Whew! This is getting long...

>>>We obviously don't. American troops aren't conquered in any battle. Mission, OTOH, is as accomplished as it was three years ago.
>>>
>>>If an army loses (what?), it's from an opposing army. I don't see any such army out there.
>>
>>The US pulled out of Somalia after a couple bad incidents at the hands of a non-army, and it was sighted by OBL as proof of the US's weakness in the face of adversity. The insurgents would take this same que from an immediate US withdrawl.
>
>There was a question mark up there, please. Lose what?

-The chance of an stable Iraq democracy.
-Another middle eastern country to baathists, jihadis, mullahs
-Freedom for the Kurds in the north (essentially since the no-fly zones)
-Perception of America as willing to finish a fight (after the 1st Gulf War America basically abandoned the uprisings in Iraq)
-Strategic military bases in the middle east

>
>As for trying to impress OBL, I think he'd be much more impressed by a certain amount of concrete and iron surrounding him.

I sighted OBL's own speach as a direct result of a US pullout (history repeats)

>
>Take the cue (or was it queue?) from the withdrawal... that'd last a few days, and then they'd be left with themselves to cope with. Usually they don't know how to govern and would have to defer to civilian authorities pretty soon.

There aren't enough security forces yet. Talk to me again in at the end of the year.

>
>>>If there was anything to be won or lost there, it's already lost, and gets more lost by day - lives, healths, money, respect, goodwill.
>>
>>This again is where we vastly disagree in our perception. I believe everything is to be gained by staing and all will be lost if we leave and you believe there is nothing to gain by staying and its time to cut our losses.
>
>Again, the question: lose what? I have made my list of what could be gained and exposed it to your critique; you still owe me a list of what could be lost.

See above

>
>>>Obviously, it is so only in your definition of "lose". On the other hand, a pullout would mean:
>>>- America trusting the democracy it created to be able to stand on its own
>>
>>Their security forces are not yet adequate. The announced goal is to begin removing troops towards the end of the year as Iraqi security forces gain strength, momentum and experience.
>
>If a massive pullout begins by the end of the year, and is done to the end of 2007 (but completely, let Halliburton/Texaco/AnyOil pay their own bodyguards), still good enough for me. Much better than staying there forever.

This is acceptable to me as well. I have read several places that the goal is to start the pullout this year as the Iraqi security forces take over more and more. What is not acceptable is an immediate and complete pullout.

>
>>>- America being strong and bold enough to know when to stop doing something that doesn't work, turn the page and change the approach
>>
>>Again we disagree on the current state of things. I believe the US forces did stop what wasn't working and radically changed their approach to fighting the insurgency. Since then vast improvements have been made.
>
>The "thing that isn't working" I referred to is occupation.

I think this has changed.

>
>>>- America taking out the main reason for existence of most of the battling factions there, its own presence. Lacking that, they'd have a much harder time recruiting new mujahedeens
>>
>>The insurgency is mostly made up of former Baathists. Their goal is to re-establish their power. The jihadis are trying to start a civil war. If the US was the only problem then why was the Golden Mosque attacked?
>
>I know they are mostly fighting among themselves, but their recruiting rally is based on fighting against occupation. Remove occupation, and their PR stunts won't make much sense anymore.
>

Removing the media who continue to show nothing but car bombs and IEDs and the result will be the same as well. I don't think this is a good idea either.

>>>- America showing the world that its army is not Halliburton's security service
>>
>>People who believe this will believe it regardless of whether the US stays or goes.
>
>I'll believe it's not when I see the corporate oil fending for itself. So far, I do have grounds to believe it is. As a mathematician, I hold that a solid proof always beats my own opinion.
>

Fair enough

>>>- America showing the world that its goal wasn't to have permanent bases near the oil wells
>>
>>One of the goals is to have permanent bases in the Middle East. It makes sense strategically. We have military bases in Texas as well. :)
>
>Why would any country want to have its army spread around the world? What of its territory is it defending that way? And then, why would any sovereign country allow any other country to keep their units on its soil? Why would USA allow Guatemala to have a military base in Utah?
>
>It's something I never understood.

Because it works. Germany, Japan, Korea. Any wars broke out there since the US has established their bases?

>
>>>The net gain would be the recovery of the image of the US abroad, increased respect, rebuilding ties with disappointed former allies,
>>
>>Some of us believe that those former allies disappointed the US for not backing us due to oil-for-food considerations. France, Germany and Russia leap to mind.
>
>I've heard (in the months leading to war) the French ambassador say that the largest foreign partner of Iraq was the USA.
>

The proof is of course in the report. Russia was easily the largest beneficiary. http://www.iic-offp.org/story27oct05.htm

>>>Also, let's not forget the hemorrhaging of our tax money.
>>
>>An argument could be made that a stable democratic Iraq will lead to greater security in the world. This of course would lead to greater economic expansion as stability increases in the region. The tax money being spent now may be a pittance of future returns. Of course if you advocated giving the money back to the taxpayers as refunds I would of course be willing to listen. :)
>
>>>See my third point above. With occupying forces gone, the insurgency makes no sense anymore, and is exposed to the people as grab for power it is. They completely lose any aura of freedom fighters they may have claimed, and lose any popular support they may have had.
>>
>>This is as optimistic as anything I've been saying, so I applaud you for thinking positively. However, I am afraid the Baathists and jihadis have no intention of stopping.
>
>I know they have no such intention, but they'd lose ground. For now they can still claim they are fighting to get rid of the occupation. When occupation is gone, they can cheer for a week or two, and then face the bleak prospects of thinning of their ranks. Surely the staunch baathists or sworn mujahedeen will stay, but most of the guys would just want to get back to their lives.
>

I don't believe history agrees with you. The Taliban after Russia pulled out?

>>Not to mention that without the US there, Iran will begin to play an even bigger role.
>
>Iran is already playing a huge role. And I don't mean the country of Iran, I mean its fundamentalist clergy. The country too, but only inasmuch as it's in the hands of the clergy.

I agree that Iran is playing a huge role. That's not to say it won't get bigger and worse.