We "should not be thinking about withdrawal"? You NEVER send your troops anywhere without thinking about withdrawal.That's insane.If more troops were required,they should have been there from day 1 - Not two years and untold deaths later.

And those additional troops need to be local Iraqis. Let us train and equip them, but we cannot stay there forever.

Sure. . .all we have to do to to 'fix' the Middle East is send more troops. They're just dying to change to democracy. . .did Walt Freakin' Disney write this foreign policy philosophy? Got news for you kids - you're scared of them a hell of a lot more than they are scared of you. . .the schoolyard-bully mentality of more troops=moral/religious/social victory isn't going to cut it in the middle east. . .read some history books.

How short-sighted and unintelligent the bring our troops home now group sounds. Citing that 65% of Americans support at least a reduction in military personnel committed to the theater, therefore, let's yank them out ASAP! All of them. Because, after all, we can't kill every terrorist. Based on that impeccable logic, why fight World War II? You can't kill every Nazi. Conservatives hate this war, as they hate every war. The difference is that we believe there is a time to fight, where liberals never seem to rise to the occasion. My frustration comes from my realization that the liberal whining is winning. America's will is being broken. When that happens, we do stupid things and a lot of people die. Not just 1,700, thousands, sometimes millions. Maybe there's a chance that a stubborn, lame duck president, who will be reminded ad nauseum about sagging poll numbers day after day will realize he still has a spine. That the effort was worthy of the sacrifice already made and tell the battalion of crybabies to sob all they want. We're going to see this new Iraqi government through. We're going to maintain the honor of those who have died, and give these people a chance at what so many have fought and died for. It doesn't matter now why the war was initiated, as obfuscated have become its original causes through your phoney, false mantras. People are dying there every day and all you want to project is weakness, panic and second-guessing with incomplete information.

Seriously, when are you mere 37% (projected 25% within the next 6 months AS SAID BY FREAKING BILL O'REILLY) going to give up. This is not a worthy war. I was astonished that this was at the top of the list, then I realized only 6 people had left ratings lol. Iraq, as it is being played out now, is a mistake, there are republicans in the senate, suburbs, trailor parks, and all points in between who know that. YOU ARE WRONG. It is very sad that it has come to this. But it should have all been avoided. There is ZERO chance that there will be more troops on the ground, ZERO. Army recrution is at a near record low, support for the war is at an all time record low that gets lower every day, and we have already lost 1700 troops. Can't deny the FACTS. People can come up with all sorts of ridiculous excuses for the pathetic approval rate; bias news, uninformed, whatever. That's bull.......... UPDATE. I did sort of misquote myslef on here and that makes me look pretty stupid. Yes, I agree that it was good that we got Sadam out of power, and it is good that the Iraqi's got to vote in democratic elections. When these were defined goals, that was when the approval rate was 65%. But, now that those goals are completed, what are we there for? Oh that's right, to fight terrorism. Hate to break it to you, but you can't beat terrorism all together. You can't have a literal war on terror. It is essential that you fight terrorism, but not with a literal war. NOBODY WILL EVER KILL EVERY TERRORIST OUT THERE. That is impossible. You will never stop terrorism all together, NEVER. You can reduce it, you can make it less violent, you can punish the terrorists. But you can't get rid of them all, which seems to be the goal, if there even is one anymore, of this war. If we are planning on staying in Iraq untill we make terrorism non-existant, we will be there for all eternity, because that simply can't and won't happen. You can call that pesimistic all you wan't, but everyone knows that that is simply REALISTIC.

One of the biggest mistakes we made at the onset of this invasion was not having enough troops on the ground. As it stands now we are still undermanned. In a nation the size of California the 135,000 troops we have in theatre is greatly insufficient- particularly because our enemy is a largely foreign terrorist insurgency. This is a war that is, and should be won. Mistakes occur in all wars- from a historical perspective this has been a highly successful operation, but we need to make the adjustments necessary that ensure that greatest possibility for the most rapid success possible- and that demands more troops. *******Update- So when the approval rating FOR the war was over 65% then it was the correct decision? And what exactly makes it a mistake? Because some dumbass on RIA says so? Wars don't occur in a vacuum nor are they best judged in the ephemeral. 1700 troops have died- every one of them a huge loss- but are we to say WWII wasn't worth it because millions died? Was the Vietnam War executed more efficiently because of our government's reliance on public opinion polls? In MY opinion this war is and will continue to be justified, moral and necessary. Democratic elections in a nation that's lived under tyranny for almost a century are a mistake? The eradication of a merciless and brutal dicator that exterminated close to a million people is a mistake? The execution of a war that is fostering change in the Middle East is a mistake? Far from it! This War is a success thus far. Have mistakes been made- they have in every war ever fought. And didn't we had a presidential election a couple months back where that idiot Bush skillfully defended his record and foreign policy decisions? Don't you think that would have been the time when polls really mattered? Here's a poll for you- Bush garnered 60 million plus votes- the most in this nation's history. Not because his policies are complete failures but because the nation knew he was the better man for the job.

I cant even comprehend the pure stupidity of some people. First of all, why, just one realistic answer, are there troops in Iraq? Why did this administration decide to go to war with the country of Iraq? Sure, Saddam was a cruel destructive human being, but so are many other dictators in China, Cuba, Vietnam and some parts of Africa (to name a few). If the US is the world police then there is much to be done. Everyone is more than aware that it had nothing to do with aggression towards the US, no WMD, no ability to do a damn thing.period! The insurgents came after the US waged war. The country is a battlefield of epic proportions. The US is building bases there and closing bases in the states, why!? Wake up you drooling Kool-Aid drinkers!! Anyone who still believes that Bush is doing things for the good of us is seriously in need of smelling salts.

The serious ineptitude with which this war was launched is quite disturbing, and can be credited to the difficulties we are facing today. A greater initial troop presence in Iraq would've allowed us to possibly suppress the insurgency before it started, and secure the weapon stations where insurgents obtained the weapons they are now using on our troops. The lack of initial troop strength may have resulted in the unnecessary loss of troops and the proliferation of our difficulties in Iraq.

This would be a bad strategy. If the troops were to up and leave, there would be chaos, and to magellans point, the troop presence is too small to do the job. But which troops? A secure Iraq is in everyones interest, not just the United States'. I think that UN peacekeeping forces could be introduced to help relieve US troops stationed in Iraq, starting perhaps with taking over routine security duties, and this could be coupled with a handover of the contract administration to the UN. Now, some of you may be reeling at this, shouting about Oil for Food and so on let me just anticipate that: I do not think this is a great solution, but it may be the most pragmatic, if you are really interested in moving things forward, and it would relieve the burden on the United States both in terms of loss of life and in financial terms for the US taxpayer. It would also possibly shift perception in the Arab world of this being a US war fought for US economic interests. This perception feeds the grass roots for terrorist organizations.

I am squarely in the camp that says we don't have enough troops on the ground to subdue a country with a population of 23M that spans about 170K square miles. As things stand to today, we are positioning our forces to fail. I don't see withdrawal as an option, and I'd like to see our operation in Iraq given a chance to succeed.