The US and UK government are plain greedy. They don’t care about the well being of Iraq, or for it to become democratic state. This is why the useless current PM for Iraq was chosen by the US and elected. You could argue that he’s a well paid puppet..

The US & UK are after the black gold (oil) and will not stop for anything until they have bled the country dry. And if they can some how manage to invade Iran in the process than that would be a bonus. And this is the reason why the UK, US and the United Nations WILL send more and more troop into Iraq so they are prepared to WHEN they invade Iran.

S. Taylor, you got the run around because you are a terrorist.

More troupes in Iraq?

By all definitions Iraq is engaged in a sectarian civil war. The U.S. army is increasingly one of the factions, not an occupier in control of security. An increase of troupes by 20'000 to 30'000 will at best escalate the civil war:

PM Maliki desires the increase. Al Sadr and the Sunnis don't. For the U.S. the intention is to solidify a viable democratic Iraqi government conducive to lead an American client state, by acting in support of the current PM and government. For the Iraqis the battle is one of deciding who will be in power. Like the U.S. hoped to use the Shiites as a proxy force to oust Saddam, the Shiites affiliated with Maliki now want to use the U.S. army to win the civil war for them. Because Maliki is the acting PM, but also the head of one of the sectarian factions to the civil war, it will be essentially impossible for the U.S. army to have a neutral stand. More likely, the battle will deteriorate further into one of all against all; the U.S. army will have to mostly protect itself, which will escalate the civil war rather than end it.

There is no point to sending more of Our troops over there and if this war is to continue it will spread past Iraq , Iran , Isreal and otther neighboring countries since the day saddam was taken out of dictatorship the country has gone mad . raping , killing , stealing and everything and anything else you could ever think of my personal opinion if they wish to continue and the government that was set up wants to do nothing , forget losing more of our military cause the militia will not stop for nothing and now the al quada can step foot in that country cause saddam is gone , pull our troops out and show them what childish war fare can lead to .. grab the nuke and turn it into a parking lot . end of one big ole headache that is going to continue for many years and just become worse cause get ready if Bush has his way the draft will be back .

That is funny.....I have tried to post comments on your site, and after registering, and waiting several days for you to issue a password, etc. etc. etc., I forget which article I wanted to comment on, then I lose my password that you issued me and around in circles we go.... what are you afraid of?

How, indeed.

A fundamental aspect of asymmetrical warfare needs to be better understood than it is now. The difference in relative power between a militia and a modern army is much less than the difference between that same militia and the unorganized, defenseless civilian population. Militias, whether Sunni Arab or Shiite, will continue to be able to inflict massive casualties on civilians in the Baghdad area even with the additional American troops reported to be on their way. A slightly larger American force will be able to protect slightly more of Baghdad's population, but that's all it can do.

An increase in American forces was a good answer to the security problem Iraq faced in the summer of 2003. Several years of the Sunni Arab insurgency's aggressive targeting of Shiite civilians, policemen and other government workers has provoked the reaction one might have expected -- rather than seek to protect "their" civilians reactively the way a police force defends against crime or enter Sunni areas only to engage insurgents, Shiite militias have struck at the easiest targets. These are Sunni Arab civilians.

This train has left the station, as of several months ago. It is too much to ask of the American army in the Baghdad area to bring it back, even with a modest reinforcement.

President Bush appears poised to announce what might be called a "kick the can plan." Its object will be to defer hard decisions about the future of the American commitment in Iraq as far into the future as possible. The only way it can produce anything better than that is if we get very lucky: if, for example, the various sectarian militias have reached a state of exhaustion sufficient to allow a breathing space for negotiations. This could happen -- actually it is bound to happen eventually -- but we have scant reason to believe it will happen soon.

Those hard decisions I spoke of involve how long the expensive commitment in Iraq is to be sustained. The assumption of administration officials, many in Congress and most American media commentators is that one way or another the commitment must be sustained for several years -- several years more in which the United States directs far more resources of lives, money and the attention of senior levels of our government to one, mid-sized Arab country than it does to the rest of the world.

With all respect to Zeyad and the other Iraqis searching for a better future for their country, this situation is absurd and cannot continue. The American commitment in Iraq needs to be liquidated, sooner rather than later and regardless of the immediate consequences for Iraq. American interests are what ought to matter to American leaders, and the continued preoccupation of our government with a country of secondary importance to our interests in the world cannot be justified.