"no one seems to believe in success now, no one is going out on a limb because they all expect that they'll be leaving on a helo and facing inquiries as to how this managed to be so bad."

Important quote. If this is truly the mood out there, then it's over.

It also puts in perspective those many articles where (understandably) frustrated American GIs complain about the poor motivation and discipline of Iraqi soldiers. "They won't risk anything, they aren't prepared to die for their country", and so on. A familiar tune from other, otherwise much different, wars: Vietnamese ARVN, French Algerian harkis, etc.

How anyone can expect people to go to their death for a seemingly doomed project like the American presence in Iraq, is beyond me; the rational choice for any Iraqi now is to find a salary, a safe neighbourhood and a militia umbrella to stay dry under when the storm comes, because it is coming. And unlike the Americans, he isn't going to be leaving on a helicopter that day.

yes, I expect a deluge of American self-pity after the pullout. bah. At least Vietnam prompted a lot of good movies.

A Blair speech held in the US around the millenium stated the conditions for intervening in foreign lands. I can't remember when or where he held it. One of these conditions was the willingness of one's population to go through with the project, to bear responsibility and accept casualties.

This is what keeps the Bush admin in a bind, because the US population does not support a draft and a massive tax increase which would both be necessary to win this war (too late now though). On the other hand, Bush cannot pull out because of his ideological blindness and the political credibility he has staked on this adventure. It would destroy him. And inevitably, Iraq will destroy him.

End result is; US troops stay until complete breakdown of Bush administration.

Comment from Barron's about two years ago: losing slowly is no better than losing quickly. (their editorialist, while conservative, is also completely merciless when it comes to incompetence and dishonesty; he called for Bush's impeachment in December of last year.)

losing quickly is far better than losing slowly. Think about it.

So anyway - has anyone here seen Go Tell The Spartans with Burt Lancaster? Horrowshow movie.

While withdrawal is obviously the best action for the US, is it really the best action for the administration?

It would mean admitting defeat and not having a war president any more.

On the other hand, dragging on for two more years (or until Congress reduces the war budget next year), means that someone else has to pull the plug. It will be possible to argue that the war could have been won, and to blame any fallout from the hot civil war on the one who pulled the plug rather than the one who started the adventure.

Then there is the question of what is the rational action for the Democrats once (if?) they get some power again. Is it to go for a full scale attack on the architects of the war, with investigations and eventual war crimes trials? Thus hoping to make that bunch, and as many enablers as possible, unelectable. Or is such a stratergy likely to be unnecessary or even prone to backfire.

(Must confess that I do dream of seeing someone responsible for this mess stand trial)

Mattias - standing trial is so quaintly 20th century. In the new, brave, utopian world of the future, criminals will be shipped directly to undisclosed locations where they will be treated with appropriate & certified levels of force. All perfectly legally.

Well it seems they actually managed to pass legislation giving them retroactive immunity. I guess the Democrats really are invertebrates. How depressing.

BTW, L, on the "right bolshy" front, did you see this bit from Issandr on Condy's rhetoric? Pure "heightening the contradictions" stuff.

This is nice. They're making a boxing ring.