Democrats on the march

[Guest Kool Life]

Obama is winning more votes alone than all the Republicans combined.

D-e-l-e-g-a-t-e-s. Twizzlehead.

[Guest Truth Squad]

No surprise, Twizzler takes pains to avoid commenting on the aspects of the party-enforced primary system that undermine the integrity of the election. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire be first, coward?

I think the system of electors is a good idea, by the way. It doesn't matter to me if the winner of the electoral vote doesn't have the most popular votes.

The electoral system is a device of the government, however. The primary system is controlled by the parties (with various proceedings administered by the states). Big difference.

Be a good state, Florida, and just accept the role in the primaries assigned to you by the parties.

The system needs reform. I don't think the states solve the problem by racing to the front of the primary order (in a close primary the states at the end have the power), but at least it puts pressure on the parties to reform the process. As for the problem with the race between Clinton and Obama, the Democratic Party should have seen it coming. If they want another primary in Michigan or Florida then let them pay for it.

Great. Let your party put up the money where your mouth is. See if they're hypocrites or not.

Believe it or not, the system has been improving over the years.

Florida and other states gave the parties a boot to the rear with this one (both parties, not just the Democratic Party).

Seriously, shouldn't the Democratic Party have immediately noticed that they'd be disenfranchising voters by preventing state delegates from taking their seats? The party that whines about disenfranchisement does exactly what it deplores? Did they need it written on the wall of their corporate headquarters or what?

They knew what could happen. They rolled the dice that it wouldn't be close in favor of sticking to the traditional format. They lost the roll, and now some want to have taxpayers in Michigan and Florida pay for that error? It's outrageous, but on the other hand it's in keeping with "progressive" thinking. Taxpayers should foot the bill for more or less everything (on a progressive basis, pun intended).

It's bad enough you nitpick everything. You didn't even read Twizzler's whole post before calling him a coward. But you obviously read his/her suggestion for regional primaries because you quoted and responded to it. Of course, that didn't induce you to pull back your accusation that Twizzler didn't address the "Iowa and New Hampshire first" non-system, which obviously wasn't true. A reasonable person would have pulled the accusation. You've told us the popular will doesn't mean much to you. Apparently neither does honesty. But then we already knew that.

I have no problem with the responsible parties paying for a new election or caucus in Michigan and Florida. If you wouldn't be so quick to accuse, and jump to argue every minuscule point before you even understand it, you might find that people agree with you occasionally.

[Guest Guest]

D-e-l-e-g-a-t-e-s. Twizzlehead.

What about delegates? He's leading there, too.

The point about his getting more votes than all the Republicans combined is that he's drawing more popular support than all the Republicans put together. If you don't think that matters, then you shouldn't be calling someone else a Twizzlehead, because you ain't too smart.

I'll explain it to you. It means that he has an advantage over any Republican in November if he wins the nomination.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

D-e-l-e-g-a-t-e-s. Twizzlehead.

No, he meant votes. So many voters are turning out for the Democrats that many stations are running out of ballots. Now that MIGHT not be the case in November, but it is an interesting story.

[Bryan]

It's bad enough you nitpick everything. You didn't even read Twizzler's whole post before calling him a coward.

Didn't need to. He was a coward for misrepresenting my position as he did:

"Bryan, obviously a Republican, thinks that blaming the Democratic party is more important than the integrity of the election, in other words, electing the person the American people actually want to be their president."

His later tacit admission that I'm correct that the primary system is unfair (that is, lacks integrity) belies his cowardly opening salvo.

But you obviously read his/her suggestion for regional primaries because you quoted and responded to it. Of course, that didn't induce you to pull back your accusation that Twizzler didn't address the "Iowa and New Hampshire first" non-system, which obviously wasn't true.

It was true with respect to his opening smear. That is what I was responding to, after all.

A reasonable person would have pulled the accusation. You've told us the popular will doesn't mean much to you. Apparently neither does honesty. But then we already knew that.

One day you'll give us an example to back up your claim.

You can rightly accuse me of putting relatively light weight on the popular will, though. You can lump me together with the men who wrote the Constitution on that one. The electoral system gives smaller states an important boost in relative power.

I guess you don't care about that.

I have no problem with the responsible parties paying for a new election or caucus in Michigan and Florida. If you wouldn't be so quick to accuse, and jump to argue every minuscule point before you even understand it, you might find that people agree with you occasionally.

Good thing you're nothing like me that way.

[Guest Guest]

No, he meant votes. So many voters are turning out for the Democrats that many stations are running out of ballots. Now that MIGHT not be the case in November, but it is an interesting story.

It was projected that the Democratic turnout in Hawaii (for example) would be "double, maybe even triple" what it was the last election (about 4,000). So, basically 'up to 12,000.' But it turns out 37,000 people showed up. Record-breaking, history-making turnouts for Democrats.

[Guest Kooler than Thou]

What about delegates? He's leading there, too.

The point about his getting more votes than all the Republicans combined is that he's drawing more popular support than all the Republicans put together. If you don't think that matters, then you shouldn't be calling someone else a Twizzlehead, because you ain't too smart.

I'll explain it to you. It means that he has an advantage over any Republican in November if he wins the nomination.

Yeah but Twizzlehead sounds great. But if you insist I'll just call him/her "twizzler".

Relax... don't read too much into it. I isn't a' smart as you, just please don't make fun of my KOTW screen name, please.

"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

[WilliamK]

I asked for the location of the evidence.

Quoting myself: "The evidence, o man without honor, was provided in the very same post to which you replied." In case you're wondering what the location of THAT is, well, once again it's in the very same post to which you replied. And this time I even cut-and-pasted it to save you the apparently insurmountable work of scrolling up or looking back a page or two.

If you think you've already submitted it, then you're free to draw on that source. So far, it looks like you've got nothing. I can give you a tutorial on how to use the cut-and-paste feature of your computer if that would help you, WilliamK.

Tutorial not needed. But thank you for the kind offer. You're such a gentleman.

Here's some cutting and pasting, as requested:

"Twizzler did address your point, Bryan. Your accusation to the contrary is dishonest. And your attempt to move the focus to some minor ancillary point in order to make that accusation happens to be a great illustration of your "playing with words"."

You may have in mind to point out that the above is only my description of some evidence, rather than the evidence itself. But, from earlier in the same post from which this is taken, I cited this quote from you: "They're both stringing you along. They both realize that a sudden withdrawal would be practically impossible as well as disastrous[...]. They talk against the war because they know that you love it that way.". That is evidence. That is the claim that you made, and that Twizzler addressed, and that you pretended he didn't. And when called on this, you pointed at some other point that wasn't even the one contested, and pretended that this validated your accusation. That whole exchange is evidence of you playing with words, but there are limits to how much cutting and pasting I'm willing to do for you.

Indeed. Those can wait until you have identified what you think is evidence. Will you ever get around to that, or will you keep dancing around like you are at present?

This post makes twice I've gotten "around to that". But feel free to continue asserting otherwise. I've come to expect no better from you.

[WilliamK]

If the relevance of the ancillary point is at issue, then why isn't the ancillary point therefore at issue?

Why would it be? Taking issue with the relevance of a claim and taking issue with the fact of a claim are two different things. It's entirely possible for a statement to be both true and irrelevant, or any other combination of truth and relevance. Your "then" doesn't follow from your "if".

A) The context of Twizzler's reply appears to indicate that he wanted to support the reliability of Obama's intent.

What claim do you think he was challenging?

A) Yes. But that's not exactly what you said before. The key word is "unequivocal".

"B") (quote marks to avoid the unintentional emoticon) The "stringing you along" one, of course. Isn't that essentially what you're saying in "A)" above?

If he intent was not to undermine my assessment of Obama's words, then he's a poor communicator.

I don't understand why you say this. My point all along has been that this is exactly the intent, and that this did address your point. Undermining your assessment IS addressing your point.

It's true, as I pointed out earlier over your denials) that he didn't address my point, but regardless it's perfectly fair to say that his post was denying the "ancillary" point as you put it.

Heh. It rather looks to me like you've painted yourself into a corner. Your "A)" claim is an implicit acknowledgment that he was addressing your primary point. Then you say that he denied the ancillary point. I think he only denied its relevance, not its truth. But either interpretation addresses the ancillary point.

So, just what point do you now contend that he didn't address? This would be a good time to retract that accusation. You have no legs left to stand on.

What it comes down to, I think, is your supposition that the quotation is supposed to prove that Obama doesn't intend to follow through on his promises. But that was never my argument at all. Providing an escape hatch as he did provides support for the notion that Obama is playing his audience because such language would be a prediction for a candidate with the intent of pleasing his audience while intending what may be a more sensible policy than his stated policy at a later time.

In making that assumption about my argument, WilliamK, you simply ignore the clarifying remarks I've made since as well as the logic of the original post. I guess you'll apologize now.

Tell me how support=proof, o player-with-words. The support is obvious, and I've explained it for the slow of mind.

I have not conflated support with proof. I said support, and I meant support. EVERY candidate would have given a similar answer to that question. The alternative would be just stupid for the honest and the dishonest alike. Without correlation, it isn't support.

[Bryan]

Quoting myself: "The evidence, o man without honor, was provided in the very same post to which you replied." In case you're wondering what the location of THAT is, well, once again it's in the very same post to which you replied. And this time I even cut-and-pasted it to save you the apparently insurmountable work of scrolling up or looking back a page or two.

It's understandable that you don't realize that there's also the chore of putting myself in the brain of an illogical person to try to follow his reasoning.

Here's some cutting and pasting, as requested:

"Twizzler did address your point, Bryan. Your accusation to the contrary is dishonest. And your attempt to move the focus to some minor ancillary point in order to make that accusation happens to be a great illustration of your "playing with words"."

You may have in mind to point out that the above is only my description of some evidence, rather than the evidence itself.

Indeed, since your description of your observations tends to vary from the reality. Once you turn specific I can demonstrate to the thinking person where you went wrong.

But, from earlier in the same post from which this is taken, I cited this quote from you: "They're both stringing you along. They both realize that a sudden withdrawal would be practically impossible as well as disastrous[...]. They talk against the war because they know that you love it that way.". That is evidence.

Evidence of what? Playing with words? How is what you quote playing with words?

That is the claim that you made, and that Twizzler addressed, and that you pretended he didn't.

I'll point out to you again that Truth Fairy/Twizzler did not quote or mention the passage you claim he's addressing in the post to which I replied. Your argument (as I feel sure I've already pointed out) appears to rest on the assumption that I considered Obama's escape hatch an unequivocal proof of my statement. That's your imagination, not my argument.

And when called on this, you pointed at some other point that wasn't even the one contested, and pretended that this validated your accusation.

Could you be specific, with some quotations? If you're talking about what I think you're talking about I'll be happy to again show you where your reasoning failed you.

That whole exchange is evidence of you playing with words, but there are limits to how much cutting and pasting I'm willing to do for you.

Quite understandable, since you probably suspect that I'll just show how you're wrong again.

This post makes twice I've gotten "around to that". But feel free to continue asserting otherwise. I've come to expect no better from you.

That's because you don't think rationally, WilliamK.

[Bryan]

If the relevance of the ancillary point is at issue, then why isn't the ancillary point therefore at issue?

Why would it be? Taking issue with the relevance of a claim and taking issue with the fact of a claim are two different things.

Of course they are, but who mentioned "the fact of a claim" before you did just above? Answer my question without the dodge (it looks like you're playing with words, WilliamK).

It's entirely possible for a statement to be both true and irrelevant, or any other combination of truth and relevance. Your "then" doesn't follow from your "if".

It may if we don't necessarily accept that "the ancillary point"="the fact of the ancillary point" in accordance with your attempt to alter the past.

A) Yes. But that's not exactly what you said before. The key word is "unequivocal".

"B") (quote marks to avoid the unintentional emoticon) The "stringing you along" one, of course. Isn't that essentially what you're saying in "A)" above?

A. Which incidence of the key word "unequivocal"?

B. No, but feel free to explain why you thought so.

I don't understand why you say this. My point all along has been that this is exactly the intent, and that this did address your point. Undermining your assessment IS addressing your point.

I say that because TF/Twizzler responded solely to my "escape hatch" comment while ignoring the rest.

Review again:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82753

Heh. It rather looks to me like you've painted yourself into a corner.

That's no concern, since your observations are regularly mistaken.

Your "A)" claim is an implicit acknowledgment that he was addressing your primary point.

Looks like you're playing with words again. A simple denial of the primary point doesn't address it in the sense I used the term.

15. to deal with or discuss: to address the issues.

Mentioning an issue isn't the same as dealing with it.

Then you say that he denied the ancillary point. I think he only denied its relevance, not its truth. But either interpretation addresses the ancillary point.

If we accept your fallacy of equivocation, yes. There's no reason to accept your fallacy of equivocation, however. No amount of denial that the Obama escape hatch proves that his intent is insincere addresses either the fact that the statement was an escape hatch nor the fact that hedging statements such as his are exactly what is predicted of politicians who take insincere policy positions.

So, just what point do you now contend that he didn't address?

See above.

This would be a good time to retract that accusation. You have no legs left to stand on.

Every kid who accidentally slices open his thumb with a Swiss Army knife suddenly seems to feel that he's King Arthur dicing up the Black Knight.

I have not conflated support with proof. I said support, and I meant support. EVERY candidate would have given a similar answer to that question. The alternative would be just stupid for the honest and the dishonest alike. Without correlation, it isn't support.

Your denial that you're conflating support with proof appears to confirm that you're conflating the two ("Without correlation, it isn't support").

[Guest *Autonomous*]

You need to read the Obama and Clinton statements on the war more carefully. They're both stringing you along. They both realize that a sudden withdrawal would be practically impossible as well as disastrous (Joe Biden was the best of the Democrats on that issue). They talk against the war because they know that you love it that way.

“And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?” Kroft asked.

“No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation,” Obama replied.

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_...k-obama-on.html

Escape hatch.

Nice.

Not just an escape hatch.

Here's the thing-no one kmows what will happen when we withdraw. The Republicans say everything will fall apart. The Democrats say everything will be fine. Reality is most likely somewhere between the two. Sudden massive withdrawal would probably send the wrong message.

The thing is, the jundis are good people but their OC is full of crap. They have way too much of what we call 'the good ol' boy system' here in America-too many unqualified people at the top. The IA/IP works fine at the tactical level, but above that it has problems. I've heard that great strides have been made in the last year though.

There is also the so-called 'Sunni Miracle' to consider. With too many of their own people being killed, many of the local leaders have turned against the haaji outsiders. This is a big part of the relative calm.

The argument for withdrawing is that many of the the Iraqis (al-Sadr's bunch, frex) attack us because we are there. The idea is that by standing down we'd reassure them that we will not be a permanent presence.

The problem is that we aren't sure if the civil war is really dying down or if the surge has merely suppressed it. If violence flares up, we need to be able to respond appropriately. This means that the CiC needs to be able to assess the situation as it unfolds. Anyone saying with confidence what will happen in advance is being dishonest-not to mention they've obviously not learned the lesson of our experiences in Iraq thus far. It is our responsibility to ensure to at least leave Iraq somewhat better than we found it. How we can best do that is still open to debate.

[Guest Guest]

Not just an escape hatch.

Here's the thing-no one kmows what will happen when we withdraw. The Republicans say everything will fall apart. The Democrats say everything will be fine. Reality is most likely somewhere between the two. Sudden massive withdrawal would probably send the wrong message.

The thing is, the jundis are good people but their OC is full of crap. They have way too much of what we call 'the good ol' boy system' here in America-too many unqualified people at the top. The IA/IP works fine at the tactical level, but above that it has problems. I've heard that great strides have been made in the last year though.

There is also the so-called 'Sunni Miracle' to consider. With too many of their own people being killed, many of the local leaders have turned against the haaji outsiders. This is a big part of the relative calm.

The argument for withdrawing is that many of the the Iraqis (al-Sadr's bunch, frex) attack us because we are there. The idea is that by standing down we'd reassure them that we will not be a permanent presence.

The problem is that we aren't sure if the civil war is really dying down or if the surge has merely suppressed it. If violence flares up, we need to be able to respond appropriately. This means that the CiC needs to be able to assess the situation as it unfolds. Anyone saying with confidence what will happen in advance is being dishonest-not to mention they've obviously not learned the lesson of our experiences in Iraq thus far. It is our responsibility to ensure to at least leave Iraq somewhat better than we found it. How we can best do that is still open to debate.

You're talking to someone who isn't listening. That's OK. I appreciate your comments.

[Bryan]

Good post, Autonomous.

I would add that part of the surge strategy has directly empowered the Sunnis (by arming them and getting them economic assistance that did not come easily from the Shia-dominated government).

The move carries its risks because the Shia majority isn't crazy about having an empowered Sunni bloc. If civil war breaks out, the Sunnis will be a step ahead of where they would have been. On the other hand, the Sunnis have less reason to make trouble if they're experiencing relative prosperity. There is greater pressure on the national government to make the types of conciliatory moves that will help unify Iraq.

[Guest Patriot]

Not just an escape hatch.

Here's the thing-no one kmows what will happen when we withdraw. The Republicans say everything will fall apart. The Democrats say everything will be fine. Reality is most likely somewhere between the two. Sudden massive withdrawal would probably send the wrong message.

The thing is, the jundis are good people but their OC is full of crap. They have way too much of what we call 'the good ol' boy system' here in America-too many unqualified people at the top. The IA/IP works fine at the tactical level, but above that it has problems. I've heard that great strides have been made in the last year though.

There is also the so-called 'Sunni Miracle' to consider. With too many of their own people being killed, many of the local leaders have turned against the haaji outsiders. This is a big part of the relative calm.

The argument for withdrawing is that many of the the Iraqis (al-Sadr's bunch, frex) attack us because we are there. The idea is that by standing down we'd reassure them that we will not be a permanent presence.

The problem is that we aren't sure if the civil war is really dying down or if the surge has merely suppressed it. If violence flares up, we need to be able to respond appropriately. This means that the CiC needs to be able to assess the situation as it unfolds. Anyone saying with confidence what will happen in advance is being dishonest-not to mention they've obviously not learned the lesson of our experiences in Iraq thus far. It is our responsibility to ensure to at least leave Iraq somewhat better than we found it. How we can best do that is still open to debate.

We're not leaving Iraq until the job's done. We learned our lesson in Nam when we listened to

the Loony Left and left early. Two million civilians were slaughtered by the NVA. Hanoi Jane was

so smug sitting on an AA Gun and smiling for the people that were torturing our prisoners. The day

of the Loony Left dictating policy is over.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

We're not leaving Iraq until the job's done. We learned our lesson in Nam when we listened to

the Loony Left and left early. Two million civilians were slaughtered by the NVA. Hanoi Jane was

so smug sitting on an AA Gun and smiling for the people that were torturing our prisoners. The day

of the Loony Left dictating policy is over.

Are you too stupid to understand what I actually said?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Good post, Autonomous.

I would add that part of the surge strategy has directly empowered the Sunnis (by arming them and getting them economic assistance that did not come easily from the Shia-dominated government).

The move carries its risks because the Shia majority isn't crazy about having an empowered Sunni bloc. If civil war breaks out, the Sunnis will be a step ahead of where they would have been. On the other hand, the Sunnis have less reason to make trouble if they're experiencing relative prosperity. There is greater pressure on the national government to make the types of conciliatory moves that will help unify Iraq.

Agreed. One of the problems in Iraq is that we have a bunch of unemployed young men with little hope of finding a job. That's always a recipe for disaster. Economic security=jobs, which will help solve that problem.

[Guest Guest]

We're not leaving Iraq until the job's done. We learned our lesson in Nam when we listened to

the Loony Left and left early. Two million civilians were slaughtered by the NVA. Hanoi Jane was

so smug sitting on an AA Gun and smiling for the people that were torturing our prisoners. The day

of the Loony Left dictating policy is over.

you shoulda been fragged!

[Guest Truth Squad]

We're not leaving Iraq until the job's done. We learned our lesson in Nam when we listened to

the Loony Left and left early. Two million civilians were slaughtered by the NVA. Hanoi Jane was

so smug sitting on an AA Gun and smiling for the people that were torturing our prisoners. The day

of the Loony Left dictating policy is over.

The short day of the neocons dictating policy is what is over. It was far too long a day.

We're leaving. Get used to it.

[Guest Patriot]

you shoulda been fragged!

Well, I'm sure your father or Uncle know all about fragging. Chip off the old block, huh ??

[Guest *Autonomous*]

We're not leaving Iraq until the job's done. We learned our lesson in Nam when we listened to

the Loony Left and left early. Two million civilians were slaughtered by the NVA. Hanoi Jane was

so smug sitting on an AA Gun and smiling for the people that were torturing our prisoners. The day

of the Loony Left dictating policy is over.

The definition of the job being done in this case would be when we can leave without Iraq falling apart. Therefore, you're positing a Catch 22. We won't know if Iraq will fall apart until we try to leave. That is why neither party's rhetoric fits the facts. Unilateral withdrawal won't work-if our withdrawal destabilizes Iraq we need a plan to go back in. However, a lot of the anger directed towards us is because some Iraqis aren't sure we'll ever leave, and others feel that we're trying to create a puppet state out of their country. Therefore, the 'stay in Iraq another 100 years' plan won't work either. I've always favored a phased withdrawal to a close staging area so that we can go back in if needed. I don't think we're quite at the point to begin yet, but by the time the next president is sworn in we might be.

[Bryan]

The definition of the job being done in this case would be when we can leave without Iraq falling apart. Therefore, you're positing a Catch 22. We won't know if Iraq will fall apart until we try to leave.

Sorry, but that's not strictly correct.

We will have a good idea regarding Iraqi stability based on the performance of Iraqi security forces taking over security operations. At that point, the coalition will be able to decrease its footprint and draw down to base locations prepared to strike at concentrations of insurgents (not from Okinawa, however, as John Murtha had suggested). When the Iraqis take over that role as well, our relationship with that country will come to resemble our relationship with Germany and Japan.

That is why neither party's rhetoric fits the facts. Unilateral withdrawal won't work-if our withdrawal destabilizes Iraq we need a plan to go back in. However, a lot of the anger directed towards us is because some Iraqis aren't sure we'll ever leave, and others feel that we're trying to create a puppet state out of their country.

The biggest one is the Sunni worry that we'll leave before their legitimate role in the government is established. Their position is more precarious than that of the Kurds. The coalition is the best protection for the Sunni minority as things currently stand.

Therefore, the 'stay in Iraq another 100 years' plan won't work either. I've always favored a phased withdrawal to a close staging area so that we can go back in if needed. I don't think we're quite at the point to begin yet, but by the time the next president is sworn in we might be.

Iraq itself makes as much sense as a close staging area as any other location.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Sorry, but that's not strictly correct.

We will have a good idea regarding Iraqi stability based on the performance of Iraqi security forces taking over security operations. At that point, the coalition will be able to decrease its footprint and draw down to base locations prepared to strike at concentrations of insurgents (not from Okinawa, however, as John Murtha had suggested). When the Iraqis take over that role as well, our relationship with that country will come to resemble our relationship with Germany and Japan.

They already are doing the first a lot better than they were in '05-'06. Local militias supported by us are taking care of the second. The problem with the simplistic notion of "we'll leave when the job is done is that even when those things are done, their's no gaurantee that Iraq won't see an influx of foreign fighters when we leave. So at no point will it be certain that the job is done until they successfully stand on their own.

The biggest one is the Sunni worry that we'll leave before their legitimate role in the government is established. Their position is more precarious than that of the Kurds. The coalition is the best protection for the Sunni minority as things currently stand.

True-the Kurds have the advantage of being (to an extent) geographically separated, the Sunnis do not.

Iraq itself makes as much sense as a close staging area as any other location.

Except for the fact that many Iraqis fear that we'll never leave.

[Bryan]

They already are doing the first a lot better than they were in '05-'06. Local militias supported by us are taking care of the second. The problem with the simplistic notion of "we'll leave when the job is done is that even when those things are done, their's no gaurantee that Iraq won't see an influx of foreign fighters when we leave. So at no point will it be certain that the job is done until they successfully stand on their own.

An influx of foreign fighters isn't likely to gain any purchase unless the central government is doing much worse than the job it's doing. Iraqi support from radical jihadists is at an ebb and probably can't be resuscitated for many years. Local populations won't be likely to assist guerrillas opposed to the unified Iraq.

I never expected any guarantees, so I don't see why the lack of a guarantee is such a big problem. It's enough to make it likely that Iraq can stand on its own. That will take a capable army, which they are building, and something resembling a real air force, which doesn't yet exist.

Except for the fact that many Iraqis fear that we'll never leave.

In what reasonably close staging area is that not a concern? Part of Bin Laden's supposed beef with the U.S. (other than the fact that we are the Great Satan) is our staging of troops in Saudi Arabia.

It's likely that a high percentage of Sunnis want the U.S. to stay, at least until their government is pressured into assuring them a fair seat at the table. Likewise for the Kurds, though their enthusiasm for the U.S. may have been tempered by our inevitable cooperation with NATO ally Turkey.