The way that I say see it there are only three strategies that are viable options in Iraq.

1. Maintain the Troop Surge – The Surge works military wise but has done nothing to improve the political situation in Iraq. The surge does nothing but give the Iraqi government more time, and they have shown that they can’t fix the government within that time.
2. Withdrawal from Iraq - This sounds nice because then we don’t have to worry about our troops anymore but withdrawing from Iraq just creates more problems; the Coalition forces aren’t the problem, removing them isn’t going to fix anything. If we leave Civil War will grip Iraq for decades, intolerant religious groups will kill off anybody who doesn’t meet up to their religious and ethnic standards, and chances are al-Qaeda will setup home in the newly abandoned Iraq.
3. Partition Iraq into three separate zones – Since there are three separate groups of people (Shi’ite, Sunni, and Kurd), splitting them up into three separate areas and giving them three separate governments seems like the only real option for stability. The separate groups have proven that they can co-exist in a national Iraqi government; having three separate strong governments is better than one weak government. This plan also might be able to achieve bi-partisan support; Senator Biden (D, DE; 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate) helped formulate the plan.

The partition plan seems to be the only plan that might have a chance at succeeding. By making Iraq a stable country, we can effectively accomplish our goals and then safely leave.

I’ve kind of let my position on the Iraq war slip around a bit, because frankly, I’m not really sure where I stand. This note shouldn’t be considered a position but a thought. Here are my thoughts for today:

• The battles can be won by military might and genius, but the solution to a war is always political. This is why we left Vietnam, America didn’t have a political solution. What is our political solution to Iraq? Can Iraq really be compared to Vietnam because let’s face it, the North Vietnamese didn’t really want to follow us home?
• Which is a bigger draw for potential al-Qaeda membership, those American pigs are invaded the homeland of Iraqis or those American pigs don’t have the might to stand up to us? It’s simple, once people realize the world’s only super power can’t win a war they will be lining up to join; their goal suddenly becomes more accomplishable.
• Why hasn’t Iraq succeeded like Afghanistan succeeded? Both had evil dictators (Hussein for Iraq, the Taliban for Afghanistan) so why are the results so different? Afghans have succeeded because they have a sense of national identity where Iraqis are more concerned with their ethnic identity. The three factions in Iraq only want to be identified as Shia, Sunni or Kurd and not as Iraqi.
• Who can actually say the war is lost? Militarily we are succeeding; we are bringing in the terrorists everyday. It is the political aspect where we are failing. Which side of a war is more important, military success or political success? How can we succeed political when we can’t get Iraqis to develop a national identity?
• The phrase ‘The Emperor has No Clothes’ has been used by many to describe President Bush, but who really has no clothes, the people who deny the war isn’t going perfect or the people who deny that the war is necessary?
• Why did al-Qaeda chose to attack us in the first place? We even supported their cause against the Soviets (giving them all sorts of weapons they are now using against us). How can we change the hearts and minds from thinking killing innocents is ok to thinking that life is important? How can we convince them that stability is the way to move forward? How can we convince them to be civil?
• How would our motivations change if we were attacked again tomorrow? Would the war suddenly become justified again? Why are people so quick to forget that terrorism isn’t going to go away once we pull out, we weren’t in Iraq when were attacked on 9/11!
• Why do people think that our addiction to oil has anything to do with the hatred to Americans? We are pumping money into the Middle East by buying oil from there.
• Why do Extremists want to eradicate Israel and all Jews? What is the motivation by the Extremists to hate all Jews? Why do they want to eradicate anyone who disagrees with them? Why do they deny the Holocaust when their goal is to make an even bigger one?
• How do we keep the peace and keep our people safe? How do we win against an enemy that won’t reason? How do we beat people who take advantage of our freedoms and use them to destroy us? How can we move forward?
• Why can’t we move past the stupid notion 9/11 was caused by the Government? The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one (Occam’s razor).

“United We Stand, Divided We Fall”

Back in 2003, every bit of intelligence that we had on Iraq told us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  Almost everybody thought that every bit of that report was true and we went to war.  What happened?  It is now 2007 and everyone thinks that report was false.  Not too mention that quite a few people think that the Bush administration falsified the contents of that report.

Is it possible that the report was true?  We spent so much time in America talking about the WMDs before we went in, how can we be sure that the weapons weren’t moved from Iraq to Syria or Iran.  How can we be sure that the Iraqis didn’t move bury their weapons in an isolated spot of desert?  What if they just donated them to terrorist groups?

Everyone acts like that report was false, but what if it was true?  Other than the intelligence reports, what proof do we have that Saddam had them?  Hmm, what a conundrum.  Wait, I know: We gave Iraqis weapons during the Cold War to fight the Soviets.  Oh, what about those mass graves that Coalition troops found with the bodies of hundreds of people, gassed to death with chemical neurotoxins?

It just seems so possible and so frightening that these weapons could have actually existed, why are we spending so much time doing other things in Iraq?  Why aren’t we looking harder?  Perhaps, (even the they are terribly corrupted) we should turn over setting up the government to the United Nations.  Wouldn’t that let our troops look for the weapons, our original goal?  Wouldn’t it also limit the amount of troops that we would need to have in the country?  Couldn’t it also lead to more stable Iraq?

As far as I am concerned, we need to stick with our original priorities.  Setting up a government should be a secondary objective, one that we should be prepared to lose, if we can accomplish our main goals.

The Democrats had a pretty elaborate plan coming in to office. They were going to do all these things that the Republicans wouldn’t do, or didn’t do. For voters, this would be the “change” that they wanted.

Well, it is almost May of 2007, and they have accomplished almost nothing. It seems that they have spent the majority of their time fighting the President on the War in Iraq. Now I realize that Democrats are perfectly entitled to have a difference in ideas of how we should be fighting the war. In fact, I think that the conflicting ideas are good, hopefully it will lead to a better solution for all. However, Democrats don’t have a 2/3 majority and the President has vowed to veto any spending bill that attaches a time table.

So why are they spending so much of their time devoted to this very bill that there is no way in hell that they are getting passed.  I just do not understand why they can’t spend their time on something else.  Even if they are passing bills that I don’t agree with, at least they will be doing something productive.  The only time that they seemed concerned with is going against the President.

Good job Dems.  But seriously, keep this up and you will insure a Republican victory in ‘08.  So thanks; your ensuring that we get the lesser of two evils.

Firstly, I’ve been without power for almost a full day and I have to say it hasn’t been very fun. With only limited access to the outside world… my cell phone and a TV radio I haven’t been up on the events of the day. However, power was on for long enough this morning for me to see some Democrat being interviewed on ‘Meet the Press’. I don’t usually watch that show, but I was intrigued when I heard them mention that Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (”Independent”) released a statement saying that he was considering switching parties… to the GOP.

Well if you remember, Lieberman was a Democrat however an extremely underhanded move by the ruthless Democratic Party Leaders forced him out of his Senate Spot. Why? Senator Lieberman has always been a popular senator… Oh yes, Senator Lieberman actually maintained his support of the war. Democrats quickly replaced the party candidate with some other guy, I can’t quite remember who it was… but it doesn’t matter – he won’t even be a footnote in the history books, who was extremely anti-war and anti-Bush. Funnily enough, Lieberman choose to run as an Independent, and much to the Democrats dismay, won that election.

Democrats, of course, won control of the House and the Senate – taking spots from Republicans that had filled the seats well and without incident (I am talking about Jim Leach here, who should have won another term). However, if Lieberman were to switch parties, well then power would tip back to the Republicans, only in the Senate, but still power would be transfered back. It would be a loss for sure for the Dems. It would also be a move for the history books as the the House and the Senate have never been run under different parties.

Such a move would yield only marginal results for the Republican Party, well because they won’t control the whole thing… just the Senate. Essentially, the problems that we currently face with having a divided Congress and President would not change.

I would encourage Lieberman to switch, because on this side of the aisle we are more accepting. Republicans have a party where a lot of people have very different views on subjects but when it comes down to it… we’re Republicans. Democrats can’t seem to accept that some people want to be moderate and try to force change on to people who are not willing; failling that dropping candidates that have brought them success in the past.

So Lieberman, we’d be glad to have you on this side… just see if you can get some people from the House to switch as well.