Feel free to try you little “extermination” plan and i’ll be glad to defend my right to place a bullet in your brainpan.

Tool.

In your earlier article you hinted that the second Iraq invasion could have been another culling of the armed forces followed by going home. Unfortunately you did not go into any detail about how this could have been rolled into better outcomes then what happened.

Hinting that the tactics of CI warfare should have been followed earlier was useful but you did not go into much detail. Nor clear up the logical inconsistency of advocating a notably un-comprehensive conventional (George Bush Senior style strategy) in one paragraph and in another advocate the ugliness of CI warfare. This inconsistency makes it sound like you wrote this article just be be a fat sour grapes nerd than to engage in the betterment of US combined arms policy.

Offering criticism without at least giving clear arguments to your favored alternatives just makes you look like a partisan democrat or garden variety complainer. Gary I expected more from you based upon past articles. Your loosing your touch… for god sakes get it back!!

Maliki and Sadr are both Shia. Under Saddam, who was Sunni, the Shia were divided and oppressed. Now they are out to get the Sunnis and take control of Iraq. Oh wait, they already have. Sadr controls the poor, and Maliki controls the middle class conservatives, and rich in Iraq. If you take a look at Sadr and Maliki, they don’t fight each other for constituency. They pledge to different people, like Republicans do in the US, giving one line to the racist whites - the Republican Poor, and another to the “Compassionate Conservatives” - the Republican Middle Class. Didn’t Maliki study how US Government works?

Same exact thing here. The Sadrists are the poor and the Dawa are middle class. Why do you think the Sadrists stopped their attack so soon, even before the US Troops went in? Did anyone even ask, how the Sadrists knew when the US Troops went in?

So now the Shia control Iraq. They want the US out. Once the US is out, there will be a major crackdown on the Sunnis, who are also getting together and organized, resulting in a mini-civil war.

The US just doesn’t learn. In Kosovo, there were Albanians who wanted to take land from Serbia. So they started an insurgency movenment, which the Serbs checked. Then the US went in to support the Albanians, under promises of “Democracy” from Thaci. I mean was Clinton playing stupid? Or plain stupid when it comes to foreign policy? Once the US help was no longer needed, up in flames went the century-old Serbian Churches, 200,000 Serbs were driven out, thousands killed, the women and children brutally raped and murdered. But that was in a minor region. Iraq is one whole big country.

So when the Sunnis are going to fight the Shia, they’ll start losing. The Shia have better numbers, organization and government support. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Shia did to the Sunnis, what Albanians did to the Serbs. This leads to more pissed off Sunnis and more recruits for Al Qeada. The War on Terror, remember?

And this is yet another present that Obama’s getting from Bush. And of course the Media will continue to somehow find a way to blame either Iran or Russia for this. Like it was Iran & Russia combined that sent in the Marines to transfer control of Iraq from Sunnis to Shia.

So why’s everything quite now? Because if the Sunnis attack too early, they’ll be utterly destroyed by US Troops. If the Shia act too early, they’ll be hurt by US Troops. Neither side wants to lose a company. And with the budget the US has, America cannot keep the troops in Iraq forever. Once they’re gone, the Civil War shall come. Of course CNN won’t really cover it…

Bush II, of course, did not intend to bring about any alleged positive outcomes of his imperial adventure. He suffers from borderline personality disorder.

Shia ethnic cleansing finds no moral offset in distant events supposedly linked causally to the initial lies of our post-modern Caligula.

“God wills it” in Bush’s mind and “oil justifies it” among neo-con’s are equally specious cover for a completely trumped up invasion and occupation.

History offers no absolution for the US even should Iraq flow with milk and honey in some distant, unforeseeable future.

Any link would be nothing but causality running down any of the new channels traced out by the blood of Iraqi civilians and US soldiers. This is the Law of Unintended Consequences in action, as it always is.

He certainly is. Though for who is the question. Russia? The Nazis (oh wait that ended in 1945 or thereabouts)? … or the OIL COMPANIES? “It’s the oil lobby, stupid” seems to be a good general answer to a lot of questions at the moment. Like, oh say, the last eight years.

Also, Cheney used to be human, apparently. But everyone with a bypass suffers brain damage and 42% lose 20% of their cognition. In one event. Mutliple events implies how much greater loss?
http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/bypasssurgery/a/pumphead.htm

Any day now the mayor of green zone Baghdad will be handed his head by ‘his people’ and we will see another Exit from Saigon. The two War Nerd columns below remain spot on.

… If you think that the policy insiders have screwed it up beyond salvation, listen to the little guy. Specifically Gary Brecher, War Nerd.

“Who won Iraq’s “Decisive” Battle? http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=20671

“Bringing Ireland to Baghdad: How the Resistance Will Eventually Kick the Americans Out.” http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/90149/

“They have created a wilderness. And they call it peace. That is our legacy.”
- Malcom Rifkind, past British Minister of Defense

For a group that certainly DOESN’T get it, with the exception of Malcom Rifkind, see the Intelligence Squared debate on the motion: “America is finally winning the war in Iraq,” from October 13th, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byEXGExDeos

Another school of thought says that George Bush is a genius. No really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptzml1qQvZE