this is just about Iraq? About oil? Until you see and understand what is really happening you will post comments that do not make any common sense. Take Jennifers comments, how insane is that. Talk about neocons...my god to suggest that only the group who voted for the President to pay for the war, just because you don't like it. How about Global Warming? I don't agree with Al Gore. Should those who agree with him pay for all the cost associated with going GREEN? I think not. Jennifer is typical of people who will not or do not take the time to really understand what WE are up against. My friends, Iraq is just 1 battle in this war. There will be other battles that I'm sure you will not agree with. I personally don't care if you do or not. Brave men and women will still step up to protect you. If we get attacked again, then there will be another battle. Should we fight that one? Should you just say hey, we only lost a few thousands lives. We don't need to get involved.
The bad guys will not ask your permission to attack. To leave Iraq or any armed conflict and not want to win is formual for disaster and disgrace. For those of us (some say we're neocons) who love this country and see good things and don't use hate as a mean to justfy their own agenda. We will fight, as my father did, as I did and as my son is doing today. We see peace, liberty and democracy as a great thing. I only wished most of you who posted today, do the same. I own Iraq and I refused to give up. Accountability and responsiblity is what shaped this great nation. Be proud your an American and start acting like it and quite trying to get France and the EU to like you.

"Opportunity squandered," eh, Steven Glass?

Kind of like all of the "opportunities" that we gave them in the 10 years of sanctions?

You're right, the Iraqis really dropped the ball on this one...

Jamil1, Bush is just a figure head for the Neo Con movement and the Israel lobby.

Want to find out why we were really in Iraq?

Read this paper (A Clean Break: a new plan for securing the realm) by to of the war planners, Douglas Feith and Richard Pearle. It will give you an idea:

http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

All I know is that he who started it all is an imbecil, a son of a... and a stubborn egomaniac who very frequently has conversations with God (or so he says). The American public said yes to the war based on the lies told to us by him. The USA and its citizens are not to blame, its only the liers we elected to represent the nation the ones to blame. Shame on us who voted for him!!! The American presence in the area is making the situation worst!!!

"But then let's all agree that the U.S. should never again claim the moral high ground anywhere."

Never? This ultimate straw dog. This is not the logical conclusion of any mistakes one may ever make, this is hyperbole and a ridiculously broad statement.

The Iraqi people were given the gift of opportunity and democracy; opportunity squandered.

"But then let's all agree that the U.S. should never again claim the moral high ground anywhere."

Germany during WWII did far worse then we'll ever do in Iraq no matter what path we decide to follow yet Germany a scant 60 years later is considered a morally upright and "good" country.

If we abandon Iraq. I give us about 20 years before we get over it.

Mr Young, you were one of the neo-con reporters who cheered on this war. No doubt because you are a Lebanese Christian, and you wanted to see those Muslims get it. Now you want people to forget your culpability. Where's your mea-culpa?

Give them more guns... the problem will eventually resolve itself.

You want the middle class church lovers to feel good? Build sectarian walls and secretly give them more guns.

You want the liberals to be happy? Use the arms sale to invest in education for the US.

You want the rich to be happy? Build walls around the refineries and pipelines, and then sell them more arms.

You want the rest of the world to be happy? Start the draft back up and send 3 million troops over there with our own guns until the issue is resolved.

Video games don't kill people. A onservative culture and the 2nd amendment kill people.

PS I forgot to mention that I am a walking talking L-I-B-E-R-A-L. I think that the GOP and neo conservatives focus on their aspirations and not on achievable outcomes, aka reality. They have treated their opposition with scathing indignity and after years of failure they still want to call the shots. They have to be emasculated because they seek to continue with failed policies that result in thousands of deaths. I am sure that they are hurt by the deaths of US troops but how many tears do they shed for dead Iraqis?

Bush is an immature President who has taken the US into a war that has no end. The UK tried to crush opposition in Ireland. It took it decades to learn that street insurgency could not be overcome. The same is true in Iraq. Bush is distrusted and is plagued by being directionless, threatening, and untrustworthy. Only a new leadership will have a chance of negotiating a settlement and, like Ireland, all parties will have to sit at the negotiating table and inch by inch, over a long time, reach a settlement.

I saw a picture on a poster recently, in Santa Fe, which said " Fighting terrorism since 1492". In the foreground sat some Navajo and Apache. I guess for the British and the US anyone who opposes them is a terrorist. This doesn't mean that you have to be a foreigner to be a terrorist, as illegal Mexican immigrants in the US will soon find out. By the way, weren't the white settlers in the US also illegal, while terrorist?

Dear MOMOFMWM,

It's a start not an end. We are part of a collective. Remember when Neil Armestrong walked on the moon. Were you proud that WE did it? This is the same, only that this time you are probably ashamed that WE did it. Next time you vote, if you do, note that your votes have consequences and in a democracy, consequences are shared.

Shiveh,
What do you mean "It's a start not an end?" I'm confused. "We are part of a collective." If you mean we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have freedom of speech, and we have the right to vote, then yes, we have those rights collectively as Americans. We have the right to vote for whomever we wish to. We also have a responsibility to use our freedom wisely and vote wisely from the information we have and conviction in a candidates worth. We should not vote for someone based on the opinions we read or hear from pundits. And yes, I vote and have since I was old enough to. When I vote, I am placing my confidence and trust in that person. When they violate that trust, I am not responsible for the wrong they do. They are responsible to live up to the trust people place in them. When you vote for one person to be president, you don't vote for their cabinet or the many people of influence who advise him and help make decisions. The first election I could vote in was in 1960. I was 22. At that time you had to be 21 to vote. I sat and cried for three days as I watched the events unfold after President Kennedy's assassination. I saw the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald live on TV. That was before the age of live 24/7 TV coverage, but this was of such magnitude, they kept it on.

Was I proud when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon? I'm not really sure if proud is the correct word. I thought it was a big accomplishment. I'm not a fan of space exploration. My young son was and I remember waking him up and watching Neil Armstrong the first time he went up in a capsule and came right back down again. That lets you know about how old I am. To me NASA is a big playground for big boys and their big toys. I'm sure you don't agree with me, but I am free to have my own opinions. I'm also not a fan of globilization and trying to force democracy in all the world. I am for providing help for anyone in need wherever that might be in the world, but I don't think just sending billions without knowing where it goes or trying to force democracy is the answer. I hardly think Neil Armstrong walking on the moon could be called the same as invading Iraq. Are you saying that I should feel proud that my country invaded Iraq?
Please don't lecture me about America and Democracy or question if I vote. I have been around long enough to know how it works. Have you?

Americans wanted a perfect, cute, intelligent baby country with a huge supply of easy oil. They instead got a partial birth abortion of a brain-injured conflict that cannot be won, and now they do not like the outcome. Well, politicians are not fair, most of the time, and their promises were written on the wind. Does anyone want to do the hard work of impeachment? That is what it will take to produce a meaningful change in the outcome.

Not buying it. It's not our country. Yes, we took the shackles off of many rivals to vie for supremacy, or at least pay back. We did not create the rivalries in the first place, and we do not have a dog in this fight, nor should we...because it's their country, not ours.