By any, I meant any battalions at level one, not any metrics.

Obviously our military has an extremely well developed yardstick for measuring the capability of units. Such metrics are sorely needed in Iraq.

I would think level one would often include airlift capacity and rapid transport to respond to situations. I don't see that training Iraqis to fly Apaches is much of a priority.

Again, I hope some military types weigh in here.

Art, I think the point is that if the Iraqi government asks us to leave, they will need some number of level 1 batallions in order to maintain security.

With the government hinting it might ask us to go at the end of 2006, the question is basically "is this going to be feasible" given that only a few Iraqi battalions are up and running right now. I think we'd all say this is not a realistic scenario.

---

_______________________________________________

I quit drinking back in '89 ;-)

hmmmm... no wonder they kicked you out of the Navy ;-)

You don't think we enjoy the advantage, militarily, politically or any other "itically", over there? Like I said, we live in an instant-gratification society, which this whole Iraq situation painfully points out. If we can't do something in the length of time it'd take to get through a season of American Idol, then it's not worth doing, apparently.

Of course militarily we have the advantage of (almost) unlimited cash and superior technology. However, our occupation of Iraq (yes, the Iraqis and the Arab world view it as an occupation) is offensive to the Iraqis and causes a violent reaction against us and those seen as supporting us. Remove the US from the situation and the underlying cause of that violence is removed. In addition, our continued occupation causes the Iraqis to use us as a crutch and not learn to stand on their own. Strategically and politically, we're floundering/losing.

We're trying to do something that NO other country would have the fortitude to try to accomplish, which is remake a complete region of the planet over into something that at least isn't nearly as virulently antithetical to the ideals of freedom and democracy that it had formerly been in the past.

That is b.s. and you know it. We cannot bend the will of sunnis by force. We can and should hunt down terrorists and kill them on a global basis, but sitting in Iraq trying to make a sandcastle does not accomplish this goal. Once we form an autonomous, loose federal state (almost there), then we need to back out and let them run their own country. To believe that we are going to be able to force our version of a jeffersonian democracy down their throat by military force is just plain stupid. You may not be drinking, but the crack is affecting your brain!

I wonder how many real Iraqis over there would like for us to just pull up stakes and leave, if given the chance to say so without fear of having their heads sawed off on al-Jazeera television by al-Zarqawi and his minions? Hey....maybe they'd all rally together and reinstall good old Saddam, you think?

Who gives a damn. Since when do the Iraqis decide our military moves? Saddam is gone and we've confirmed that no WMDs exist. That's why we went in. Stop trying to nation-build and get out of there. We are losing almost a battalion a month to death and injury. The Pentagon cannot sustain that. Pull out of Iraq and refocus on the war on terror.

What'd those Jesuits over at Georgetown put in the drinking water, big guy ;-)

mostly tuition invoices ... big ones at that!

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

Even if we don't think it is "feasible", what right do we have to stay if their government wants us to leave?

I'm not saying we should stay if they tell us to leave. I'm just not sure it won't be very messy.

---

_______________________________________________

I'd hate to see the size of those invoices, for sure!

Like you, I don't think that anybody thinks we'll be winning any hearts and minds over there, but I don't think anybody here really cares about that (I know I don't). What I do care about is can we make it possible so that some sort of democracy that's less hostile to the U.S. springs up in a part of the world that's had almost zero experience of it, Jeffersonian or not?

If that means that we stay put, slugging it out until we achieve our aim, then I'm willing to back up the President, regardless of whatever feelings I might have for how well, or how badly, he's handled the rest of his duties.

I think pulling out now, or in the near future, even if under the guise of some sort of hazy, none-too-well-defined "exit strategy" sends exactly the wrong message to people over in that part of the world, no matter if they're allies or enemies.

T.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Is that even possible without winning hearts and minds to some degree?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I don't know. But I know that, at least over the last half-century, truly democratic countries tend not to attack other truly democratic countries. That's the best that I'm hoping for, at this point.

T.

That is exactly why such a request will never happen. Just because an idea gets floated to try to seduce the other side, doesn't mean it is serious.

If in a couple of years we are providing logistical, air and major engagement forces only, it would be huge success. Iraq needs no level one battalions to make that happen. They need lots of level 2 and 3.

They don't have to be as good as us. They just have to be better than AQ.

And what does that tell you about that House resolution, which came up immediately and without debate?

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

" My opinion that media bias exists was given confirmation recently."

So was mine, the last time I (unfortunately) watched Fox News. Is *liberal media bias* the best argument the conservatives can piece together?

Give me a break. Is that the best you can do is throw Fox news back? You libs have been whining ever since they came to be an alternative news source to the liberal bias of CNN, CBS et al. Like I said read Bias and get back to us. Better yet give me an example of Fox bias. At least I proved my point.

The statement about not targeting civillians and thus not being terror is totally out since the insurgences have been targeting civillians all along, seems almost on a daily basis at times, because of their sic agendas plus the fact that civillian targets are 'softer'. Not only do I not believe that but (yes I heard that report too) but I'm pretty sure the statement about the Iraqi leaders being so keen on foriegn troop withdarawals was somehow misinterpreted.

When your own troops are not up to scratch; when insurgencies are still so frequent and on going; When so many of your fellow Officials trying to set up government just like you have been assasinated so recently; the last thing in the world you would wish for is the withdrawal of troops to leave you so vulnerable to attacks.

If you take the opinion that some of these leaders may feel that troop withdrawal will lessen insurgent threat because the fundamentalists get what they want. That makes no sense because what the fundamentalists want is to get rid of all said leaders (torture and beheadings for said leaders and families?) and freely elected government and set up their own fundamentalist rule.