Daniel, slightly off topic but the whole complaint about extended times, calling back 'retired' people has always bewildered me.

When you sign up for the Army (for example) you sign up for 8 years. Period. Now how that time is broken up is what confuses some people. You may have 2, 4, or 6 years of *active* duty followed by 6, 4, or 2 years of auxillary duty. This may take the form of Reserve or National Guard where you do the 2 days a month 2 weeks a year thing. Or it can be (as I did when I left) the Individual Ready Reserve where you have nothing to do with anything but your name is on a roster "In Case Of". By the same token it is right in your contract when you sign up that if you sign up for 2 years (say) of active duty but there is an "In Case Of" then that Reserve/National Guard or IRR time can become *active* service.

So people acting like these stop-gap measures are extrodinairy bewilder me. The Army tries to stay lean during times of low-conflict with every intention of utilizing pre-trainned troops once craps is hitting fan. It has been part of the plan for war time vs. peace time since we first chucked the draft.

As for your question. I don't know. I don't know what in the hell Bush is thinking on a stratgeic level. I'm deeply confused by what I've been reading. Less American troops are dying and foriegn insurgents seem to have really been made ineffective by the lack of popularity Zarqwi had, followed by his dying. People are also talking about how terrorism is a hydra and how killing one leader is useless as another takes their place. The truth is killing a 'Patton'  to have him replaced by the equivilant of a street gang leader is massively helpful and it seems to have worked in this case.

Taking out middle top managers in Al Quida and chucking them in Gitmo seemed to have made that international org not run so well -- granted we are looking a lot, lot harder these days.

However. Zarqwi's campaign to initiate a civil war seems to have worked. Sunni insurgents attacking Americans now are calling for Americans to protect them from Shia death squads. Shiite militias kidnap and use power drills on Sunni's. The Shia have been nursing some deep animosity against the Sunni for decades. Sunni keep blowing themselves up in market squares.

Will more troops help or hurt? More troops may help but more troops will have to act in a non-partisan peacekeeper or police roll as an agent *between* two groups in civil war. That means more Americans killed.

More Americans killed in a war 60-70% of the country doesn't like as we near an election cycle?

If Bush really is the man of principle who doesn't govern by polls then he will pacify Baghdad at all costs. If the generals think 3 troops are needed then he should give them 6 as Powel doctorine states. We 'broke' it when we freed the Shia and Kurds from Sunni tolitarinism. Pulling out now means the Shia and thus Iran win. People keep saying pull out and they'll stop fighting us. I think they've already stopped and are now busy killing each other. A-stan after the Soviets anyone? We broke it. From a moral view I think we should fix it.

I am sympathetic to why Bush went in but I have yet to (in all my frantic reading) to see a scenario other than massive troops implementing Saddam style martial law (not the cruel parts just the hyper-control parts) on the country south of Mosul on the Kurd border and North of Basara.

Will Bush make that choice? Man I couldn't tell you. Why there are any troops in left in Europe I do not know. 

They're demonstrating in the streets at behest of mullahs in order for those mullahs to show they are pertinent to the political process of the government. What they're saying has less to do with anything than the street leaders showing they 'command' numbers.

Much like political rallies in the US.

100 people of day? Almost all of those numbers are sectarian violence Sunni on Shiite: could you imagine the numbers if we didn't stabilize the country?

Am I really hearing you say that 'based on reality' you think it would be a positive thing for A] America or B] Iraq if we simply left that country?

My assessment of 'reality' leads me to fear that the consequences of that action would be much worse for "squandered lives, treasure, and American global prestige, not to mention that we will have turned Iraq into a wasteland and destabalized the entire middle east, emboldened the "Axis of Evil" and failed to capture or kill the leadership of Al Queida" -- and then just ran.

Don't get me wrong: Bush botched it. First he thought a leaner hi-tech military could do the job. Wrong. Then he thought a leaner hi-tech military standing up Iraqi forces could do it, a sitaution impossible in the face of sectarian violence.

There is only one answer that I can see, realisticly that would be good for Iraq and thus America. More troops, a lot more troops.

Being angry that it happen is legitimate, by all means. Thinking Rummy strat is kooky, by all means. Thinking we can just wash our hands of the whole mess and come out just fine is another matter...

Not trying to put words in your mouth, Daniel. If you are *not* saying cut and run and give Iraq to Iran and the extermists then by all means I think you very intelligent: what would you do if not more troops and a long term (perhaps even Cold War term) commitment.