Good morning, Tom. Interesting thoughts, as usual. I also have to say I disagree with you a lot more than usual. To wit ---

>The Korea exit model? We have about 30,000 troops still there. Technically there is a cease fire and we are still at war.

That's getting mighty technical. Our troops stationed there have the mission of keeping a close eye on Supreme Leader Ding Dong to the north, and that's it. They are not actively engaged in any combat, they are not putting down insurgents, they are not getting their parts blown off by IEDs. The current deployment in Iraq is not in any way comparable.

In the article I mentioned, what I understood the comparison to the Korean War to mean was leaving with some sense of dignity and not just leaving a powderkeg behind. The invasion of Iraq is not going to go down as a win in our national ledger. Most of us are pretty well past that now. What we need to find is some way everyone can bow out with one degree of dignity above the screaming level. Negotiations between people who happen to have diometrically opposed POVs always come down to that. You still want to smack 'em; it just isn't useful to think that way. Take a deep breath, take 10, take a hundred. And then everyone shakes hands, limps off, and tries to forget the whole thing.

What we cannot do at this point is just set a deadline for withrawal (hmmm) and then take off. We started this mess and we can't simply bail out. There has to be sincere, responsible negotiation. If that means letting in directly interested parties like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, then so be it. Leave the misguided firebrands like Dick Cheney locked up in the basement to watch WWII movies to their hearts' content and get something useful done back here in the present.


>Vietnam was another story all together. We signed a treaty (Paris Peace Accords), which was to end direct American involvement. I recall the term “Peace with Honor” being used. Iraq is not like Korea or Vietnam. One thing we learned in Vietnam was that you could not change the hearts or minds of the people. Nor did you know what was in their minds. Our presence was a source of irritation to too many.

So true. I don't know if anyone in the Bush administration will come up with a phrase as vivid as "peace with honor" to so perfectly nail the misguidedness of our time in Iraq, but I bet someone does. Dubya's handlers shield him from all unscripted situations so it probably won't be him. It will probably be one of the second tier guys.

>The state that Iraq is in is deplorable. The latest figures of unemployment were announced at 60%. Imagine the social and economic pressure that has on any society? Add the hatred the various groups have for each other and you have a volatile situation.

The guesstimate I have heard is 50% but you've hit the nail on the head, regardless of the exact number. How stable would the U.S. or any other country be after 3.5 years with 50% unemployment? We'd all be walking around with grenades in our back pockets.


>We had better tighten up our ship and work together to rid the world of terrorists. An international coalition to destroy terrorism is what the world needs. It will not prevent terrorist acts but we could agree to destroy terrorist camps, etc. without concern from international reaction, if we act together.

I have two really big problems with this argument. One is that we are in little position to work with the rest of the world, having haughtily held ourselves above them for at least the past six years. The other is that terrorism is not an enemy we can attack or defeat. Terrorism is organic, not institutional. Where's the army to engage and attack? Nowhere. Where's the leader to surrender, like Cornwallis? Nowhere. Kill a target and it only inspires more jihadists. We could capture Bin Ladin tomorrow and carry his head on a pike down Madison Avenue and it would only inspire a new generation of zealots.

There's an answer out there somewhere. It's beyond us at the moment, though.