I like what I hear, but I think most people have see such a torrent of crappy reporting and pundits screaming "quagmire" and "civil war" that they just want to throw in the towel. I'm thinking our situation is much like the one we saw after our own civil war. We didn't have the stomach to do what it took to finish that reconstruction ether, and the result of failure was a hundred years of lynching and segregation.

Calling Iraq a "civil war" misunderstands the nature of Iraq and the term "civil war." Most of Iraq's warring parties don't have any chance at taking over the entire country and don't seem interested in doing so. Most of them are reacting to the vacuum of power since the iron grip of Saddam slipped off the country.

Well sure but this strikes me as nit picking and an pretty useless exercise in equivocation.

It's really not about a strict definition of what a civil war is nor is it about whether or not the term "quagmire" is useful or instructive.

The issue is that all of the problems we are facing in Iraq were completely predictable based on past and in some cases recent history (specifically the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the power vacuum left in the Baulkins in the wake of the fall of the Soviet block, and even our own revolutionary war). Now we are saddled with a situation that may well be intractable and the question I have is when is the predicable upheaval that will surely follow our leaving Iraq less of a problem then our continued involvement and escalation?

At what point will those who continue to support the mess be ready to say it's just not worth the blood and treasure? There has to be a point where you throw in the towel and there are many of us who simply refuse to buy the notion that this is so important that we must bare any cost. If it is that important to the US as a whole then why are we fooling around with half measures? We need to ratchet up a draft, tax the American people to pay for it, and get huge numbers of troops in country 500k + and get this thing done. If you not willing to do that then I can't see supporting half measures that will do nothing to help the situation. We also need to be willing to negotiate with all parties in the Middle East not just the ones who we like.

I guess my tolerance for gambling is pretty low because I wasn't even willing to trade the relative stability of the no-fly zone \ inspections regime for the tiny chance that we could recreate Iraq into some kind of marginally pro US secular democratic regime.

The fact is that of the boots on the ground can't get the situation under control then 20k more ain't going to do it either so at the end of the day what is the point?

What will it take to make the dead-ender war supporters admit that there is no military solution that will get this thing under control and frankly unless the American people are willing to pony up some hard cash for the foreseeable future to fund this adventure then I don't understand what the point of it all is other then to try and avoid what mat well be inevitable ... and all out war to find out which faction rules the Middle East.

Also Bill While I admire your pluck for getting over there and trying to figure out "what's going on", with all due respect I don't see how you can really get to the nitty gritty of the issue without a thorough and comprehensive understanding of why it is the various factions are willing to strap on IEDs and blow things up. You have been very adept at explaining things from a pro American interventionist point of view but you could spend the rest of your life there and never understand the various motivations and politics of what drives thous who are responsible for the continued violence. If you really think that all it would take to stop the violence improvements in the basics: the economy and education as well as the security environment then I would suggest you need to do a little more digging because that strikes me as the same thinking that lead people here to believe we would be meet with candy and flowers.

Again with all due respect to the fact that your there and I'm not.

1. Whether Iraq is a de facto civil war is not really nitpicking, as that clues us in to what will happen if we leave. If two warring entities need to fight it out for national supremacy is different than a power vacuum leading to anarchistic warfare between splintered groups.

If you really think that all it would take to stop the violence improvements in the basics: the economy and education as well as the security environment then I would suggest you need to do a little more digging because that strikes me as the same thinking that lead people here to believe we would be meet with candy and flowers.

2. Basic improvement in the "security element" encompasses and cuts to the heart of your previous conditional ("I don't see how you can really get to the nitty gritty of the issue without a thorough and comprehensive understanding of why it is the various factions are willing to strap on IEDs and blow things up").

3. I haven't explained the motivation of suicide bombers, no, but I have thoroughly explained the motivations of those who are strictly bombing and attacking the Iraqi government and US forces in Western Iraq. These are less spectacular than SVBIED's, but they make up the vast majority of the chaos you see. I suggest you reread, as the questions asking why are strictly open-ended and not from a "pro-interventionist view."

4. "At what point will those who continue to support the mess be ready to say it's just not worth the blood and treasure? "

I haven't finished drawing my conclusions about Iraq, as I haven't finished gathering information. So first, have patience. Second, I think that many (not nec. all) those ready to say "it's not worth it" have not carefully considered the repercussions of withdrawal. This falls into two categories:

A. If withdrawal will send Iraq into a murderous chaos, many, many of the innocent Iraqis begging for us to stay will die. And from an ethical perspective, you must be ready to accept that consequence while acknowledging it. I'm not saying it's impossible in a realpolitikal analysis, but blithe dismissal of this fact - just because they are not American lives - makes my stomach turn.

B. I am also convinced that the fight in the West of Iraq, removing Baghdad from the equation, has the potential consequence of turning the area into a staging ground for terrorism, a la Afghanistan in 2000. So at the least, an American presence there will be required for years. Unless you are willing to remove America from efforts in Afghanistan as well, the argument for withdrawal from Anbar is inconsistent and shallow.

5. In addition, I somewhat agree with your point about commit or quit.

6. And finally, we were greeted in many parts of the country with candy and flowers, and this popular conception that we weren't was ably addressed by Christopher Hitchens. please google for it, as I'm strapped for time. Our post-war failures at stability and reconstruction squandered an awful lot of goodwill.

I appreciate the civility of your presentation.