I think it's common knowledge that we'll be withdrawing most of our forces next year. Generally, I think the whole situation is just a pain in the ass. Hopefully these folks can keep what freedom has been given to them. Unfortunately, it's been my experience when you GIVE someone something, they generally don't respect it.

Since I'm too lazy to write on my own site and too nice not to appease your call for increasing the Iraq-U.S. rhetoric I'll share my thoughts here. Even though what I want to talk about is Chavez and how he's supposed to be a hero for saving each family in some part of Connecticut 20 bucks this winter.

Here's the problem, if you're trying to get out of any situation before you're ready and you have no way of determining when it is you would actually be ready to leave the situation then you are almost always going to leave at the wrong time. This inability to know what the rules are for leaving is indicative of a very low level of self understanding.

America didn't set a clear agenda for why they should be in Iraq. OK there was one but it was based on lies, then we had the altruistic one where we went over there to free people. Now we are faced with a huge bill for our middle east romp and want some type of assurance this isn't going to sink our ship, and I mean both terrorist wise and economically.

The world is full relationships between lovers that end over petty issues and others that are reconciled even through horrendous circumstances. The reason this is such a common aspect of life is b/c people take very little time to figure out who they are. America is going through the same type of identity crisis. Do we want the money or to spread freedom? Either way it’s imperialistic.

If we, the most efficient and productive country out there, can so easily get things wrong (and perhaps our intention are the reason), and continue to do so, why should we ever expect the same people that signed on to live in despair in the first place to do any better. I say expect the worst and applaud anything to the contrary. When it comes to getting out let’s at least figure out what we expect in return for taking on this war b/c either way you look at the present situation in Iraq you know there are millions of people (Kurds) better off.

The worst thing about the blogosphere is the infinite supply of know-it-alls. They offend those of us who do.

I'm interested how this story will be spun. Its still fresh, and MSM maybe hasn't decided how to play it.

If the Iraqi Gov't wanted coalition forces out quickly, the resolution would've clearly given an timeframe - which it does not.

The language re "resistance is legitimate" appears designed to give Sunnis cover to come into the political process.

This resolution is really just posturing - buts its posturing which is good news for the Coalition and the pro democracy forces in Iraq. In a shame society, the Sunnis need a way to come into the political process and still save face.

It's understandable. Bush's response should be for the Iraquis to come up with a timetable. My guess is they will be cautious.

Oh, ohohohohoh! I just remembered my favo political quote. From Krushchev, don't you know: "Politicians are the same everywhere... always trying to build a bridge where there is no river."

They're maumauing for their audience. Like our politicians, life is better when one pays them little attention.

There's a big difference between Iraqis deciding among themselves and with others concerned about the well-being of the Iraqi people when the United States Armed Forces ought to begin withdrawing soldiers, and grandstanding American Senators and House Representatives doing the same with the singular motive of exploiting dwindling support for the Battle in Iraq in order to curry favor in 2006/2008.

Good for the Iraqis, I say. I agree with the above, however--we'll be pulling out troops next year, anyway. Even anti-war Democrats know that, and that is precisely the reason they are trying so desperately to provoke the administration into bickering with them. They merely want to be able to take credit for the troop redeployment when it does occur.

It is quite shamefull, really.

(By the way, this is the first time I've visited your blog--it's very nice. Came by way of a link to one of your posts about thrashing the fools that believe Clinton was a smarter President than Jefferson. Bravo, bravo. I'll be visiting again.)

pimf: shameful.

thank you Postmodern Pundit.

America didn't set a clear agenda for why they should be in Iraq. OK there was one but it was based on lies, then we had the altruistic one where we went over there to free people.

Mike - I'm sure you have read the National Security Strategy, President Bush's address to the UN (Sep 12, 2002), 2d inauguration speech, and various state of the union addresses. If you have, I'm sure you could provide a more thoughtful retort than repeating the ten second leftist soundbites or perhaps offer any original criticism.

America is going through the same type of identity crisis. Do we want the money or to spread freedom? Either way it’s imperialistic.

The question is what should America do as the sole superpower after the end of the Cold War? Turn isolationist? Take a realist view that the world is a zero-sum game of power and focus only on maintaing US hegemony? The Clinton Administration essentially passed on answering this question.

This Administration has at least put forth a grand strategy. The notion our national interest and values are the same. Democratic values can work elsewhere and in turn make the world a more peaceful place - harkening back to Wilsonian days.

I don't think that use of American power is imperialistic, especially compared to the strategies the Romans or British employed. Perhaps some may view the ideological primacy of the strategy as arrogant. But if you view the use of American power as imperialistic, the question remains - what's the alternative? The UN? Reliance on European nations? Chaos?

I agree with gcotharn and others. The MSM should focus on the various groups achieving consensus in the political arena. The announcement is posturing, but given the country (most of the region) has only a history of authoritarian regimes, it's a positive sign of cooperation.

Steve,

Lifting a tyranny in an artificial country comprised of ethnic groups who loathe one another has unintended, if seemingly obvious consequences. If anyone was paying attention, the break-up of Yugoslavia should've taught us that.

Look, I was all for taking Saddam out and I support doing so again. However, it appears that the President is operating under some Wilsonian delusion that establishing a democracy will teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. In this, George W. Bush is Rodney King with a worse tan. And both of them would have known better had they looked at this history closely.

I don't think that the United States is imperalistic either. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the term. And Wisonianism would be magnificent now if only it worked the first time. Wilsonianism is the same school of thought that gave us such smashing successes as the League of Nations, Yugoslavia and Iraq in the first place.

The world is still paying the price for Woodrow Wilson's presidency. I'm not entirely sure that this is the time to put a down payment on Round Two.

On another note, I remember President Clinton promising in September of 1996 that American forces would be out of Bosnia by that Christmas. The last time I checked, they're still there - 9 years later.

Hey, turns out that Clinton lied about more than blowjobs after all.

So what happens if an Iraqi official in a public capacity says, "Get out, Yankee swine?"