>>Whew! This is getting long...
>
>Things aren't simple. Can't be short.
>
>>>>>If an army loses (what?), it's from an opposing army. I don't see any such army out there.
>...
>>>There was a question mark up there, please. Lose what?
>>
>>-The chance of an stable Iraq democracy.
>
>...which will turn itself into a theocracy at the first chance it gets. It's already in their constitution, the mullahs have the right of veto over legislation. And it's a US-approved constitution. And, BTW, it also says universal health care by the state, which is somehow impossible to make here.

This is a mis-interpretation of the constitution that I have seen and needs to be rejected.

Article 1.
The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign state. Its system of government is republican, representative (Parliamentary), democratic and federal.

Article 2.
1st - Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
(a) No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established
(b) No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established(c) No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established

This does not establish an Islamic state as has been suggested. The very first article of the constitution lays out the democratic base for the country. In addition, all 3 pieces of Article 2.1 must be adhered to. An Islamic state would only follow 2.1.a.

>
>Of course, this democracy is on crutches so far. Can it walk by itself? How can we know, you're all for keeping the crutches in place.

To follow your analogy, I don't believe the leg is fully healed and it may do more damage than good if we remove the crutches now. We have come this far, why not see it through? Troops are expected to start withdrawing at the end of this year.

>
>>-Another middle eastern country to baathists, jihadis, mullahs
>
>There were none of the latter two while prez. Hussein was in power. As for how much the mullahs are already in power, see above.

The mullahs are not in control, see above.

>
>>-Freedom for the Kurds in the north (essentially since the no-fly zones)
>
>I presume US is also fighting for the freedom of Kurds in Turkey (and maybe Pakistan?)?

Yes, I believe the US is fighting for freedom for all people. One step at a time.

>
>>-Perception of America as willing to finish a fight (after the 1st Gulf War America basically abandoned the uprisings in Iraq)
>
>Which was wise. Enemy defeated, Kuwait independent again, mission accomplished. Anything more, and it'd be the mess just like the current one. The then administration had the foresight to understand that (which is on record).

I disagree. While I do not believe the US should've gone for a full invasion (some generals believed we should), I do think the US should've sent in special forces, and resources to help the uprising. Instead the US suggested via radio that the uprising would be supported and then sat back and did nothing. This directly led to Saddam's crackdown and the mess we're in now.

>
>>-Strategic military bases in the middle east
>
>And the strategy is?

A strong military presence in the middle east. This is a deterrent.

>
>>>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)
>
>This so smacks of Stalin's style, man... I've heard it in communist times so many times. "We can't allow this, what will our enemies say?" - and so you actually obey your enemies' whims. It's also a nice trick to use against your opponents at home; almost any suggestion they may make can be countered with "if we did that, then < insert villain d'jour here > will say < insert anything here >".

Staying and finishing the job will speak for itself. Cutting and running will as well.

>
>Why not have the attitude, "we don't care what OBL may say"? Why make him important when he's not? If he were important, I guess he'd be caught by now.

I believe he should've been caught by now as well, but I can see the other side. Have you heard of the Unabomber?

>
>>>The "thing that isn't working" I referred to is occupation.
>>
>>I think this has changed.
>
>In percentage or cosmetics, maybe, but not in substance. Iraq is still de facto an occupied country. And it still doesn't work.

We disagree here. I see major changes for the better occuring because of changes in the way we're running the occupation. I'd say that there is plenty of substance which I have been sighting over the last several weeks.

>
>>>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.
>
>Shooting the messenger never helped do anything but delay. Besides, if the reporters cover only 5% of the territory (or less), and it is known that they mostly stay where it's safe... anything you say about "insurgency being limited to about 5% of the territory"... well, doesn't add up.

You missed the argument. Major news outlet reporters aren't covering the 95% of the country where no violence is occurring. There are a few, but you have to look for them because their stories are about rebuilding and generally good news. In the US "if it bleeds it leads" is the press' motto. It isn't too hard to find the stories online. For instance, do you know there are now 2 Kurdish news outlets reporting from northern Iraq?

>
>And under "PR stunts" I meant the communications between the insurgents and the Iraqi people, not the American public.
>
>>>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?
>
>Germany and Japan had the foreign troops on their soil as arranged by the peace treaty after they were defeated. The Korean affair was also okayed by the UN. US is, however, not in a war with Iraq. Congress hasn't declared war. There is no peace treaty.
>
>And, if I understand correctly, you agree that Guatemala should have a military base in Utah?

I assumed you were being funny. Other countries welcome the US military because of the security it provides. Guatemalan forces would provide zero benefit to the security of the US.

>
>>>>>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.
>
>That's how the media here painted it. The more important reason (keeping the system of international law alive, the decades-old agreement that no military operation should proceed without being vetted by UN SC) went mostly unreported.

The security of the US will not be dictated by the UN. This has always been US policy. Also, the UN is a broken organization. The US is doing a major review of it's reforms. The next couple of weeks will be interesting because it appears the UNs "reforms" have been nearly non-existent. The question will become what will the US Congress due with its funding.

>
>>>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
>
>OK. Interesting, Chevron is also there...

I also assume you read where Saddam cut all contracts with the US shortly after the program began and move them to countries that were providing the payoffs.

>
>>>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?
>
>You mean the guys US financed to get the Russians out of there? Just like Saddam once was a creature of CIA, and became the bad guy only when he became disobedient?

He became a bad guy when he attacked the US.

>
>The question is, how many will stay in their units, and how many will just want out and back to their lives. And for those who stay - will they just stay in the units, or will they be in power? I see the theocracy progressing fine with or without occupation.

I think it will be held in check if the US stays to see it through.

btw have you read about the uprisings in Iran this week?