I realize that you'd probably have to take our word for it, but what about the people who support the current occupation but opposed the war before it started? It's not as if the US can just easily pull out of Iraq and say, "Oh we did our best, whatever."

It was wrong of Bush to go in from the start, but since we've already started, there really is no way to stop. If the US pulls out, what message does that send the world? Does the US really need a whole crapload of terrorist organizations who rally behind the departure of the US as a display of cowardice?

I realize that it's tough to say to mourning parents "Your son or daughter died for shit all, because we have a President who doesn't know what the hell he's doing in Iraq." But I think it'd be equally as hard to say "We pulled out of Iraq, and now terrorist attacks are on the rise. Oops! There goes the continental US in a mushroom cloud."

The US is fighting a losing battle in Iraq, true. But it's a Catch 22, we lose if we leave, we lose if we stay.

 

Losing battle? Granted, I, like most others stopped giving a shit somewhere around November 2004, but last I heard the terrorists failed to stop our initial occupation. They failed to stop the elections, which had a higher turnout than those of the US. More recently, they've failed to hinder the drafting of a Constitution (I'm not following it closely, but I don't think it's quite done yet, but it's very close). Their death rate is likely THOUSANDS above our own. I don't think that they've taken back any teritorry that we've controlled.

Reconstruction is going slow, yes, and so is the training of Iraqi troops. Oh, and the parents of the dead soldiers are SAD! While this sucks, and is likely rooted in Bush's incompetence, it does NOT mean we're losing the war. Neither does the fact that our enemy isn't dead yet.

Hell, the only fronts on which we're not the clear winners is the fact that the insurgency isn't losing steam. Oh, and Iraqis are starting to get as sick as we Americans are of the occupation. I do believe they support the government, though, so once we're gone the Iraqi people will only have the insurgency to blame for the violence that will inevitably continue once we're gone. What will happen then is anyone's guess.

 

So the sentiment of the first 2 replies seems to be basically, "Iraq is a hellhole but now that we're stuck there we have to 'stay the course' as Dubya says." I don't disagree with that entirely, but is that a long term solution?

The insurgency is only increasing in size and expertise, more US troops are dying now than during the initial invasion or the early occupation, and the US occupying force in the Middle East is doing nothing but increasing Al Queda's strength around the world. In other words, what good are we doing by staying in Iraq at all, much less if you factor in the billions we're spending on it every week, and the nearly 2000 dead US soldiers (and perhaps 20k substantially disabled for life but not dead)? That's the real question for realistic adults (not unrealistic FOX News/Rush fans, like the types parodied in the linked cartoon.) And no, I don't have an easy answer. I just think being realistic about how badly we've screwed the pooch in Iraq is a necessary first step, hence my link to the cartoon.

Kevin drum had made a lot of good posts about what now in Iraq, here's a recent one that agrees that while an immediate withdrawal of US troops would be a disaster, we have to do something. He's for a staged withdrawal, announced in advance. Basically the old 'declare victory and get the hell out' strategy.

It beats Bush's "keep doing the same thing that's clearly not working" strategy, at least.

 

You're implying that Bush actually makes the decisions in his administration?