Mark Browne wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question:
What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize
the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government
feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."



You did NOT answer his question:

"What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out -
at
what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?"

I'd cut and run only if Saddam Hussein reemerges and is welcomed with open
arms by the majority of the population.

In any other scenario, we stay.

So you are willing to run the country into the ground for an ideological
point. For details - See the Soviet example in Afghanistan.

Unless of course, you are able to explain how this is going to turn out
different. Please explain in detail, using fully formed concepts. The
underlying truth of the rebel actions is that it is *much* easier to break
things then it is to fix them. We spend weeks of hair pulling effort to get
something working - they blow it up in an hour. It is not physically
possible to guard the infrastructure of an entire country. Efforts to do so
are doomed; we want to use fewer people, not more. What are we going to do
that the Soviets did not? Clams will like the part about the Soviets brutal
punishment of the natives for attacks. The problems is that this provided an
endless stream of converts to the rebel cause.

While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom
fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to
do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is
keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you
around, they may be able to pull it off.


But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the
psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility
damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the
job done"?

We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses,
and pull out. But you are not considering the emotional boost that this
will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear
message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that
we're at their mercy. I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in
shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us. I
personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through
respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our
options open up a bit.

Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable
situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur,
both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of
the campaign. Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness. There
would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while
not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of
yet.

Dave