There are elements of the Iraqi army that is doing a very good job. I would refer you to Michael Yon's blog where he details the activities of iraqi army elements that are working with the US forces in the surge.

I would assume some are good and some not so good.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.

Natan Sharansky has a good op-ed in the Wa Po that address both the point you raise better than I could.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070601994.html

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.

I doubt if there's ever been war that failed in every way. No one denies that there are and have been pockets of progress throughout this war. But, when you weigh the progress against the setbacks, it seems like a bum deal. When you consider there are roughly 200,000 troops defending a population of 25 million in a region of 400,000 square miles, it doesn't require much logic to say that we can't stop the insurgency. The belief of the anti-war crowd is that once we get out, the country will be no worse off and a primary justification for terrorism and insurgency will be eliminated. At that point, there will be new opportunities for the warring parties to pursue a common solution. As long as we're there, the powerbrokers in Iraq can continue to exploit us for good or bad.

Thanks for the link and I understand that it tries to make your point, patsfan, but I respectfully disagree with you and the author (big shock, I know).

This bit of insight from the author, who neglects to point out that much of these activities were carried out when being backed by the US government with cash and equipment:
...He was a mass murderer who tortured children in front of their parents, gassed Kurds, slaughtered Shiites, started two wars with his neighbors and launched Scud missiles into downtown Riyadh and Tel Aviv. The price for the stability that Hussein supposedly brought to the region was mass graves, hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq, and terrorism and war outside it...

How about this fascinating prediction based on history or some other kind of evidence?:
...For one of the consequences of failure could well be catastrophe....

And here's more conjecture based on nothing unless he has a crystal ball or time machine:
...A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by comparison. Without U.S. troops in place to quell some of the violence, Iranian-backed Shiite militias would dramatically increase their attacks on Sunnis; Sunni militias, backed by the Saudis or others, would retaliate in kind, drawing more and more of Iraq into a vicious cycle of violence. If Iraq descended into full-blown civil war, the chaos could trigger similar clashes throughout the region as Sunni-Shiite tensions spill across Iraq's borders. The death toll and the displacement of civilians could climb exponentially....

And the author once again parrots the sentimental comparison to Viet Nam, suggesting we should have or could have tried to scale up the effort and somehow beaten one of the fiercest indigenous defenders in modern history - the Viet Cong. And how mant more thousands of Americans would have been sacrificed for the "freedom" of the Vietnamese who were already living under a military dictatorship, but one that was friendly to US interests.

Ironically, the article you provided me makes my point better than it debunks it.

IIRC the vast majority of Saddam's equipment was supplied by the USSR, tanks, chem weapons advisors, aircraft. I don't recall seeing much US equipment in photos from either Gulf war.

Sharansky certainly has more first hand experience with dictatorships than you and I combined. IMO his POV is very worthwhile. (big suprise!).

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.

I think the rational isn't just to keep the war going, it is to leave under the best possible conditions. Christ, the candidate(Hillary) that is most likely to win the next election believes that. Is she a "war enthusiast"?

Yes. In terms of this occupation, she is.

Then you know little of history. You do not even have to go beyond our shores to find a better example. For 3/4 of our own conflict, Union troops were tactically and strategically outmaneuvered and embarrassed by sessesh rebels at every turn. They did have the advantage of better leadership, but our ineptness and poor combat leadership led us to despair on a level at least (if not more) then what is seen now. we were on the brink of coming apart at the seams.

It took a {alleged} drunk from Ohio to to introduce a new concept of warfare to our arsenal. It was raw, ugly, and it shocked the nation. It also saved the republic.

I only wish we had such leadership now.

You mean like General Sherman?

I believe he was referring more to US Grant.

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.