Will Iraq ever achieve stability ...

I think that will be accomplished someday but any time soon so don't hold you breath. Keep in mind that the planning for winning this war was fairly okay, but they failed miserably for winning the peace, and the administration is not pointing out any clear plan for this either. In the mean time, more American soldiers and innocent Iraqis are dying out there, which increases the chances of a future civil war.

Good borders make good countries. Iraq will never achieve lasting peace as it's borders were not set up to make good neighbors. The factions that make up Iraq are too far apart in ideology and belief to bring unification in a way everyone there can live with.

It would be much easier to merge The United States, Canada and Mexico than to ever bring about a unified Iraq IMO.

Iraq is one of many Arabic countries of which none has ever known a democratic form of government. The concept is as foreign to them as baseball and hot dogs. I must say that I would not have attempted to enforce a specific form of government on the area. I would have approached the different ethnic factions in the area and asked them to join together in a loose confederacy and divided the region along ethnic lines and then got the heck out of dodge. I know that some of my detractors will scoff at the division of Iraq based along ethnic lines but this is something the Arab nations know and are comfortable with. Divisions along family lines are deeply engrained into the people in that region and would have prevented blood shed.
With that said I do believe that Iraq will one day be a reasonably safe place to live for Iraqi and Arab peoples. This will only be achieved once the political and ideological battles have been decided in the area. One must ask ones self ?why are the combatants in the area fighting as they do?? I think it is clear that there is a large force of non-Iraqi Muslim extremists in the area that are using Iraq as a battle ground to hurt the US. Their hatred of us will not stop once we?ve left the area as the new Iraqi government is seen as being a puppet to the US. If this government is to succeed it will do so only on the backs of Iraqi?s that are sick and tired of extremist ideology. One can look at Iraq as a model of our country during our revolution. During that time the ideas of freedom and democracy where vague and foreign to us as well.

Right now Iraq's stability depends on the US stomping down the insurgency. But to succeed, it has to be done right, and done fast.

We are already hated by a large and growing fraction of the Iraqi population. At some point, every hundred insurgents killed will be replaced by more than a hundred new ones, and once that begins, it will be impossible for us to leave cleanly.

Of course, if we screw up the counter-insurgency, and then don't recognize the time to leave, we could be there fighting fruitlessly for many years. At the end of which, we leave like we left Viet Nam, tail between our legs, and a government collapsing behind us.

Arafat always was and always will be a Terrorist. His entire organization the PLO is a Terror Organization remember the Achilles Laura "or however it was spelled"?

But having said that he is now considered a Moderate? compared to the splinter groups in his organization which are now sick and tired of waiting for their promised victory. While I do agree that a lot of the "Moderate" Palestine's don't like him the actions of that area are making this number smaller every day. Now if he dies without naming a preferred leader which is most likely because he never allowed anyone enough power within the PLO as they would have become a threat to him I can see that group splintering into thousands of individual core groups each trying to outdo the other in horrendous attacks upon their perceived enemy, namely the Jewish State and their Supporters.

How it ever came about that a known Terrorists was accepted as a Political leader is quite beyond me and the fact that he was elevated to his current position mainly by the Media only shows that he had at least the right idea in getting his people to follow him. Also the fact that he survived so many assignation attempts might have helped but even then I seriously wonder if they where staged as Mosard tends to work fairly effectively and if they really wanted him dead I can not see him living so long.

Col

Not if almost half of our country refuses to unite behind the president to stomp out terrorism....

Show me anywhere in history when terrorism has been wiped off the earth by force and lasting peace has prevailed.

You can't. It starts at least as far back as Cain and Able and goes on yet today.

You can eliminate a specific target like Al-Qaeda but Terrorism will never be stopped. Could they stop the Terrorists that threw the tea in Boston?

You have been duped if you really believe that one. Specific Terrorists Targets can successfully be stopped by force- Terrorism on the other hand can never be stomped out.

I am not a peacenik. I will support and use force when necessary. It's not about force or nothing or force or peace- it's about choosing the appropriate target.

The British thought the same way and brought about over 400 years of terrorist war between Ireland and the UK.

The good old "Gun Boat Diplomacy" failed miserably in India which was split due to religious lines into two countries Pakistan and India and even then the rapid retreat beat by the British left hundreds of thousands on the wrong side of the line and left to fend for themselves mostly they where murdered.

That conflict continues today.

What is currently going on is nothing more than a Knee Jerk Reaction to something that was previously unthinkable to most US citizens and so their Government had to look as if they where doing something to keep the peace.

But what ever made them think that Iraq would be an easy battle is beyond me. All it is achieving is to unite the fanatical Religious Muslims to band together and attack their perceived main hated enemy America!

A Gulf War Veteran asked me just why did I think that it was Iraq that was next in line after the mess in Afghanistan was left virtually unattended leaving the drug lords to run vast areas of the country.

My response was that Iraq could not expect to stand against the might of the COW forces where as every other country mentioned had the ability to fight to a stalemate. But that now appears to be happening in Iraq.

The real trouble here is that American civilian's are unable to comprehend that some others in the world just might not like them all that much and that shotting the living daylights out of some place and then stopping to ask questions may prove far more counter productive than other means that are likely to work better.

Besides GWB telling you that Iraq was involved in terrorist activities what real proof has ever been offered to prove this point. Your Allie in the UK has had to admit that he was wrong and made a mistake. Unfortunately most Americans are unable to accept that a mistake has been made and what is by far worse if a definitive win doesn't happen soon you are proving to the world that you are not the super power that you think you are. If a handful of poorly organized religious fanatics are capable of bring the Mighty USA to a stand still others will see this as an opportunity to launch their own attacks on your homeland.

When the War on Terror was started most of the world was behind your actions it was only when your leader started becoming a megalomaniac that support started dropping off and is continuing to do so for your actions. I think you are going to be learning a very nasty lesson.

Incidental do not think that it is the Muslim menace who is at fault here as if you look back to what was once Yugoslavia it was the Christians who where responsible for attempting to wipe off the face of the earth the other religions in their country.

Col

If you're going to take on a struggle that will cost lives and money and political resources for years, you need a good reason for the commitment. Otherwise, your country will grow tired of the sacrifice, and leaders will doubt the rationale. Remember Viet Nam? Was winning it worth a year of struggle and maybe 2,000 G.I.s? Sure, if it's easy, why not? Seven years and 58,000 lives, and still no sight of the end? Nope. We bailed.

Open-ended commitments are expensive in terms of cash. We haven't yet tried to balance our books; we've just put the whole bill for Iraq on credit. If it goes on long enough, you have to stop putting it on the tab, and start putting down cash. That means budget cuts for other worthy items. Remember, we're already running a half trillion dollar federal budget deficit, and a half trillion dollar trade deficit; our currency has dropped 25% in value in the last year; and we depend on foreigners to put their savings into our bonds, so we can keep on doing it. We could be heading for money trouble, in a big way, soon.

But also needed is a fight we can win. It's not easy turning a socialist country into a thriving capitalist society. It's not easy turning a dictatorship into a democracy. It's not easy making three mutually hostile peoples (Shiite, Kurd, and Sunni) share wealth and power cooperatively. It's not easy building political and legal traditions where none existed before. It's not easy doing all of these things in the midst of revolution, sabotage, and crime. And it's hard, above all, to turn Arab and Muslim peoples back toward the modern era, and away from the medieval and the radical and the murdering martyrdom they more and more idolize. While we occupy one of their countries and shoot them, no less.

We've got ourselves a heck of a fight. You can bet your Social Security on that. (The master strategist in the White House already has.) Hope we've got the sticking power, the money, and a fair chance to win.

In such places as most of mainland Europe through history and post-cold war Russia. You can also include Japan, China, South Africa, as well as a lot of Central and South America. Some are better examples than others and some have gone a lot farther down the path of stability than others but all have stabilized (sometimes in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds/internal opposition) or are in the latter processes.

Is Iraq going to be different? I think yes, in it's own right, it is one of several nations in a region known the world over for being unstable to begin with.

You do have a point about the Golan Heights. Israel could propose an exchange on the West Bank, or if it was removed by force then perhaps a third party peace-keeping force should maintain the Golan Heights.

At any rate, the U.S. should intervene there if we want to militarily attempt peace in the Middle East.

Than again, perhaps peace is not what we are really trying to effect.

Even Turkey has its own problems with the Kurds living within its borders wanting their own homeland.

India was a prime example of breaking up a country along religious lines and that didn't work out all that well either.

I really wish I had a better answer but currently Saddam ways seems like the best available in Iraq. With him in power there was never the problem of outsiders coming in causing problems like there is today. Even the most Radical Religious people kept a very low profile.

The current administration I think is doomed to fail because anyone who is willing to take on power lives under the constant threat of having members of their family kidnapped and killed unless they do as they are instructed and that is no way to run a country constantly giving into the faction that has the loudest mouthpiece. Even if that was accepted there would be other factions who would do the same thing for different results.

Col

Seems like the most peaceful place in the entire area. They only shoot at each other occasional just to let the other side know that they are still there.
But now that it is official that Arafat is dead I can not help but wonder what is going to happen now with the West Bank and other areas that should be Palestine.

Col

When did we go to england and Bomb and behead innocent civilians...These terrorists are not the moral equivilent of the people of the american revolution...I can see where you are coming from...rising up and rebelling....but to say that flying planes into civilian filled buildings....bombing cafe's and pizzarias and busses is equivilent....that is just not true..

While I think the analogy doesn't quite hold true, you can't dismiss it totally.

The Rebels did use tactics that were unconventional and radical for their time. Hit and run, ambush etc., were not considered civilized by European armies.

And many loyalists were driven from their homes by rebels - some were tarred and feathered, some run out on a rail, some had their places burned. Do you think its more humane to tar and feather someone than to kill them? Think about it - they didn't have burn units back then, tarring and feathering would have left a person in agonizing pain for years. Is this not the use of terror for political purposes? Isn't that what terrorism is? And while it may have been directed at adult males, it certainly negatively affected women and children as well. But of course the winner gets to write the story.

And of course there are other examples in modern history. When the area that became Isreal was run by the British, there were jewish terrorists that used bombs in public areas (King David Hotel), as well as ambushes and assasinations. But of course, the winner gets to write the story.

James

The proper definition of terrorism is

Main Entry: ter?ror?ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter?ror?ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter?ror?is?tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Now I'll be the first to admit that durring the War of Independence the US militia didn't fly commercial jet aircraft into British Buildings but but at the same time they did not have things like this to use. The Militia fought a constant rearguard action for the first few years of the war and followed the scorched earth policy denying the British from obtaining supplies from the land. This also meant that vast numbers of fellow American civilians where forcible displaced to hinder the British advance. Also any suspected sympathizers to the British where harshly dealt with by the Militia they not only had their homes destroyed and families split up but more often than not where left with hideous scars to scare others off from offering any support to the British.

The same type of thing happened in the Transvaal durring the Boar War and was used very effectively by the Dutch farmers who in reality had no chance of standing up against the British Army so they concocted other means of fighting the British.

They used hit and run tactics and torture for gaining information from the enemy. If you where to have a close look at the methods employed by the Dutch and the Americans in their respective wars you will find them both similar.

And while the American solders didn't behead their prisoners they did line them up against a wall and shot them {I believe you call it a firing squad.} Where you are missing the point is that you seem to think that the destruction of a whole building is the only form of terror but back in the days of your War of Independence you didn't have access to this type of thing so your people used what was at hand.

If my memory serves me correctly it was durring that war where a submarine was first used in an attempt to break the blockade of a harbor. Now it may not seem like much now days but back then if you where a sailor and something came from under the water and destroyed the Boat that you where a crew member on that would be just as terrifying as seeing a jet aircraft bearing down upon you. If not more so as at that stage this had never happened previously and would be unexplainable.

Terror takes many forms and the whole idea it to strike fear into the enemy, it is even more effective when it comes unexpectedly with common items that no one would think of as being dangerous.

Col