[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Uh, obviously no. I do think Buckley's characterization is accurate, in that the Iraq situation is now a chronic condition that can't be treated by our current efforts. Unlike conflicts with centralized command, there isn't a tumor that you can remove and have the problem be solved.

Well if you're going to throw Buckley at me, then you should be willing to embrace his entire position on the war. I'm thinking it's actually pretty different from your own, mostly that we should blame this all on the temperament of the Iraqi people. That, IMO, is a conservative cop out for excusing the operation in the first place. Do you share that opinion?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, the political maneuvers going on now are irrelevant to whether or not the current strategy is going to work. I hardly pay any attention to them.

Um, no, they are precisely the point--our elected leaders are playing politics with a fucking war. You can accuse Bush of it, but you can also accuse Reid/Pelosi/Dean of it as well. Like pushing through a bill filled with pork projects that has an arbitrary time table added to it, knowing the president will reject such an outrageous bill, so that they can all go back to their districts and say "well by golly shucks, I voted to end this thing!" in 2008.

As far as I can tell, you're asking me to basically have faith in Petraeus, because you haven't convinced me why the surge is going to work. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (since my opinion doesn't matter anyways), but reading about bombings nearly every day and 100 dead US soldiers in April doesn't inspire much confidence.

You read about bombings every day because 1. There IS BTW A REAL ENEMY OVER THERE, 2. Papers want to sell papers, and 3. Keith Olbermann needs a reason to live.

There are arguments outlining why the surge is working, with most emphasis on how unstable Baghdad was just a couple months ago. I can provide you with a bunch of links if you'd like, but they're pretty accessible.

But I don't think that would matter. I think you don't like this war, you didn't like this war, and you want us to leave. You make a perfectly reasonable argument along those lines, so i don't see why war critics need to keep saying "well there's no progress, we should leave!" There IS measurable progress there, just not what you'd like to hear. It took S. Korea decades to move away from authoritarian rule, with not NEARLY the kind of radical reaction we are finding in the Middle East. How truly democratic is Russia today? How much longer will the effects of Authoritarianism hamper China? Your expectations in Iraq are quite lofty, but I think the progress you want is American troops on carriers coming home. Why not just say that?

I think Iraq needs to take its destiny into its own hands. It isn't inevitable that Iraq will be a radical Islamic regime.

Wow. So if mass genocide were to begin AFTER our departure, as has been suggested, you would pull a Buckley and wash your hands clean of this?