absolutely ridicuolous. the u.s. is causing the violence, not stopping it. A U of michigan study indicated that there are less than 500 foreign (ie al-qaida types) fighters in iraq. most people in the resistance are regular citizens pissed off at the rape of their nation. not to mention the recently released 600,000 dead civilian figure. get your facts straight before you print an article about this subject next time.

Why do you hate America? Everyone knows that occupations are winnable, if you just give the government commanding that occupying army enough time and money and civil liberties and crushing of dissenting opinions. Damned hippies, the war in Iraq can only be lost in the streets of Madison, WI!
- Germain Q. Stemme

"the u.s. is causing the violence"

BS, the Shiites and Sunnis have been killing each other for hundreds of years.

Wait until the US leaves - then you'll see some REAL killing.

They wait to call America cowardly, as Osama bin Laden did in a February 2002 interview with Al-Jazeera:

We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America--the United States--that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.

America left faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God.

He has a point; America does have a yellow streak. Think of all the politicians and commentators who supported the Iraq war with their votes and words, then switched sides once the going got tough. If opinion polls are to be believed, somewhere between 25% and 40% of the public did the same.

Whatever his faults, President Bush has been steadfast; and our guess is that the next president, even if a Democrat, will realize that cutting and running would be disastrous, and thus will either defy public opinion or help to change it. But if America conducted foreign policy by plebiscite, it seems likely we would already have fled Iraq.

The rates of killing in this war are actually quite low. The 2nd Marine Division lost more troops in 3 days in the Battle of Tarawa of World War II than we have lost in 4 years of fighting in Iraq.

Iraqi deaths have undoubtedly been much, much higher. However, the bulk of such violence has been sectarian (sunni vs. shiite), or has been the result of spectacular terrorist attacks (i.e. car bombings). Thus, the bulk of the violence is not perpurtrated by American forces.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the war is the fact that Al Qaeda's strategy of attempting to whither homefront support for the war back here in America has been largely successful, which will cause one of the few sources of stability, the American troops, to be withdrawn. What will our strategy be once that happens?

I guaranty that nobody, especially the war protestors, has any idea.

The war won't end because we withdraw. It will continue, and we will still be fighting.

You might not be interested in war. But war is very interested in you.

How are we doing in Iraq? Here's an interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3qcrdMeRYs

The reason we haven't been able to "win" a war since 1945 is because the "rules" have changed. We could have easily kicked N. Vietnam's ass if we carpet bombed their cities. But we no longer fight nations. al Qaeda doesn't have a HQ that we can just bomb, even when they were in Afghanistan. It's impossible to beat an emeny who hides among civilians, as the Israelis learned in their war with Lebanon last year.

So of course this war looks like Vietnam. But the cause and ramifications are much different. It is true that the US is not causing half the bloodshed. It's Sunni vs Shia violence. For every 1 US soldier that is killed, 100 Iraqis are targeted. They are not collateral damage, they are the main targets. Tell me, how is bombing a shopping center full of women and children "liberating" Iraq?

In fact, some Sunni groups that once fought against the Americans have not turned against al Qeada.

The cut-and-run democrats think that if you eliminate the symptoms, you cure the disease. Bring the troops home so they aren't being killed, therefore you end terrorism and stabalize Iraq.

As far as who to trust, I trust CNN and Rueters before I trust a pot head on a street corner with a piece of chalk.

I'm guessing all of you great thinkers that KNOW what will happen if the US pulls out "now" aren't signing up for duty any time soon. The way we have fought this war in the past and now this "New" plan both are inadequate. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the New American Century all called for a new Pearl Harbor (9/11). You can find this information on page 63 of the "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" report on the New American Century website. When their new Pearl Harbor occurred they wanted to profit from it not punish those responsible. Osama is still on the loose and we've sent a country that wasn't involved in attacking us spiraling into hell.
They never sent enough troops to either Afghanistan or Iraq. We either need to pull out of Iraq now and start rebuilding our military so when we have to back we can do it right. If that's not acceptable then we need to reinstate the draft, and start up a REAL war machine. That means that we get all the auto plants that are shut down to reopen and start producing the materials we need to win this damn thing. Bush needs to Sh*t or get of the pot.

Wow, 10:03, you are sure to get following with those ideas! Start up the draft again, yeah that'll go over really nice!

"I'm guessing all of you great thinkers that KNOW what will happen if the US pulls out "now" aren't signing up for duty any time soon"
No, im not signing up for active duty. Remember the armed forces are VOLUNTEER! If they did want to be in the armed forces then they shouldnt have signed up.
Also, that logic is ridiculous. So i cant support the war unless im a soldiers? That means i have to be a cop to want safe streets too then right?
I didnt think hippies knew how to use a computer.

6:12 - take an Islamic history class

Maybe some of us who support pulling the troops out now know that we'll see some of the worst violence in 60 years in Iraq, and our response is "let them." What we have done is created the stage for the knockdown drag out Pan-Islamic fight that the region has been wanting for a millenium. If one side actually wins, maybe there will be an actual partner to work with in the region down the line. Way down the line.

Will millions probably die in such a war? Yes. Will we face difficulties due to decreases in oil supply? Yes. But in the end, this is what everything is moving towards. The only question is if it is going to happen now or if we are going to keep on trying to delay it for 20-50 years while we develop alternative fuel sources.

"6:12 - take an Islamic history class"

What, you saying Bush invented Shia / Sunni violence? It's something new in the world to see Shia kill Sunni or vice versa?

Aside for the (presumably) unintended humor resulting from your tortured use of inappropriate adjectives at seemingly every turn and the general way you abuse the language, this article offers literally nothing insightful or original.

This piece rasises a number of questions that the Democrats refuse to answer. If Iraq falls into the hands of extremists who harbor terrorists, do we go back in? Or do we just bomb them and enact sanctions as we did in the 90s? Do we provide assistance for a refugee crisis? If there is mass murder on a similar scale to what is happening in Darfur, do we try to stop it?

The Democrats need to lay out an extensive plan on how to turn the tide of Islamic facism before terrorist groups are able to get their hands on WMDs. MAD is not a viable option because it assumes a rational opponent. WMDs today may be only deployable by nation-states, but who is to say, with the rapid rise in technology, that it will be that way in 100 years?

Lots of questions, few answers from the Dems.

Well done Mr. Cox.