I have never blamed our troops, have I? When our government becomes our enemy in foreign affairs to the point of blatant avoidance, this is where I protest the action. I've politicized jack here. I've shown the result of reaction our government has created. The action of our government was force against Iraq, therefore, the result of that action is not political, it is merely the result of action. Had the action been that of economic overthrow of the dictator, I would be posting economic stats instead.

Do you know why this is? Do you think it was because of our war? Think again, it was because we are sinking billions, if not trillions into the infrastructure. The money used on the campaign could have instead been siphoned into democratic opposition and the funds then transferred to infrastructure projects when those parties took hold.

I blame bombs, you know what bombs are, right? Assuming you do, our navy and pilots are indirectly responsible for many of those innocent lives, as well as terrorist attacks.

There would be no one attacking our forces had we not entered to begin with.

I believe the highest would be the commander in chief, among others...

Says who? Says the UN? The UN said to start the war? Our congress gave Bush the go-ahead to fight a war against terrorism after a war against a regime had been won, under the same ensign of the original legislation?

Anyone who says we have lost is ignorant. We have certainly won the war, we won four years ago. I do believe our military's involvement will be indefinite.

What enemy? The enemy of THIS WAR was defeated in two thousand and three. It is two thousand eight now. The only 'enemy' left are belligerent terrorists who don't comply with the status quo. There is no basis for a full scale involvement against this type of enemy, it will always be present in the region. Always. All the troops of the entire earth, protecting each citizen of Iraq, will not quell this type of suicidal enemy, everyone knows this. A full scale war with refractory independents is insane. Look at every guerilla war of antiquity. In other words, the 'surge' was only to increase security for our economic interests and is made altruistic from our direct involvement with the Iraqi people. When the surge is gone, security forces trained in Iraq should be strong enough to protect those economic interests. Do you think terrorists will drop their involvement, simply because the US is gone? I have a modest answer for this, HELL NO.

I haven't posted pictures of 'terrorists' because our enemy, which congress and the Bush administration so clearly stated in their declaration, was Saddam and his army. The continuation of this occupation is not to defeat any enemy, the enemy has long passed. The continuation is to create an infrastructure able to support democratic parties in order to bring peace to the country. All this could have been done using less money, with direct economic involvement; and NO American deaths. That is the reason I am so adamant about the issue. No one will be able to understand this without seeing the 'other side' of the war. AMERICANS DIED BECAUSE OF WEAK FOREIGN POLICIES. And yes, the external use of force represents an internal weakness. Whatever that weakness is, the state department, the security of America, the security of economy, whatever the reason; America declared this war based on anemic foreign diplomatic relations and fearful participation of her own constituency.

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope