1) The Bush administration made incorrect, overly optimistic, assumptions about what a post invasion Iraq would look like and these assumptions may affect Iraq’s future.

2) But as far as our current mission in Iraq is concerned, it’s my opinion that the Bush administration (and others have as well) has framed the effort in 2 basic ways.
a) That it is our responsibility in Iraq to ultimately help it’s people form a stable democracy that may reverberate throughout the Middle East
b) That we are in Iraq to fight the terrorists who are preventing that democracy from taking root and that these terrorists are allied with or are the same terrorists whose tactics caused 9/11 to occur.

3) Thus from the Bush perspective or from the perspective of U.S. interests (and I realize that others have this perspective as well at the moment) one can assume that what’s good for Iraq may also be a good for thing for us. After all, Bush himself has called Iraq the number one front on the war on terror (and no I can’t give you an exact source for the quote other than CNN)

4) But the question that looms before us is, at what point does Iraq stop becoming our responsibility and at what point does Iraq become the responsibilities of the Iraqis themselves.

5) There seems to be consensus agreement between Bush supporters and his opponents that the worst thing we could do is abandon Iraq to a Tali ban like terrorist mob.

6) But I believe the Iraqis must have the desire to come together and form a unified Democracy.

7) And the Iraqis must have the desire and will to form their own Army and security forces.

Some Bush supporters have stated that we stationed U.S troops in Europe for decades after WWII liberation, and that it would not be unusual for our troops to be in Iraq for decades. But the troops in Europe never faced on going casualties from actively combined terrorist and insurgent forces in a post invasion world. Forces that keep interrupting basic infrastructure assets such as electricity and gas pipelines I might add.

9) And I would agree with leaving a small contingent of U.S. forces in a relatively safe and democratic Iraq.

10) But my question is how long do we wait until the Iraqis show us they have the desire to form a democracy in a unified country against great obstacles.

11) And more importantly, how long do we wait until the Iraqis prove they can defend themselves from terrorists and insurgent factions, without the U.S military and citizens suffering casualties and expenditure of billions for defense and infrastructure.

12 And as the Bush administration has proven to us time and again, it is not safe to make overly optimistic assumptions about how things will work in Iraq.

13) With the invasion, the Bush administration GAMBLED that the Iraqi people would have the capacity to unite themselves, form a democracy, and develop there own security forces.

14) ALTHOUGH BUSH PAINTS IRAQ AS OUR NUMBER ONE FRONT ON THE TERRORISM WAR, In the END our MOST IMPORTANT GOAL IS NOT FIGHTING TERRORISTS IN IRAQ FOREVER. THE REAL NUMBER ONE MISSION IS TO SEE IF THE CITIZENS OF IRAQ HAVE THE CAPACITY and will power to form a secure safe unified democratic country despite the obstacles. In the end, it’s THEIR land and their country and we can’t FORCE them to have the courage and will power to do this. That’s THEIR responsibility, not ours. The Iraqis owe us the proof that they can do this. The Bush administration took the GAMBLE they could do this. But it will not be the Bush administration who will decide how long we will wait for the Iraqis to do this, or whether they can do this. The American people will not allow the U.S. to exhaust our resources in Iraq indefinitely without proof that they can do this. That I can guarantee.

But..

Your post-WWII assertion is wrong...

**quote**
Some Bush supporters have stated that we stationed U.S troops in Europe for decades after WWII liberation, and that it would not be unusual for our troops to be in Iraq for decades. But the troops in Europe never faced on going casualties from actively combined terrorist and insurgent forces in a post invasion world. Forces that keep interrupting basic infrastructure assets such as electricity and gas pipelines I might add.
**quote**

Allied forces faced insurgent attacks for quite a few years after the end of WWII... look it up!

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

Did WWII occupational forces receive both outside terrorist and insurgent acts of hostility from people who willingly and endlessly commit suicide just to get at us? Also remember, the terrorist incites violence. He wants the U.S. military to come after him. He deliberately hides amoung non combatants and knows that even if a U.S. missle attack succesfully takes him out, it will usually kill inocents as well. Thus making the U.S look like a danger to the Iraqis as well. Thats why OUR PRIMARY mission is not to fight terrorists, but to see if a trained indiginiuos Iraqi military force can do most of, or all of the fighting.

I'm not gonna argue over the fact that Iraqi Military should defend Iraq.... Mainly because the Coalition and NATO are training and advising that army as we speak...

And Allied forces were not fighting terrorists... they were fighting fascists... but IF they had been fighting terrorists then i would fully expect them to have had to deal with those kinds of attacks...

In other words, the only reason WWII forces didn't have to face terrorists AND insurgents.. is because there really weren't terrorists then in the classical sense of the word...

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

A religiously inspired terrorist war (suicidal in nature) is so different from what post war WWII allies had to face that there's no use in making a comparison. Remember another major difference is that Iraq is a country of different religious factions that can be more easily exploited by terrorism and agitators. But I do see your point about my historical inaccuracy.

... there's a saying that covers the Iraq situation...

"The beatings will continue until morale improves"

__________________
<<Cheer up, the worst is yet to come.>>