Pushback on Iraq

What happens in Iraq is far more important than most people think. I only hope the next President has the balls to continue the mission in Iraq and fight for what is right and good.

LOL Joseph!

As a patially disabled Vietnam combat vet, I was suspicious of the Iraq invasion from the beginning. I saw many simlarities to Vietnam even in 2003. I am a supporter of Col. Jack Murtha's plan to withdraw to the peripheries, so that our forces could be in a position to suppress any hostilities that may originate from localities outside of Iraq. Tom Ricks, whom I consider a hero and a supreme intellect on this "fiasco", pointed out correctly that the Democrats ran out of steam in not adopting a unified position in opposition to the President. I submit that that position was that put forth some time ago by Col. Murtha, and should have been supported vigorously all along. It's not too late! The Dems should rally behind this point and get the troops moving out of harms way, let the Iraqis squabble among themselves, and establish a series of fast moving interdiction units based where politically feasible around Iraq, in Kurdistan, Kuwait, in the persian gulf, Qatar, other friendly locales as well as Kurdish regions of Iraq itself. I agree with Sen Hagel: what are we buying time for? For more Americans to die while the Iraqis fight over what will never be, namely a strong central government? Let them have their local governments in a loose federation that may eventually break into smaller sovereign units; we cannot nor shold we stop this natural flow that was interrupted by the British after WW1. President Bush made this mess, now he wants to let his countryman and innocent Iraqis continue to suffer and die so history will blame his follower? How callous and naive! History will lay the blame at his feet, no matter what happens after he is out of office. Congress needs to get the balls to take charge, put Murtha's plan into action and stop the carnage to the extent possible as quickly as possible.

I mostly want to respond to a Ricks/Gergen comments concerning challenging the integrity of General Petraeus and the MoveOn controversy. I've heard Ricks on 2 different radio programs applaud the general's integrity. I'm not so impressed. When asked the question by Senator Warner "Will this make America safer?", he tried to dodge the question. After Warner ask it again he answered. but initially he tried to dodge it. Not the pinnacle of integrity.

More importantly, the "military" in this country is used by some to support their position. And if someone attacks or criticizes that position, they get "the general likes it" thrown in their face. General Petraeus could and should have went to Congress, put his charts etc. up and advocated NO position. Once he said we should stay longer Iraq he is politically fair game just like any other citizen.

General Petraeus may be a good man. I don't know. Too early to tell. But I don't think he walks on water and even if he did that WE should let generals make or even influence our political decisions by virtue of them being generals.

In the last few weeks, we've been hearing about increased Sunni cooperation with US forces. Has anyone mentioned a possible reason for this: that by cooperating, the Sunnis will receive arms from the US, and that they will need all the weapons they can get for fighting the Shiites as the civil war proceeds?