I think what the Iraq needs right now is not a democracy government but an autocracy government.I think only the leader like Saddam Hussein can rule this country and only a very strong military leader can lead this country to democracy gradually, just like Taiwan and future china.

fff

I could not agree more with this panelist. US has to step up its efforts and finish the job for the benefit of Iraqi's and the world.

US should get more serious with Iraq neighbors interfering in its internal affairs and fueling the insurgency.

those who they praise the american (atlas )who carry the earth ball on his head and shoulder whether in iraq or any where else ,realy need to stop .first of all who told him to?second ,is he fit for the job of solving human beings problems ?aparentley ,the american atlas lost his balls in iraq while the earth ball still rolling .human interference not only need all human beings but the creator of humanbeings above all.

Frankly, the case for America's staying in Vietnam 35 years ago was stronger than the case for staying in Iraq now. So was the case for Britain's staying in Greece after the Germans left, when it seemed that Communists were poised to overrun the country.

Iraq is not Vietnam, and it is not Greece. There is no superpower seeking to overthrow an American ally with its arms, only the latent savagery of an Arab country erupting onto its own people. America could stay in Iraq long enough for Iraqis to get tired of slaughtering one another, but it isn't going to. Fantasies about multi-national peacekeeping forces -- let alone Arab peacekeeping forces -- won't make it any more likely that the United States will continue indefinitely to pour lives and resources into one, mid-sized Arab country.

I think you overlooked a very fundamental problem: why did the USA invade Iraq ?

As long as there is no real answer to that, there is no solution. As long as there is suspicion that it was for some imperial reason, no neighbor or european or whatever country will want to provide help. And no Iraqi fighter will lay down arms.

Nikos Konstandaras:

With great respect, the difference between the feuding Muslims in Iraq indicates that no muslim peace keeper would seem imparital to one of the main groups. Aside from some neighbor countries {Kiwuit, Saudi Arabia et al], the Muslim countries do not ahve the funds for peace keeping. The USA is at present borrowing $2 billion a day, it can not be the paymaster. Europe has an aging population and shortage of pension funding, they can not afford being paymaster [Short of Norway].

After the recent backing of Israel in Gaza [few days ago UN Veto] and after Lebanon, I do not think that the USA can come back from its own created limbo for at least 10 years.

I do not think that the Novemebr 7 election in the USA indicated in any manner that there should be a draft. The USA Army is streched to the breaking point, they have costantly dropped the minimum requirement for enrollment. The NAtional Guard is in similar position.

So I have three questions for you, Sir:

1., Who could be peqacekeeper with 3-500000 soliders?

2., Who would pay for the peacekeepers?

3., Where will the USA find the 2-300 000 soliders to make their presence significant?

Til there are answers to these questions, I would suggest that your propositions are full of hot air.