#1. So when this war started, the #1 reason to fight it was to find terrorists? Because I seem to remember the reasons being 1) WMDs, and then when that failed 2) Democracy, and then when that turned into civil war 3) Terrorism. And it seems to me the reason people are so damn pissed is because they realized we aren't solving that problem by staying there either.

#2. Do you think if this war had been fought "better", the Iraqis would be taking more responsibility? Because if you think there is no scenario where they would be doing better, it is pretty indefensible to say you still think the war was a good idea.

Oh blimey, I am laughing very much.You want to help the Iraq people by brutalising them even more. There were no terrorists in Iraq before you invaded. I grant you there was a despotic government there and a brutal dictator. A real baddy there is no doubt. But terrorists ? I should cocoa my old china. They are there because of the invasion.
The second point tickled me pink as well. Gordon Bennett, you expect a people who have lived under a dictatatorship for years to suddenly jump up and throw their lot in with the U.S. and build roads ? Cor blimey guv, what planet are you on ? Who blew up the sodding infrastructure in the first place for pity's sake ? I don't think this point is lost on them.
The fact is, in any country, anywhere in the world, most people are happy to live work and get by. Yes, those with iniatiative do rise, but they need someone to rise above also. It is not that Iraq is without spirited people. It is just unfortunate that that this spirit is used to fight the invading forces.
Why is Bush losing ground on this ? Well he was a very silly billy indeed by his pronouncement years ago on the aircraft carrier "Mission Accomplished"
Strike a light missus, the good people of the U.S. must be very curious indeed to what a failed mission looks like.

Karol, you forgot the other opinion in Israel at the moment that they have wasted time and lives handing a victory to Hezbollah, and that they shouldn't have started this 34 day thing. Hezbollah has emerged stroger and are still able to fire off their damn rockets.
Apropos of nothing, have you already been over to do your military service in Israel? Or do you still have time to do so?

There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded Mahatma? That you were as stupid to write that statement as you were ignorant to think that we would buy such an absurdity. Saddam's Iraq was long a haven and supporter of terrorists you moron.
Now, back on topic: I think the reason we're not winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis is that we're going about it the wrong way. I believe that Saddam had the right idea, since arabs seem to love them best that abuse them worst. Looking back at old footage of Saddam being worshiped by adoring crowds, I realize now that I was wrong to believe that they were coerced to behave so; I think they loved him unreservedly, and not despite his abuses, but because of them. This may sound strange to the civilized mind, but arabs specifically and muslims generally are so screwed up in every other way, why not?

Well written Karol. Maybe Democracy has to be earned to succeed.

Sam, the three reasons you give for the war are all essentially the same. Saddam had WMDs, he used them on the Kurds, we didn't want those same weapons getting in the hands of terrorists. It's not that complicated. If he hates America and wants to see it destroyed, and Al Qaeda hates America and wants to see it destroyed, it wasn't beyond the realm of imagination that they would cooperate. And, Democracy is an extremely worthy goal. Democracies don't attack each other. And, my own personal reason for wanting a Democracy there, the people can be held accountable for whom they elect.

Mahatma, the idea that there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded is beyond absurd and has been disproven before. I'm not getting into it again here.

Bryan, I'm American. Why would I go serve in another country's military? I love Israel. But I also love Scotland and you don't see me running out to join the RAF.

"It wasn't beyond the realm of possibility that they would cooperate" is a pretty weak argument for a war that's cost trillions and killed hundreds of thousands, while strengthening Iran, another country that "hates America and wants to see it destroyed." I don't blame you if you don't think we should leave, I felt the same way until recently. I just find it hard to believe that you still think, knowing what we know now about how little threat we actually posed and how destabilized the region has become, that this war was a good idea from the beginning.

Maximus, It's always nice to see a good old conservative call for the reinstitution of colonialism. Maybe we could jump start the slave trade again, too? I know they're "Screwed up in every... way", but they could probably make ok house servants, right?

It's hard to imagine what life is like under the conditions these people have lived under for generations. If they want democracy and independence, it's going to take a while to achieve it. It took us a long time (and many more lives), and we weren't under the thumb of someone anywhere near Hussein's brutality, nor lived in fear. But we took the initiative for our own independence, while the Iraqis are having theirs handed to them. That has to account for a lengthy road to democracy ... when freedom isn't born out of a people's own self-defense, but is rather a by-product of another country's self-defense, and good will.

I don't think these people know how to do things themselves, since they've gone from Saddam handling things, to us handling them. You have to be driven to accomplish independence, not just go along for the ride.

The American people are turning against the war and the administration since we aren't hawkish enough? Please. Sorry, but America lost faith in Iraq after the first eleven turning points (we got Saddam, we got his sons, we had an election, we had another election, we have a constiution, we have another constiution), the first eight reasurrances that we won, the continued chants of the insurgency being in its "death throes", and the first nine days of purple fingers being waved around. The American people have been very reluctant internationalists in our history and I suspect the Iraqi episode will reinforce our traditional inclinations.

The problem with war in the 21st century is that it has been reduced to hit and run, then apologize. The powerful can no longer lay waste to their enemy and then rehabilitate them as was done in the past. If the prevailing thinking on war of today had been used to fight Nazism and Japanese Imperialism in the 1940's we'd all be speaking German and Japanese. In fact, had Sherman not laid waste to Georgia the Civil War might still be raging.

You defeat an enemy, you don't placate him. You destroy his ability to make war, you don't allow him to hide among inviolate civilians. When he is defeated, you don't allow him to dictate the terms of the ensuing peace. When your enemy's goal is your utter destruction you don't negotiate about numbers of dead that will satisfy him.

But today public relations are ascendant and have risen above winning. Israel discovered that in their recent tiff with Hezbollah. Nasrallah is stronger than ever and Israel is no longer seen as the invincible foe as is the United States.

In the past, at some point in a conflict there would come a time to negotiate surrender terms. With the exception of a few fanatics, all combatants had points of negotiation because all wanted to survive. Even the Soviets, though often fanatical, were not suicidal.

That has changed. Today, the enemy is willing to sacrifice entire generations of people to win. Hence, there is nothing to negotiate. Until we learn that and implement strategies based on it we will continue to fight without clear goals until the fight has gone out of us.

Good morning America!

Very true Allen, we totally didn't help rehabilitate Germany and Japan. The only reason we haven't had another World War is because after WWII we abandoned the punative thinking that was used after WWI in favor of economic development and the use of international institutions.

you have some good points allen. We did however help japan, germany, england, france and others get back on their feet after the war. monetarily though, we didn't do the physical rebuilding {as far as i know} and if we helped it is nothing like we are doing in iraq. when people live under such cruel leadership and are basically told what they can and can not do, think, wear they really are not capable of thinking or doing for themselves. look it took the jews leaving egypt 40 years of wandering so they wouldn't enter israel with slave mentality. the iraqi people will not be able to do this with out some teaching.

During the Second World War a plan was put together by the US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr suggesting the dismemberment of Germany. In addition heavy industry was to be destroyed and the country turned into an agrarian one. Goebbels released details of this plan to the Germans who promptly decided to fight even longer. Ooooppps.

Allan's suggested method worked well during the Punic Wars (Carthage vs the Greeks and later the Romans) and for the Romans whenever a province rebelled. They also worked for Sherman at Atlanta. However in each case those were conflicts of conquest. America entered Iraq under the public guise of a liberator. You cannot do that and resort to tactics reminiscent of Scipio Africanus and expect ANYTHING less than what has happend. The French tried it in Iberia between 1808 and 1813 and got the shit kicked out of them by the Spanish peasantry and Wellington. Hitler had White Russia demolished in 1941 and had to deal with an even more severe partisan (insurgent) movement than Napoleon's Marshals.

If you want to conquer a nation then raze it to the ground so its inhabitants can't fight back. In general yes that works but it often doesnt. Hitler vs Stalin for example. If you want to attack a country claiming to be a liberator then you have to behave like it. Something America has NEVER done and something the Israelis couldnt give a blazing toss about.

Olmert the snake, Peretz the putz, and Halutz the clown will all be gone before the year is out.

Ok Karol, gonna join up in the USA? After all, you'd probably kick some ass ;-)

Outstanding post Karol.

With Israel's system, I doubt Olmert and Peretz can hold on very much longer. We have to wait until '09 for a more hawkish President here.

It's interesting to me that you are trying to advocating personality expression as a solution to a complicated problem. As though his charisma could lift the cause. You seem to think that he could lead if he could only generate a swell of national emotion.

Have you seen the commercial for FedEx where the guy says, "We need to cut costs. Ideas?" The low-level flunky says, "Let's sign up for FedEx." The high level guy sits thinking, then says the same thing as the flunky did, but with dramatic hand gestures, and everybody 'here-heres'. The problem in the administration, is that they don't have people who can connect the dots from high level intention, "Bring Democracy To Iraq", to practical reality, "By democracy, we mean XYZ, using these tools to bring it about, with these expectations." This is a problem that is endemic in the administration. Chock full of half baked ideas that aren't evaluated against objective criteria.

What ends up happening is the military ends up doing a job that it is not particularly well trained or suited to do. People hear stories from their buddies when they come home (I'll share mine offline), and realize that it is a mess, and the leaders aren't really leading. So they just want to bring the troops home and wait until someone who knows what they are doing gets in office.

I think it's time for the administration to come up with a new saying.

How about "Fading Low-level civil war".

Karol, the other reason the U.S. went into Iraq was because they allegedly posed an imminent threat and were much more dangerous to the US than Iran, Syria, Pakistan, North Korea or Al-Qada (resouces were moved out of Afghanistan). Which in hindsight proved to be false.

Bush's failure to capture Bin Laden and get rid of the threat of Al Qada (2 distinct events) and then opening up a second front (economic and military disaster) will end up being his legacy.

note: Military disaster = U.S. troops bogged down in a guerilla war in which it has been proven over and over again that conventional forces are not good at fighting.

It was a gathering threat that could not be allowed to become imminent.

J. Kende.

Again looking back there were threats that were gathering that turned out to be worse. Like NK setting off a Nuke and Iran not too far behind. Not to mention Al-Qada and Osama still running around blowing people up.

Every country could be perceived as a gathering threat. How about Chavez !!!!

20/20 hindsight strikes again. We didn't have the luxury of looking back from now, then. I also wonder what Saddam would have done if we had chosen to invade Iran at that time instead. As for NK, are you suggesting we should have gone to war with them in 2003? Any suggestions for how to prevent 10,000 artillery batteries shielded by mountain ranges to the point of being impervious to all but those low-yield tactical nuclear missles which so few people want America to develop and use? Any suggestions for how to prevent the economic hub of South Korea, now one of the top economies in the world, from becoming little more than rubble? What of a missle defense lacking Japan? If you would suggest slowly squeezing NK while the region around it continues to advance, Japan slowly remilitarizes, and Japan and Taiwan use the trump card of becoming nuclear themselves in order to pressure the Chinese to deal with the NK threat... then I don't see how that isn't what's already being done. Or you could be suggesting something else entirely. If so, please share.

Yes, there are many threats we must deal with roughly all at once. They can not all be dealt with through direct military action. In 2003, without the benefit of the view from 2006 allowing us to nitpick cuontless aspects of the specific plans, it was the right move to end an ongoing 12 year war in the heart of the region breeding terror networks against us, while taking a big step towards encircling two other threats (Syria and Iran), sending a clear message to others that they could not just keep developing hostile programs (worked very well with Libya - not so much Iran), eliminating the terrorist training camps at Salman Pak along with the long list of other support for terrorists in the region, and holding Saddam to account for his failure to prove to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WMD programs which had produced such horrors not so long ago had in fact been totally dismantled. With hindsight we now see that many particulars in how such action was taken could be reasonably debated. Such as whether it was the correct course of action to go through the belabored and lengthy UN process while so many at the UN and so many influencial members of UNSC governments were recieving significant bribes from Saddam through the total sham that was the Oil for Food program. There is a long list of what we could have done differently to fight the war more effectively. But they mostly argue in favor of going to war in the first place.

Iraq was and is not the only front in this war, but it was and is a critical one. What alternative strategy would you suggest?

As for Chavez in Venezuela I would direct you to look up a man by the name of Manuel Rosales. Would suggest you consider that Columbia acts as a counter balance to Venezuela right next door. Point out that Venezuela is hardly the terror sponsoring, history of WMD using, multiple genocide attemping, festering sore in the heart of a terror breeding region. Yes, Chavez is one vile SOB. But he is an order of magnitude or three below the threat level of Saddam Hussein and company in Iraq. So yes, we must counter the rise of the Chavistas in Latin America... But I would say Uribe, Calderon, Garcia, and if we are lucky Rosales as well are doing a good job of that.

In the meantime, over the past 5 years we have made life very hard for Al Qaeda and its affiliates, have removed a regime in Iraq that we had been at war with for 12 years, and have advaned our strategic and logistical footprint throughout the world. Have there been mistakes? Of course. There always are in any war, let alone one so big. Is the job anywhere close to done? No way. We have made progress but threats remain. If that's too much for you, I'm sorry, but that's the world we live in and the job we face.

Your post is as random as the Bush Administrations success declarations.

Iraq could've been accomplished over the years w/o a military invasion. We have always used Sadam as a balance against Iran (I'm sure Rummy remembers), this is why Bush 1 did not get rid of him. Iran and North Korea did not just develop overnight we do not have to tackle the entire world's problems and it reduces our role of moderator in areas such as Lebanon.

Stay the Course does not work new plan for the war on terror. ready...break.

First priority should be the return home of US troops from Iraq which ties into 2nd priority. Shame on us for sending them to that Iraq in the first place. Unfortunately we cannot just leave and need to make sure Iraq does not become Iran part 2. We must recover from the error of invading Iraq.

Second priority should be the stabalization of Iraq. This will probably require the installation and support of a Sunni dictator or the seperation of the country into 3. Removing Sadam was clearly an error as only someone like him can control those different types of Muslims.

Priority 3 (since the first 2 have nothing to do with the war on terror) Is to find and eliminate Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qada even if that means we need to use special forces in Pakistan. More resources should've been used in Afghanistan right away but they were diverted to Iraq, we must move on from that mistake.

Iran - foster Democracy umongst the younger generation, eventually they will take power. Even if it's not a pure Democracy anything but what they have now would be better. Unfortunately the war in Iraq has made many of Iranians resent Democracy.

N Korea - China/Japan/Russia/S Korea/US Similar to Iran except the country is basically broke and starving. They need the rest of the world to live. They must negotiate. Threats do not work on this country, big mistake trying to threaten them. This country ain't gonna be normal anytime soon and we should always have troops prepared for their eventual transgression (unfortunately the US made the first error by invading Iraq).

So the answer is Bush (administration) got over-zealous and took down a country they knew they could defeat militarily with limited casualties but not really much of a help on the war against terror or to reducing the threat to the US. Post Republican Guard Iraq was not really planned for unless the same people were used who gave the Yellowcake intel.

Every damn terrorist and rogue nation is going bannannas right now because the US is overextended and our "allies" want to see us fail without their help.

Name 1 Democracy in the Middle East that works (besides Isreal, damn they must hate the US now too). The best one I can think of is Pakistan and a military dictator hardly passes for Democracy.

The US military cannot be used effectively unless the US is attacked first. Sadam should've been removed after he invaded Kuwait. He wasn't, just because Islamic terrorists bombed the shit out of America doesn't me past mistakes should be fixed that are unrelated to the current world war, wich is against Terrorism.

It is well known that Osama wanted to fight Sadam. I have lost completely lost faith in Bush administration and it's bumbling use of false intel and not properly using legitimate info.