[mburbank]

I only have one question about all of that Kev, which is how do you see our staying in Iraq chnaging any aspect of yur post in any way whatsoever?

Do you think if we stick around and keep getting kiled and killing people and making showy little grandstands like Operation photograph our helicopters that all Iraqis will get behind Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and Iraq will let us rebuild it with reconstruction money we've already blown on security, graft, and giving it away in sacks without tracking it, and live in peace with gumdrops and rainbows off of their oil revenue? Do we need to even talk about how stupid an idea that is?

Supposedly, we already handed over sovereignity, so what are we doing that's going to keep the Kurds at the table one instant longer than serves their legitimate interests? What would we say to them? "Even though you've been our allies and your're the closest thing to stability Iraq has, if you walk we won't support you?" How would that be more credible if we're there than if we're not? We can stop occupying Iraq and offer the same protections we offerd the Kurds before we started occupying Iraq.

I can think of things our military presence is making worse there. What are we making better? How much more training before loyalty to a unified Iraq repalces traibal loyalty is the military and police? How does that balance against the continuing alienation our presence causes?

What is the mission? Just stay the course until a unity government appears and everybody says 'Hey! This unity government appeared and suddenly it's all Gumdrops and Rainbows! I guess we realy do like the Americans! We actually do understand democracy now and we'll share our oil and be nice to women and provide a willing, peaceful, happy presence for your permanent military presence in the region and our neighbors will see our gumdrops and rainbows and say "That's what we want too, America! Thanks for the Democracy!"

What is the mission, how would we know if victory was achieved, and are there any circumstances under which we'd accept the mission had failed? Because my assesment is that whatever the hell the mission is, our idea is that no matter how far we get from it and no matter the inidcations that not only are we not achieveing it, we are actively hindering it, we intend to stay until 'victory is achieved' even if that means never, and if you ask if that's wht we're saying then you're giving comfort and aid to the terrorists. [/i]