Staying longer increases the harm to soldiers, but decreases the harm to the reputation of politicians and pundits who called for the war in the first place. The longer it goes on, the easier it is to obscure the reasons for failure. And obscuring the reasons for failure is the mission at this point. Ergo, we're staying longer.

I'm struck by how unwilling war supporters are to think about the likelihood that we can sustain the Iraq conflict for 10 years... or three more Presidential elections.

To say that this would be a good war if only it had political support is like saying this would be a good car if only its engine worked. We are a democracy. A democracy at war has an additional consideration that absolute monarchies and dictatorships don't have to consider (at least not so much).

If we need a long-term commitment to succeed, and if we're unlikely to render such a commitment from our body politic, that needs to be factored into our calculation of whether to stay or leave. To not do so is unrealistic and irresponsible.

......... and I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free..... wait wait wait. If I clap louder magic will conjure itself and allow a divine solution (or that intelligent designer George Will writes about)......... no no no look over there, it's bad weather somewhere in the country and the visuals are sooooooooo much cooler from an oncoming storm than dead bodies, analysis of a cluster (THAT's the chyron I wanna see). And Mike Vick murders puppies so that IS news. If you'll excuse me I hafta go affix my yellow ribbon on my car after I support the troops and I am grateful that in the ensuing decade there will be many more needing the kind of support that only a yellow magnet made in China can supply (lead included).

If the Shi'ites turn against the occupation, then the United States would have nowhere near five to ten years at its disposal. The United States has vulnerable supply lines which would quickly disintegrate. In short, the United States would be kicked out on its ass - Dunkirk-style.

Apparently what Petraeus said was, "We will be in Iraq in some way for nine to 10 years"

I would like to see us out of there now, and I am ashamed and angry at our Democratic representatives for wimping out on this, but it's a pretty disingenuous reading to make Matt's claim that Petraeus is saying there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

As others have noted, we are still in Germany, we are still in Japan, we are still in Korea, and my understanding is we still have soldiers off Epsilon Indi sixty years after Roswell and 29 years after the Sol-Indus wars.

I'm not worried - we have god and leprechauns on our side.

It's been said a million times,but have to say it again.....They're not and haven't been fighting us in Germany,japan and Korea.

And we're also not still in Germany, Japan and Korea as an occupying army. We're there as allies, at their invitation, the same way we're in Britain and Italy and Turkey etc. etc. etc.

Look, I hate this war as much as anybody, and I was against it from the getgo, but I'm not sure Yglesias' interpretation of what Petraeus said is the correct one.

Matt obviously reads the relevant quote as "nine to ten more years" for he says "General Petraeus thinks he's making so much progress that the war will need to continue twice as long again as it's already gone on."

I'm not sure that's what Petraeus intended.

Her neat, looping handwriting filled page after page, and she flipped through to find the Petraeus section. " 'We will be in Iraq in some way for nine to 10 years,' " Schakowsky read carefully.

We've already been there for 4 and a half years. We're nearly half way now to Petraeus' nine to ten years.

I know, it's probably a trivial point, and nine to ten total years is horrendous enough, but it does our credibility little good if we don't at least acknowledge ambiguity when it obviously exists.

the odds say it will be bad. Very, very bad.

There's a part of me that says, "Good. If that's what it takes to stop you guys from doing worse in future"... but then I look at the present... Do as majorities of all groups in the nominally independent entity known as Iraq want you to do and just get out now - bases, 65-acre Embassy and all. And for good measure have Congress pass a law banning any U.S. oil company from doing business in Iraq for the next fifty years and make it a treasonable offense for any CEO of a firm circumventing these rules.

Over the long term, the United States must be looking to draw down its force levels in Iraq overall — probably to 100,000 or fewer troops — by about 2010/2011.
---

What a total crock of shit. They are going to have to draw down troops starting soon and I wouldn't be surprised we have no more than 50K by Nov 2008. Less than that if we have to high-tail it. We are running out of available troops to send there, resources to keep it supplied, and under pressure to get out in all sorts of ways. I think if we could get out of there quickly sooner rather than later it *might* just keep us out of recession next year. The price of gasoline is probably artificially inflated up to 75 cents a gallon just to keep churning out enough refined oil products to keep all that armor moving around.

What's interesting to me is that these people are assuming that they will still be running things in 2010.

"What's interesting to me is that these people are assuming that they will still be running things in 2010."

What's disgusting to me that many of these people are right. They WILL still be running things in 2010.

To be more specific, I think the DLC is very likely to nominate a Dem who will not endorse wholesale change, and we'll probably have the same beltway pundits opining on the op-ed pages...

though the superiority of writing to be found on blogs now is getting harder to ignore, so maybe I'll be wrong about 2010.

What I think we can do to affect the Iraq situation in a tiny way is always refer to US presence in Iraq as an OCCUPATION rather than a war. E.g. "Do you support the continued occupation of Iraq?" "Do you believe occupation of Iraq supports US interests?" "How long do you see the occupation going on?" "When do you think the occupation should end?"

It's an important distinction. "Winning" an occupation is not a meaningful question, and so phrasing it the more accurate way gets you out of the win-lose box that doesn't apply anyway.

8 to 10 billion a month to stay in Iraq, with no realistic prospects in this failed endeavor.
Our presence exacerbates the problems. The puppet government is both precarious and inept.
Our own administration is unrealisic, having gone to Iraq on false pretenses, and trying to stay there on false pretenses.

Astute writer Jonathan Schell said it well:

"Faced with the absence of WMDs in Iraq (Bush) once simply said, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." Faced with a Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.," he and his spokespersons called it "historical."
"In his universe, faithfulness to delusion is "consistency..."

Does this mean we only have 20 more FU's to go?

Nine to ten more years?

Whew - Well, thank the good Lord, whomever she may be, that the ranks of the Young Americans for Freedom are swelling - Just move basic training directly to a hardened base in Iraq and then, a whole lot of OJT for those young "patriots". The Buckley Brigade is on the move.

Dave Howard: "will be in Iraq" means in the future, in my grammar book. If Petraeus wanted to include time already served, he could have said 'will have been in Iraq".
Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Except for some kind of dramatic effect, I can't understand why anyone would speculate that we might actually stay in Iraq in numbers comparable to today's through, say, 2010.

The American people have made it clear as a bell that they won't stand for that, and will remove from office politicians who insist otherwise. The right wing can hate the public all they want for that sentiment. But no minds will be changed, and no action other than withdrawal will result.

I don't know where they think they're going with this. The sheer futility of their argument, morally, practically, and politically, makes one wonder why they might choose to try it.

I suppose that in their circumstances, one is simply obliged to go through the motions of defending their actions, however absurd that apology might be. I can think of no other account.

Just love that expression "include time already served"

Sounds more and more like a penal sentence.

The fundamental reason this insurgency can and will sustain itself, and why it was eminently predictable in the first place, is simple. It's because nobody likes being invaded and occupied by another country. It's not because AQ and Iran are in there fomenting discontent when otherwise everybody would be docile and happy--they're just taking advantage of the original blunder. And you can not alter this dynamic by blowing up more stuff. It just is what it is.

The generals know this; that's why they're talking in 20-year timelines. Which is flatly and plainly absurd. We're not taking any of the practical measures that would be needed for such an effort. None of the war supporters will go anywhere near even proposing them--the draft, the taxes, the sacrifice of other commitments--because as soon as you look at it in practical terms it's shamefully obvious how ridiculous it is. So they only address the subject in the most grandiose and abstract terms which convenientl lay the imminent failure off on the public (no spine!) the media (sapped the spine of the public!) and the liberals (hate Murika! Want us to fail!).

But the reason the public has lost faith is not because of being undermined or weak. It's because of a common sense grasp of the concept that What can't go on, won't go on. That's really all there is to it.

"The floggings will continue until morale improves!"
--Anonymous Admiral, c. 1750

"It all happened bc nobody trusted me, nobody believed in me, and the generals let me down."
-A Hitler, Fuhrerbunker, Late April 1945

"9-10 years": We can call that the Patreus Unit. As in "The FU is approximately 1/20 of a PU."

Kudos to DrBB for the "Petraeus unit". It's another, different, way of highlighting the way pro-war supporters are trying to push off the day of accountability.

A question for Kevin (or someone who agrees with this part of his post). He writes: "Staying in Vietnam did immense long-term damage to the national security of both Southeast Asia and the United States." Immense long-term damage? Maybe I'm not old enough (I began to be aware of politics in the mid-1980s) but I don't remember having this impression. I certainly remember other arguments against prolonging the VietNam war, but don't remember this one featuring prominently. How would you make that concrete for those who don't already see it?

The closest argument I've heard is that Army morale and American support for the use of force were both damaged by the war, but I don't think that's what Kevin has in mind.

Where is the money to pay for this nonsense?

I have lived ten years in the Middle East & read/speak Arabic having learned it in the Foreign Service Institute and employed it living in three Arab countries [Lebanon,Saudi,Egypt]. The shallow vapid vacuous left resembles the Arab mind so closely they could be kissing cousins---which in the Arab world means MARRIED!!!

The left subsists on the large segment of loooozer-wannabes & angry academics/know-better "helping-profession enablers" who want to reduce this country to a soup of mediocrity. Losing a war in the Middle East would make us resemble the Arabs who are already totally mediocre [and believe me I know]. Hence, the Dems/loons want us to become Arabs!!!

Bashing our best general is typical Dhimmitude.

Where is the money to pay for this nonsense?

In exchange for the US continuing to accept their toxic waste in the form of children's toys, China will continue to pay for this nonsense.

daveinmouth, please go back on your meds. You're hallucinating again.

Losing a war in the Middle East....blah, blah, blah...

Maybe the little idiot shouldn't have started a vanity war then. It's on him, not the Democrats, and you know that, or you should, any way.

...Bashing our best general is typical Dhimmitude. daveinboca at 2:17 PM

If Patreaus is the "best" general, the war is lost , because so far, his appearance on Hugh Hewlett and his '03 op ed show he's just another Bush spokes person.

dave's doctor is demonstrating the wishful thinking, half-baked ideas and sophomoric attitudes that make the Dhimmitude on the left so ridiculous vis-a-vis the Middle East.

The Dems have no alternatives save cut-and-run and call everybody else names. Fixed ideas and displacement into Anthropogenic Global Warming to gain denial of Islamist terrorism doesn't cut it with THE AMERICAN VOTER----who is watching Obama and the Breck Girl make fools of themselves on foreign policy and [in John-Boy's case] general eunuchhood!

Don't be surprised if '08 makes you look silly again---no Foley "surprises" and Libby process-crime show trials will get your sheer ineptitude out of the limelight.

Yeah, Mike, he's been over in Iraq four years and written a new counterinsurgency manual, but he doesn't agree with you and your Dhimmitudinal runaway received opinions and fixed ideas....

Hence, he's a "Bush spokesperson..."

Acquire frontal lobes or get an attitude adjustment.

Yo, daveinboca. "The American voter" according to the polls has been majority in favor of getting the hell out of Iraq for quite a while now. But hey, keep mashing that capslock key--if you pound the table and shout loud enough, you win!

Shorter daveinboca: "Breck girl. Heard that 'n on Rush! Ttttthhhhe he he he. Pppffft. I called 'im a gay fag. Shoot, ahm teh funny. Gurly Dems. Har har har snort."

So you must be about ready for Middle School now, huh? Best years of your life--don't waste 'em staring at a computer screen in your 'rents basement. Get out, play a little baseball. You'll be old enough to enlist soon enough.

dimwit in boca has a point. The Democrats are only concerned about actual threats to our national security and so have no plan to stave off invasions from Mars, Jupiter, or Omicron Perseus VIII.

First, let's all get on the same page. There is no war in Iraq, there is only the occupation. We won the war. We won when Saddam Hussein abdicated and we demonstrated our control when our puppet government of Iraq executed him.

So, dipshit in boca, there is a test to determine one's seriousness about national security:

1. Among the options listed, which is the most likely cause of death for an American citizen living in the United States?
   1. Heart Attack
   2. Lightning Strike
   3. Terrorism
2. Among the options listed, which is the least likely cause of death for an American citizen living in the United States?
   1. Heart Attack
   2. Lightning Strike
   3. Terrorism
3. True or False: Iraq had real ties to Al Queda?
4. True or False: Iraq had WMDs?
5. Iraq had a mechanism for delivering WMDs to the United States?

I will be repeating this quiz for any microcephalic posters who insist, at this late date, in defending George W. Bush's unprovoked assault on the Iraqi people.

.... he's been over in Iraq four years and written a new counterinsurgency manual...Hence, he's a "Bush spokesperson..."Posted by: daveinboca on August 26, 2007 at 2:54 PM daveinboca at 2:54 PM

"The Pentagon is rushing Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus back to Iraq to help step up the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces."
Well that went well. Not!. No serious Iraqi security force and a couple hundred thousand AK-47s gone missing.

I see why you despise those inconvenient facts on the ground. Your b/s spin is much more comforting to your reptilian hindbrain.

9-10 years perhaps, but that is based on current conditions. If Bush & Cheney bomb Iran (which Bob Baer and Wayne White believe is imminent) then things change. The troops in Iraq will be marooned, cut off from the land routes south, resuppliable only by air, and forced to fight their way hundreds of miles through hostile territory to Dunkirk on the Persian Gulf.

To save any remaining credibility, the Brookings Institute must immediately publicly rebuke and sever ties with Mike O’Whore for taking money as a paid propagandist for the Bush White House. We all knew that Broder was a butt buddy of Rove’s, but Mike too?

Outrageous in the extreme and even more outrageous that the MSM rags continue to fail to disclose and report all of these conflicts of interest.

"...and staying in Afghanistan was a leading cause of the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union."

I think Afghanistan was more of a proximal cause than a direct cause of the collapse of the SU. In addition to the general inefficiency that was leading to its crumbling from within Saudi Arabia pushed down the price of oil which deprived the Soviets of hard currency. You could also say this price drop coincided with the end of OPEC cartel pricing around 1986.