Fighting radical Islamic terror cells requires competence, good policy and perhaps just a modicum of a bit of common sense to stop shoving your own hands into a bloody meat-grinder because the meat grinder is so fucking important.

mmm, that's poetry like molten gold. I like this one:

But I do think that the realities of the attack on 9/11 required some kind of military action.

Some kind! Any kind! Invade Lichtenstein, that will appease the chickenhawks!

Ok, I'm actually interested in hearing about French counter-terrorism methods and policies, since I understand France has very severe legislation on this that goes a great deal further than other European countries. Maybe Shaheen can enlighten us.

The Somme(or perhaps Verdun?) comparison is absolutely apt, I can't believe I never thought of it before.

Sadly, idiots in America use World War I analogies only to claim that since we haven't lost 400,000 soldiers in one battle in this war that we should have nothing to complain about and should stay the course.

As of ... well now, I have concluded that there is No Exit.

Iraq is going to have a nasty, bloody civil war. American troop presence is merely [... r]etarding the progression to meltdown, but not stopping it.

So you're out of the closet, then. Interesting, and I'm tending to the same analysis. I can't stand the phony debate going on right now in US (and world) media, where no-one offers a sensible proposal for either withdrawal or continued occupation, but just nonsensical rah-rah about "staying" or "changing" the course, in what is of course only a proxy war for/against the Bush admin. As if damage control for the Iraq catastrophe wasn't more important than that ... No small part of the blame rests on the Democrats, or the war opposition in general, which hasn't used its political capital to suggest viable alternatives, but prefers to attack the Wh. house from all directions at once for political gain.

What is never discussed is execution -- what exactly to do, when "changing the course", and how? "Iraqization", which was initially advocated by some Bush critics, and then implemented by the administration, has been predictably and spectacularly unsuccessful, so what remains?

Gradual pullouts? "Third options"? Hopefully the partition nonsense won't catch on with decision-makers. But how about the suggestions that the US could withdraw to Kurdish areas (they would certainly be welcomed) and try to tamper with the situation from there instead?

Or, if not, how to minimize the political damage from full and absolute retreat (which will be severe, even if the alternatives are worse)? Strike a deal with someone? Throw it in the arms of the UN? Or just pack up and leave, with Green Zone "political leaders" clinging to the helicopters?

I don't know what I think about this myself, so it would be interesting to hear from Lounsbury & others what they can come up with. If a decision to exit is taken -- how to do it?

Well, until rather recently I still had a gut feel that a pull out might be worse than utter collapse. However, at some point one has to understand that sticking with a failed investment isn't going to even limit your downside, it only blows up your expenses.

Iraq has gone past the point where a turnaround is possible. Period.

As for scenarios, who the bloody fuck knows. Iraq drove off a cliff and there are two many variables as to where the final bounce will land. The only sure thing is that it will land, and the shiney American dream is going to completely and utterly fucked.

Well, until rather recently I still had a gut feel that a pull out might be worse than utter collapse. However, at some point one has to understand that sticking with a failed investment isn't going to even limit your downside, it only blows up your expenses.

I go for cut and run, myself.

Also, Bush will never ever ever pull out of Iraq if it demonstrates their fiasco. It would indeed burst their ideological bubble. His talk about securing victory makes him, to me, appear more and more like the new Comical Ali. Somehow Rove must spin this like pulling out of Iraq is a victory, or not the fault of the Bush admin at all. Otherwise Bush will not pull out. He is quite willing to shove USA's hands into the meat grinder, because to stop doing so would be admitting it was a mistake.

Regarding Mossadegh, had he come across more like Nasser - who the Dulles brothers quite heatedly disliked - it probably would have tipped the balance against Operation Ajax for Eisenhower, who's lack of real concern for British interests would be demonstrated in the Suez Crisis. Nasser was perceived as having a firm grip on Egypt, Mossadegh conveyed no such impression in Washington which had little prior concern with Iranian affairs and an overriding one with Soviet power.