http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspxOn the surface, the initial “surge” statistics from Baghdad appear encouraging. By all measures, the number of deaths is down, the number of attacks is down and the number of Iraqi security forces on the street is up. Good news, right? Sure, but hasen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100029Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:10:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100029Scott in South TexasI'm assuming that by "The Enemy" you mean "The Terrorists". Which Terrorists, the Sunni Terrorists or the Shia Terrorists? Does the US win if the Shia Terrorists defeat the Sunni Terrorists? With our troops there, both sides in this civil war kill each other and our troops. If our troops aren't there, they just kill each other. Our removal of Saddam guaranteed civil war, and our installation of a Shia (Iran) dominated government guarantees Sunni insurrection.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100032Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:14:04 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100032David Twiggs, Lenoir City, TennesseeThe issue of a "time certain" argument for leaving Iraq is so bogus because of the three and only three choices in the conduct of this or any foreign war. First, we could stay there until Bush says it's time and ok for us to leave or some other "Commander-In-Chief". As far as their lie that it will be the Generals who say, Chris Matthews did a good job today saying why ultimately, it is the President. Chris didn't point out, and no one else has, that this President simply fires the generals when they don't say what he likes and calls it incompetence, sound familiar aka US Attorneys. Anyway, when Bush or any other "Commander-in-Chief" says its ok, it won't be "OH, surprise! We're doing a complete withdrawal today! See, insurgent, we fooled you! You had know idea!" Nixon had a pre-date certain when he decided it was time to pull out of Vietnam, the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese knew that date. When Bush or someother "Commandr-In-Chief" makes this decision, it will be no more a secret to our enemy than the actions of Congress. In fact, if knowing a date certain is so horrible, I submit that waiting for the "Commander-In-Chief" to decide is more certain than the timeline Congress proposes. I just hope it wouldn't take us 10 years to re-learn the lessons of Vietnam, that a foreign power never will quote "win" in a civil war. Secondly, we pull out as Congress has prescribed as benchmarks are fulfilled by the Iraqi government. But in any case, by August 2008 we pull out. No one can seriously argue that all insurgents will be defeated. There will always be insurgent interests in the Middle East. There have been for thousands of years. It comes from the historically stronger ties to tribe as opposed to country that the people's of the Middle East have been stratified in their culture. If you believe that all insurgents will be defeated in Iraq, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you! Thirdly, we could stay and never leave. I suspect this is really what the Neo-Cons and Right Wing Republicans know in their hearts is their stand all along. If this is their real policy, then it is up to you, the press, to expose the truth for all to see! Please, please begin to ask the hard questions. Quit soft-balling! These are the only three choices. I think Congress's Plan as articulated today is the best choice to save American lives in a tragic, stupid war that should never have been!http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100136Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:19:08 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100136L Davis, Pompano Bch, FLSince when is it the responsibility of US troops to act as buffer between factions and tribes that have been at war longer than we have been a democracy? Perhaps if anyone had bothered to read a little history on this part of the world, they would have known that colonialism does not work there. Who exactly are US troops fighting? Who exactly are they protecting? And how many of them can tell the difference between the two? And if they can't tell the difference, why are we still there? This war is about oil, an all out resource grab; someone's idea of a comprehensive energy policy, and I wish politicians would stop talking to the American public as if we are all uneducated hacks who can't see through the rhetoric and platitudes. Chris asked today about who decides when it is time to bring the troops home. Well, it is the American people, that's who, because what a lot of people don't seem to realize is, left up to the politicians, we will never leave Iraq!http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100159Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:42:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100159Robert, Sacramento, CAAs an retired NCO, (20 yrs Army), and Viet Nam vet, I agree with LTC Francona. The enemy will just hunker down and wait for the withdrawl of American forces. Every since the end of WWII we have let politics get to involved in our wars (Korea, Viet Nam, & Iraq). You can not fight a political war. Congress authorized the use of force and should not be micro-managering the war. US Forces won every major battle in Viet Nam but lost the war, due to media coverage and anti war congressmen and demostrators. We have military all over the world, So I guess we should pull out of Germany, Korea, Japan, etc.. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100200Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:16:18 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100200Stan Warnock, Crawford, NebraskaThis idea that setting a date will aid the enemy, or that "cutting and running" will aid the enemy,as the neo-cons like to say, infuriates me! Chris got it right this evening when he said :"What is going to stop the insurgents,or the Iranians from walking in the day after we leave (no matter when that is) and taking over?" I'm not an expert in these things. Although I did serve a long tour as a Navy Corpsman with the Third Marine Division in Vietnam, and my son in presently a Captain (Nurse corps) in the Army in Afganistan. The point I want to make is this: Every single day we spend in Iraq more of our beloved troops are going to die. Many more are going to be severly wounded. My son and I have seen this first hand. I have seen the piles of dead US service men and have had many of my comrads die in my arms. When you go to your local High school or college, just ask yourself: How many of these young people am I willing to sacrifice for a failed war that we were forced into by an administation that lied to us? Are you willing to sacrifice your son or daughter because you think we just might possibly avoid letting this civil war continue in a country that hates us? When George Bush sends his two daughters to Iraq to serve in combat, the tide may change. Stan Chief Hospital Corpsman, US Navy, Retired http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100207Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:31:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100207Bob. Lipsett Sr. North Attleboro, MA. 02760-4388This illegal invasion of Iraq was planned in such a manner to the point of fighting "TERRORIST", and Weapons of Mass Destruction and Judy Miller spreading lies about the arsenal that was posessed by Saddam Hussein, which was fabricated by the our Pentagon and Amhad Chalibi to justify this regime change, which,by the way is against our constitution, and to establish a permanent military bases and a "Colossal Embassy" that Charles J. Henley of the Associated Press wrote about in May 2006 in Baghdad, he also had a article about the longer stay in Iraq, which was carried by MSNBC internet connection at 9:15 AM on March 22, 2006 and suddenly dropped. I wonder how much influence the administration had in squashing these stories? This country never had a plan to vacate Iraq. The only thing the Bush administration did not count on is a Government not being run by Ahmad Chalibi and the Shi'ite government controlled by Iran. Why do you think the trigger finger is itchey to strike Iran? It is not about nuclear weapons, it is about the Islamic controlling the closeness to the Arab land and Israel. About the vote today on the fifth emergency spending bill said nothing about withdrawing funds for our troops, if I'm not mistake John Murtha said only our combat troops to be redeloyed and some withdrawn and not the training forces. By the way isn't it about time we thought about the American middle class and did something for the good of our nation. After all Greasy George and this ill concieved planned war has strained our military and indebted us to the tone of $478 BILLION DOLLARS. Not one person, that lives in this "Goldy Locks" society, has been ask to give up something besides the money for this illegal war. Pardon me for missing the request to conserve fuel on Sept. 26, 2005 as our nation crude supply was interupted by two hurricanes, that slipped my mind until I wrote that last statement. The USA was asked to leave their outpost in Saudi Arabia and need a place to put our world cops in the middle east. I ask, for whose protection? Rick Franconna wasn't telling the whole truthful story and picture of our involvement in the Middle East, he belives that our "Compassionate Colonialism" and 50,000 to 75,000 troops would work better that it did for previous countries ie; Fance and Britain. Even after 100 years, if the USA has not been ask to leave, there will never be the conjoining of the Sunni and the Shi'ite forces. Just look at Ireland, not much difference.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100234Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:06:55 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100234Ron New Castle, DEIf the goal of the surge was to suppress violence in the capitol long enough to allow civil discourse to begin to forge a unified Iraq, it has done an admirable job. The only thing lacking is the Iraqi civil discourse but that's hardly a new development. If the goal was to significantly attrit or disrupt insurgent forces, it's been much less effective. They've simply gone to ground, waiting for the surge to ebb. If there is no political settlement, in six to eight months, troop rotations will lower US force presence in the Baghdad environs and the civil war will roar back to life. It's a dubious argument to claim that the insurgence are somehow empowered by a distant draw-down date in a doomed congressional gesture. It will die in conference or under the presidents pen and their is rightfully no political will to allow this argument to impact on the safety and effectiveness of our armed forces. It does, however, serve as a warning to the Iraqi silent majority. The US electorate is going to withdraw its' troops out of Iraq, with or without the US leadership. If the Iraqis can take our lesson in democracy to heart and vote for Pan-Iraqi parties instead of indulging their parochial interests and in doing that change the path their own government is following, our efforts will have been effective, otherwise the Surge will have ultimately failed. We can't be both George Washington and Lord Cornwallis to these people, they are going to have to step up. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100246Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:55:04 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100246born_7-4, Seattle, Wash.There is already a deadline and it comes sooner than 9/8. It comes when we run out of available troops and supplies. The insurgents know its coming soon and they can wait. Our forces are already so weakened by Bush mismanagement we can only pray we don't need them elsewhere for the next 10 years. Why does he only surge 21k troops (+10k cops) if it’s so desperately important that we win- THAT’S ALL WE’VE GOT. In a few months when those held over must rotate home, the pipeline of fresh troops will be running out. Bush has broken our defenses more effectively than any terrorist could ever hope to. Besides the terrorists believe we lie about everything, they aren’t going to believe this either. And with good reason, the republicans forced Clinton to set a date to withdraw from Bosnia (cut and run?) yet they stayed there keeping the peace till Bush moved them to Iraq. I doubt Bush would abide by this even if he did sign it into law. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100253Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:03:42 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100253rick rodriguez, corpus christi, TXThe Congress is finally carrying out its function/duty as intended by The Constitution. It has expressed the will of the American people. How refreshing......after six years of the sickening sycophance of the effete Republicans. King George was visibly distressed after the House vote today. He came out spittin' mad and had a fit, making threats, demands, and obtuse remarks. But the name of the game is negotiation. That takes skill, knowledge of the subject matter, mutual respect, and perseverence. All foreign to King George. He's more at home with the "haves and the have more" crowd. And, by the way, American peanut farmers, American spinach farmers, American Katrina victims, etc. are damned sure more important than funding that murderous occupation in Iraq. The people of Mesopotamia have existed for millenia with their own customs and cultures. They will be there when we are gone. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100260Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:28:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100260born_7-4, Seattle, Wash.These ‘quagmire’ wars are always about politics here - not threats from there. It’s not about winning the war but winning elections. Republicans accused Kennedy/Johnson of being soft on commies, Johnson couldn’t follow Kennedy’s plan to withdraw from Viet Nam and hope to be elected in his own right. He had to escalate or be just a footnote in history. Nixon interfered with a peace treaty in ‘68 (telling North Viet Nam negotiators don’t sign I’ll make you a better deal when I’m president) he played on the nation’s fears of communist expansion for 2 elections (fight them there or fight them in Hawaii-sound familiar?). http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100380Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:35:46 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100380Cheryl Everman, Federalsburg, MDWe have accomplished what we set out to do under the resolution. This is no longer about a threat to the US, it is about the Iraqi's taking responsiblity for themselves. Whether we have a timetable or not, whether we have a surge or not, or whether we just pull out, the result will be the same, only the timing of the events will shift. Unless we are willing to impose martial law to create a stable and safe environment, to spend at least a generation (or two) teaching Iraqi citizens how to be responsible citizens and how to stand up for their own interests, and to borrow an additional trillion (or more) dollars to rebuild the country's infrastructure and business base, then staying will always mean one group or the other will hunker down until it's to their advantage to attack. Remember the way the Sunnis took control to begin with was to lay low while the Shia fought the British. In the end, the people supoorted the group they feared the least (and we know how that turned out). This time the the Shia are doing the same thing. To those of you who keep talking about "politicizing" the war. War is by its nature political. Without politics, there would be no war. Therefore, without politics there can be no solution. And to those who keep whining that we lost Viet Nam because of the media and Congress. Grow up. Like this war, putting the military in Viet Nam was a HUGE mistake and destined to end poorly. Please stop rewriting history. If the South Vietnamese people had wanted the government we installed, they wouldn't have been fighting it. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100417Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:30:57 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100417Leslie Kavourakis, Newport TnThis week, on a couple of history channels, there was an attempt to educate the american people or any viewer interesting in watching, in the history of Mesopotamia (Now IraQ) Persia (now Iran). Although this history begins way back at 532 bc, you can see how Islam and the loyalty to members of the prophet's family or another way of choosing religious leaders have come to dominate these theocracies. The British, at the turn of the century realized the value of the oil there and tried very hard to control its production and profit. They were unsuccessful and the civil wars that ensued when thy left eventually brought about the emergence of Saddaam and the Baath party. No different that a thousand years of struggle to control their country, these tribal wars and conflicts go on. At each juncture, some tribal leader pops up and becomes the victor. This is the way it has always been done in these part of the world and always will be. To tell me and the rest of the american people that Truth justice and the Iraqi way is what we are fighting for over there is such garbage! Control of the oil fields Has always been the object, and still is. These people have a long history of violentlyresisting the foreign invader so prepare to sacrifice many more of our sons and daughters for Halliburton... I personally would like to know just how many sons and daughters of senators and house members and of course those in the cabinet are serving in the military. What is the percentage of those compared to those average american family.???http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100524Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:19:17 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100524Bob, PensacolaWe're not stealing oil in Germany, Japan or Korea. The New Oil Law does exactly that and if Republicans could read they'd know there's nothing patriotic aboutl murdering your sons to steal Iraq's oil for a jowel-sucking, lying hick from Crawford. I'm a Vietnam War veteran and by the way it's one word, and we didn't cut and run after four million dead and eleven years. We left so an inbred hick could sell IBM to the commies. We left so Chinese chillen can make your overalls. Are you genetic mutants going to spit on your redneck oil boy for greasing the Commies? Are you going to spit on Cheney, a five time draft-dodger who Republicans cuddle with because they're dumber than a truckload of cantaloupes. Where's Bin Laden Rednecks? Does the New Oil Law taste like Republican lies and alibies. Melting the faces off children with chemical weapons to steal oil in a defenseless country who never fired a bullet at us has nothing to do with patriotism. It has a lot to with fat, greasy, underachieving hicks fethcin up some manhood for their brief pathetic lives. Fetch us some dead for forty weight and the New Oil Law you murdering parasitic maggots. You can't even create your own parade. The Eagle Academic Mutants have to follow war protestors around and spit on them. The DC police made the protestors file by the patriot Eagles so they could spit on the protestors because Billy Bob cain't be no man fetchin up on dead babies for forty weight. You got nothin to do with anything good in America. You have everything to do with murdering, illiterate, boil-sucking Easy Rider hicks.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100634Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:32:02 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100634Stephen Marder, Portsmouth, VIrginiaFirst of all, the conflict in Iraq is not a war. Of coarse a timetable for withdrawing troops wouldn't make sense in a war, but that's not what's going on here. The situation in Iraq is an internal civil conflict, which is not what we signed up for. Congress authorized the use of force to fight terrorists, not insurgents. This administration a done a good job bluring the difference. We the American people, voted last Nov. to end the President's campaign in Iraq. Afterall, aren't we in charge? Sure the President is the commander and chief, but within limits. Just because the President decides to start a military campaign, (by lying to the people), doesn't mean we have let him finish it. The American people are in charge of this country, not the President, not the generals, and cerntainly not the Iraqis. If we decide we no longer want to spend our resources in Iraq, then we must institute that policy. Letting this go on any further means the military is in control of our natioanal policy, and I'm not sure that's supposed to be the case. It's disgusting to me how some Americans believe that protest, or disagreement with the president amounts to surrender. Honesty, and speaking up shows strength, not weakness. We didn't "lose" the war in Vietnam because the media, anti-war congressmen, or demonstrators. We lost the war because of the Executive branch never listened to the American people.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100652Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:07:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100652Chris, Newton, NHI strongly agree with Robert from Sacramento, and Ltc Francona. Dems have been gearing up to politicize this war worse than Vietnam, and they are slowly building support. John McCain recently made a statement in favor of the re-enforcement ordered by Bush; that he would rather ruin his political career than loose a war. Fortunately any measures that include a date for withdrawal will be vetoed, and rightfully so, so please stop wasting tax-payers money and everyone's time by demanding that we give Tehran, Al Qaeda, and militia leaders a date to begin their "surge". Let's give our commanders time to complete the war ... completethewar.comhttp://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100653Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:07:20 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100653Chris, Newton, NHI strongly agree with Robert from Sacramento, and Ltc Francona. Dems have been gearing up to politicize this war worse than Vietnam, and they are slowly building support. John McCain recently made a statement in favor of the re-enforcement ordered by Bush; that he would rather ruin his political career than loose a war. Fortunately any measures that include a date for withdrawal will be vetoed, and rightfully so, so please stop wasting tax-payers money and everyone's time by demanding that we give Tehran, Al Qaeda, and militia leaders a date to begin their "surge". Let's give our commanders time to complete the war ... completethewar.comhttp://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100655Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:07:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100655Chris, Newton, NHI strongly agree with Robert from Sacramento, and Ltc Francona. Dems have been gearing up to politicize this war worse than Vietnam, and they are slowly building support. John McCain recently made a statement in favor of the re-enforcement ordered by Bush; that he would rather ruin his political career than loose a war. Fortunately any measures that include a date for withdrawal will be vetoed, and rightfully so, so please stop wasting tax-payers money and everyone's time by demanding that we give Tehran, Al Qaeda, and militia leaders a date to begin their "surge". Let's give our commanders time to complete the war.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100669Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:52:57 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100669My Nguyen, San Jose CAOne must think of the long-term consequences in deciding whether American troops should be used to bring stability in the Middle East. To provide an example, let's study the lesson of the US disengagement from Vietnam in 1973 and of its consequences. The Nixon Administration signed the Paris Peace Accords, thereby bringing home all US military personel and ending interventions in South Vietnam. Some inevitabe short-term consequences occurred. South Vietnam was invaded in 1975 resulting in persecutions of a former US ally like the re-education camps and etc. There were tensions in Cambodia leading to the downfall of the Pol Pot regime and a bried retaliatory Chinese invasion. However, Vietnam (still a Commnunist regime)today is a peaceful country in a peaceful and prosperous Southeast Asian neighborhood on the way to success after nearly 25 years of wars and conflicts. On the other hand, if American troops were kept in South Vietnam in 1973, Vietnam would never be unified and a permanent state of hostility (Koreas) would continue to exist until today. Back to the Middle East, no one knows for sure what the inevitable short-term bad consequences would be after when American forces are leaving Iraq. However, the long-term consequence of this action will be peace and stability in the Middle East.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100860Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:40:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100860Bob, PensacolaFrom an Air Force veteran, let me tell you a withdrawal date to stop chemically bombing innocent Iraqis to steal their oil is not cutting and running or aiding the enemy. The enemy is residents who don't want their oil stolen by Academic Neanderthals from America. Just because you're in the military, it doesn't mean you get to kill Baghdad residents and steal their oil with the New Oil Law giving seventy percent of revenue to western Big Oil companies like Halliburton. Do you hear them ever mention the oil? Of course not because this is America and in America we can murder whoever we want and stick a flag in them for Big Oil and our new colony. Murder. Bin Laden's in Tora-Bora playing cricket.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100868Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:42:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100868Melanie MillinerThe question I'd like answered regarding the "surge" and "pullout" is what position would this leave the contractors in? Will Tim Spicer of Aegis et al be staying behind once the troops are out, will those 50 thousand men be effected by the Congressional spending bill and finally, who are they managed by?http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100886Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:55:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100886Daniel Moorman, West Chester, OHA "date certain" would on the surface seem to aid the enemy. It can also wear the enemy down. As we continue to collect intel and also gain insights into the workings of the "Shiite majority," we may draw some inferences that may lead to some good conclusions. A "date certain" has the appeal of the wisdom of Solomon. "I don't know whose baby this is, but it's going die." Or, it's like a good major league change-up. Properly thrown, strike three. So what if we can't leave on the "date certain?" Shame on us for being there in the first place. We need to let the three major regions be States or colonies before they contemplate a Union, for Pete's sake. We need to leave a contingent behind to protect and sit on the oil revenue until such a time that they all comprehend the value of a cooperative confederation. In the meantime, we can keep a thumb on Iran. Forget the false pretense that led to war, the misleading notions of WMD's, the utter stupidity that went into this adventure. If we must leave we can cap every damn well in that country and establish a "no pump zone."http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#100990Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:31:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:100990Gil, Lexington, KYBad strategy? Why don't we just stay there another 20-30 years? What a terrible waste.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#101091Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:25:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:101091YankeeZephyr, Olympia WAI dont understand what our military or politicians are doing except commiting out right treason by telling the enemy every troop movement or plan of operation before we even move the troops into the ao...how the hell can you win any war that way...imagine d day if we told the germans 5 days in advance that "Hey were coming to Normandy get ready for us" There is something wrong with this way of thinking, and the press is just as guilty. Anyone who gives out this information should be put on trial and if found guilty hung by the neck until dead...no exception, generals on down the coc., politicians, and news broadcasters, you are getting our soldiers killed and surely will loose this war.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#101125Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:12:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:101125Toby, Brisbane, AustraliaAll due respect LTC Francona and Robert. It does not matter when we pull out of Iraq, we still lose. Timelines mean nothing. We are not fighting a uniformed army. The people who want us dead are standing 10 ft. away from us at all times. We just can't see them. Most soldiers in the field could probably make a good guess at who is an insurgent and who is not, but our "rules of engagement" (ROE) prevent us from doing anything about it. The only way to win this war is to be more ruthless than they are. Care less about collateral damage than they do. As you well know, that will never happen. That's what separates us from them. I know this is the case. I've been to both Iraq and Afghanistan and an infantry soldier. I've been the rolling "ambush waiting to happen." When it does happen, who do you shoot? How about identifying a target for CAS and get a refusal of fire because the piot or his/her superior officer does not want to risk collateral damage. Everyone is wearing the same civilian clothing. Robert, if you were in combat in Vietnam, you should know the answer to that question. LTC Francona, the same goes for you. You both should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing our brothers and sisters in arms to repeat recent history (Vietnam). The insurgents will wait as long as it takes. They have no political agenda. They just want to kill Americans, and Americans they will kill. The only thing we will have lost are great Americans, not the war. Bring the troops home. Let Bush deal with the mess he made. Let him answer to the American people for his failure as our President and Commander in Chief. Maybe if Bush was in Vietnam (instead of hiding out in the ANG) like rest of America's men, we would not be in this.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#101161Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:59:29 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:101161DaveThis "logic" is illogical. This surge is supposed to wipe out the existing insurgencies. But it can't, due to the fact that because of the surge, the insurgents "melt away and disappear". Then they re-appear after the surge is over in their areas of concentration. So, how does the surge help anything if it can't find anyone to fight? We just march our brave soldiers out in front to take the brunt of this civil war, diffuse the weapons we find, and light off the ones we don't. So, the only ones being protected are the people who are supposed to be relieving our troops and taking charge. Get our people the hell out off there. They are brave people who followed their orders like honorable soldiers, but those orders never should have been issued in the first place.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#101303Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:46:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:101303Shelley, Denver, COYou want to know what's giving aid and comfort to the REAL terrorists? Continued occupation in an Arab country that posed NO threat to the U.S. and the neo-con arrogance of a U.S. foreign policy that justifies us "spreading" democracy in theocratic societies opposed to such governments and in the face of world condemnation of such imperialism. When will people like Francona realize you can't spread democracy at the end of a barrel? Bush's war has fomented rabid anti-American sentiment in parts of the world where there wasn't much and continues to be the biggest recruiting tool that the REAL terrorists have. A measured redeployment from Iraq is only the first step in repairing the extensive damage this administration has done to our country, our military, and our honor. Voters across this country - both Democrat and Republican - SUPPORT our troops by extricating them from a misguided, ill-managed war that puts America in more danger with each passing day. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#101323Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:13:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:101323mel braus bozrah connecticutSo failure will be the failt of the Congress. So Bush, Cheney and Runsfeld have no responsibility for failure here.Catastrophic planning, billions of dollars wasted or simply vanished, no body armor, a totally sressed out army, non armored vehicles, Weapons that constantly jam,and the fact that we're in a civil war doesn't have any thing to do with failure. How long do we stay? When does the time come that we know the insurgents aren"t waiting us out anymore. What happens when Afghanistan srarts to fall? Which group do we kill off for there to be peace? What will our grandchildren say about paying for Bush and Cheney's folly. We are now sending wounded troops back to the battle front because we've run out of healthy ones. I thought that the idea WAS for the Iraqi troops to be able to stand on their own. Please tell me again. How long do we stay to insure stability. 10 years. 20 years. 30 years. Is that the plan? Well at least you have a plan. A death plan. Death of the military. Death of America's good will and influence and eath of all those soldiers that thought they were fighting for something important to America and the free world.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#101361Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:55:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:101361Paul Harvey, Black Diamond, WAThe logic employed by LTC Francona, results ultimately in a neverending occupation of Iraq by U.S. forces. The Soviet Union maintained order in many of its republics for nearly 70 years. What happened when the 'Union' collapsed? Age old hatred passed from one generation to another emerged. U.S. withdrawl will hasten the sectarian bloodletting. But this will be true tomorrow or fifty years from tomorrow. Eventually, the weaker party will yield or the country will divide into more homogenous zones. Playing peacekeepper in an attempt to maintain influence over the Iraqi oil fields will bleed this country of its wealth and military resources. Retreat, contrary to the neo-popular belief is a military strategy. When your forces have extended too far beyond you ability to reinforce, and your current strategy of 'staying the course' will lead to devastating loses without a recognizable victory, withdrawing from a specific battlefield may be necessary to ultimately win the war.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#101371Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:08:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:101371C A, Tuiscaloosa, ALThe enemy will wreak havoc then hunker down and wait, then come out and wreak more havoc and then hunker down and wait whether there is a time table in place for withdrawal or no time table in place for withdrawal. Unless the American people are willing to establish military bases in Iraq to provide Iraq with security and security support long term, and to occupy Iraq until a stable and reliable Iraqi government can be established, withdrawal time tables are a mote point whether established or not. If the Amercian people are not willing to make these long term commitments and yes sacrafices noted above then it is time to just bring our young people home. Reqarding Vietnam, there was no winning that war unless we had totally annihilated the north and occupied the same for years. The north was not willing to stay on their side of any demarkation line as occurred in Korea, and even a peace between North and South Korea occurred because we still have troops in the south, and the peace is tenuous at best. Before determining if something is winnable or not we have to first learn to define what is war versus what is a policing action. The situation in Iraq is a policing action at this point. The war lasted but a few weeks. If one is to win a war to be followed by any successful post-war security for the conquered peoples there has to be overwhelming force used to win the war, and overwheliming force used to occupy that country until the dust settles. And that can take years if at all possible. Unless directly and immediately threatened the American people will no support the burdens of such long term commitments. Those long term commitments in Germany and even in Korea are from a different generation. Wars fought in the past had a victor and a loser. There was an end. Those fighting the US today (terrorists) have no word in their language for quit, give up, surrender, and will continue to turn out individuals or groups of individuals to conduct terrorist acts as long as they wish. The US is prepared to defeedn itsel and to react with force to terrorist acts in the US. But the US is neither prepared no desiroius of trying to fight such enemies on numerous internatonal fronts. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#101394Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:44:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:101394Jeanne, Wilmington, DelawareWith the line of reasoning that the US should not set a timetable because we would be playing into the hands of the opposing factions, I expect we should probably just annex Iraq and permanently occupy it. The religious and ethnic differences in that part of the world have gone on for centuries. How long do you think it will take the US to "fix" it? http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#101396Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:45:19 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:101396johnallantateiii,somerset,kytroops should be used for good reasons. abolishing slavery, human and drug trafficking in the ghettos slums and hoods, are some good reasons fro troops to risk their lives. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#101424Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:20:50 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:101424Jim in Nashville, TNEvery decision we face is untenable in it's own way. If we set a date, that does give the Sunni and Shia a survival time frame until all-out civil war. If we pull out now, the start of the real bloodbath is just sooner rather than later. But if we stay, our troops still face IEDs and ambushes with RPGs. The insurgents only have to pop up now and then, kill some opponents, kill some of our troops, and things are no different. Nothing will change if we stay other than the numbers of dead and maimed will continue to rise. Conventional troops cannot win against insurgents as long as the insurgents can continue to recruit new people. We did not win the hearts and minds if the Vietnamese people and we will not win the hearts and mids of the Sunni ir Shia. We remain infidel invaders in their land. This war was a fool's errand; the decision to "install" democracy in the center of the Middle East a red flag and a target of opportunity to every Arab state state in the region; and this war a distraction from fighting terrorism that focused American eyes away from our inability to find Osama Bin Laden and away from a dawning realization that conventional military action is unable to fight a loosely organized group that is not country-based.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/23/99815.aspx#410433Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:31:26 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:410433AnonymousAs increase visitors related topics continue to increase in popularity, there will be more locations to learn more about this significant topic.