Cindy - We're buggered. I can't see any viable way of withdrawing from this war, even if we wanted to, because of the tremendous loss of face both at home and abroad. I don't pretend to know how things are going to unfold, but everything I can see suggests that the repercussions are going to be bad, and that we need to be doing our damnedest to look to what we can build once it's all over, and how we can keep this from poisoning our relations with other countries throughout the Middle East and throughout the rest of the wor

FayJay - you no longer speak for me (probably more comfortable anyway) though you do seem to speak for every Buffista except me.

Folks - if you are in the middle of doing something wrong, and realize it is wrong, you stop doing it. You lose face - yeah you blew it, you lose face.

As to what to you do; you negotiate; you take advantage of ending to war to get the inspectors back; you end the civilian sanctions that have killed so many Iraqis over the past 12 years, and have military only sanctions, backed by inspectors. You provide aid thorugh aid organizations to rebuild the water supply and ability to grow food; none of it goes to the Saddam regieme, but you do capital in investment in Iraq to rebuild water stations, sewers, hospitals, schools, so that people are no longer just living (and dying) on charity. And given contact with the outside world, with no 12 year siege or attack to rally people around Saddam he will fall. It wil take longer than if we had not had the war, because he gains cred for having survived the attack - but it still leads to a better result for Iraq and for the world than if we finish the war.

It won't happen of course; the administration is absolutel convinced of it's rightousness. And there is no way the Iraq army can survive in the long run; it is not like Vietnam - if we don't win in weeks , we will in months. I guarantee, there will be no Saddam regieme in three months, probably a lot less. But as good as it is that Saddam will go, I expect both Iraq and the world will end up the worse for it. There was a another way. Now that the attack is on-going, there is still another way - just a tougher one.

Gar is right. That's why God made diplomats.

He's also right in that we'll never do it. Why should we? All is proceeding according to plan.

I'm also with Heather. I respect our soldiers so much that I think they should have camoflage that actually camoflages them. And I think the psych wards in VA hospitals should be top of the line. And that if they can't restore a vet's mind they should take care of him for the rest of his life. And that if, say, a few thousand of them come down with a mysterious syndrome they shouldn't be stonewalled for YEARS.

it is not like Vietnam - if we don't win in weeks , we will in months.

It depends on how you define "win". I would expect that irritated Iraqis will be picking off occupation soldiers for years. I don't see how it is possible to set up either a stable occupation or a stable peace thereafter.

Folks - if you are in the middle of doing something wrong, and realize it is wrong, you stop doing it.

Unless stopping is worse. If I attack somebody who is holding a gun, I have thrown away the option to walk away. Unless I get control of the gun, I am going to die. It's that simple.

The Iraqis can't win a war against the United States. They can't do the United States mainland any great harm. In that sense, they don't have a gun. But if we walked away right now, leaving Baghdad in ruins, we don't leave the country in a stable state. And on one thing I do agree with the Bush administration: the "oil for food" program has not worked. The money didn't go to food; it went to weapons. The starvation is on our heads, but it is also on Saddam Hussein's. I have no belief that aid organizations could succeed in guiding money only to humanitarian purposes while a Baathist government is in power.

As I said, I can see no good solution coming from this. But I don't find walking away cold any more bearable than any other alternative.

And that if, say, a few thousand of them come down with a mysterious syndrome they shouldn't be stonewalled for YEARS.

And that you don't balance the budget by cutting veterans' services. And that you pay privates a wage sufficient that they don't need food stamps.

The camoflage makes me absolutely insane.

How much more blatant an example to we need for the public to see that we went into this too quickly?

WRT to camo-- I had to do a huge amount of research into camo for Hamlet, and while our camo is silly (URBAN CAMO?!?) other Western countries seem to have the same set of stuff Swiss Army Alpenflage has red in it!

I assume they are earing desert camo right now instead of woodland camo, but I refuse to watch news coverage, so I cannot be sure. At least it is beige!

Popping in at the end to say (not War Related, UnAmerican Related) GAH! Moonlit's a hottie.

I assume they are earing desert camo right now instead of woodland camo,

Wrong. There isn't enough desert camo to go around.

(not bitter at you, bitter at Life.) And it's also starting to look as if urban camo would have been a Good Thing.

Wow!

Interesting that I can BUY desert camo off the internet then, huh?

It depends on how you define "win". I would expect that irritated Iraqis will be picking off occupation soldiers for years. I don't see how it is possible to set up either a stable occupation or a stable peace thereafter

We agree there; I see this as winning the war and losing the occupation.

And on one thing I do agree with the Bush administration: the "oil for food" program has not worked. The money didn't go to food; it went to weapons. The starvation is on our heads, but it is also on Saddam Hussein's. I have no belief that aid organizations could succeed in guiding money only to humanitarian purposes while a Baathist government is in power.

OK - this is where I disagree. Saddam Hussein was always a brutal dictator - but until he invaded Iraq and incurred the wrath of the U.S. he always managed to feed his people. And I'm afraid the oil for food program worked exactly as intended; it just did not have the result intended. If we had wanted to simply disarm Iraq we would have left the orignal inspectors in place without infiltrating spies into them. The goal of sanctions and oil for food was to pressure the population of Iraq into overthrowing Saddam. You can find quotes from Madeline Albright and other officials under both Bush I and Clinton that openly said we had no intention of ever lifting the sanctions no matter what Saddam did, so long as he was in power. And you can find records of stuff like the "dual use" sanctions including pencil leads, because the carbon might be used for biological weapons, and medical textbooks because they could be used to train people in biological warfare. Somehow, for twelve years, the U.S. always managed to find some excuse to hold back key components that would have allowed repair of water facilities. Not only that, but when they came close to being repaired we managed to bomb them in the course of enforcing no-fly zones.

Saddam being a brutal dictator used some of what little Iraq had to build weapons, and buy luxuries for himself and his cronies and the military elite. But if every cent had gone for food and health care he was not in a position to provide basic sanitation or irrigation for agriculture. And that was U.S foreign policy. This is one point maybe a lot of people don't realize; this is not an invasion following twelve years of a mad dictator defying a cease-fire agreement. This is an invasion following twelve years of siege warfare which was resisted by an evil dictator with his people rallying around. And that is why peace would have a chance; peace was never tried following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

t edited to fix major typo.