"Bill Bonde" <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F146E6F.CA71061A@backpacker.com...
>
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f145525$0$24571$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> > > > http://nytimes.com/aponline/internat...P-Iraq.html?hp
> > > > Iraqi Council Convenes in First Step Towards Self-Government
> > > > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> > >
> > > APPOINTED Iraqi Council.
> > >
> > > Bush's idea of the democratic process. Of course, that shouldn't come
as
> > a
> > > surprise to a propagandist like you, Dr. After all, Bush was
appointed
> > > himself. What could he possibly know about the democratic process?
> >
> > I certainly hope that council moves Iraq towards a stable democracy,
> >
> Point out to Gandoof that there was no way to bootstrap a full democracy
> without a transition period. His sour grapes icky faces are getting to
> be a bit much.

A fair point, but clearly pointing to the existence of this council means
very little.

> > but
> > it's pretty easy to find people in the various factions who will serve,
the
> > test comes with whether or not power gets back on, stability comes to
the
> > streets, Americans stop being ambushed, and the economy of Iraq gets
moving
> > again.
> >
> Do you think that the power will never get back on? Think long term.

Of all of these, that should be the easiest. But if you'd asked me in April
if I thought the power would still be out and things would be this messy in
July, I'd have said no -- and I'm one who was convinced ahead of time
winning the peace would be much more difficult than was being proclaimed.

> > Clearly, though, this is *not* what the neo-cons expected. They thought
> > Chalabi, with ties to the Pentagon, would be welcomed by the Iraqi
people.
> > This was clearly not expected, and their improvising. One can hope this
> > council is effective, but it's existence alone says little about where
Iraq
> > is headed.
> >
> What has happened is pretty much what was expected.

That contradicts what is being reported from inside sources at the White
House and Pentagon, and it contradicts public statements before the war.

"Bill Bonde" <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F1474F9.FD165F0@backpacker.com...
>
>
> Canard wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:43:01 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
> > <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"John Willimans" <john@no-spam-ever.com> wrote in message
> > >news:UEYQa.56200$3o3.3767310@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >>
> > >> "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:nQXQa.26905$GF2.6771024@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > >> > "John Willimans" <john@no-spam-ever.com> wrote in message
> > >> > news:BRXQa.56146$3o3.3764356@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >> Snip...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > > And we still get 15 dead/month and uncounted wounded. It is
> > >> > "liberated"?
> > >> >
> > >> > Right, and in about 280 years the KIA's will catch up
> > >> > with Vietnam. I like the way Leftists are always thinking
> > >> > ahead.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> There were an average of 370 deaths in the Vietnam war from 1961 -
> > >1965.
> > >
> > >Ah, U.S. involvement in Vietnam did not get heavy
> > >*until* 1965. In Iraq, we have already defeated the Hussein
> > >regime and taken control of the country. There is no equivalent
> > >of the Viet Cong and certainly no North Vietnamese Army
> > >in Iraq. You'll find that disappointing, I'm sure, but it's the truth.
> > >
> > ><snip list of courageous American soldiers who have died
> > >in Iraq because they don't deserve to have their names posted
> > >by an imbecile>
> >
> > Dude... if there are 200+ American dead in four months, having
> > "...already defeated the Hussein regime and taken control of the
> > country", and given that "There is no equivalent of the Viet Cong and
> > certainly no North Vietnamese Army..." present in Iraq, isn't this a
> > *bad* indication and not a good one? Only three weeks of those four
> > months represent major combat.
> >
> > The job got done in Iraq, unlike in Vietnam as you point out,
> > yet US soldiers are dying almost every day where you suggest there is
> > no significant enemy. What happens if the resistance in Iraq really
> > organizes and *seriously* arms itself?
> >
> It would have to get weapons from somewhere. If the US figured out where
> they were coming from, that would be reason enough to attack that
> country. The Cold War is over, the policy of pretending all roads don't
> lead back to our real enemies is obsolete. If Syria is funnelling arms
> in, Syria is likely to see regime change.
>

Sounds like "draft" time to me.

> And assuming they did get serious again, they would start to present a
> good target for what the US military has the most advantage, attack from
> the air and heavily armoured vehicles such as tanks.
>
>
>
> > Furthermore: are Iraq casualties of no concern UNTIL such a
> > time as they reach Vietnam levels? You are not concerned now?
> >
> Are you concerned about how many Americans have died since the Iraqi war
> started from lung cancer?
>

It's called "Preventable". Look it up.

>
>
> --
> "So if you want these horses, I sell them to you. Did you bring some
> gold with you?"
> "Nope."
> "Silver?"
> "Just lead."
> -+John Wayne, "Chisum"

John Willimans wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde" <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3F1474F9.FD165F0@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > Canard wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:43:01 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
> > > <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"John Willimans" <john@no-spam-ever.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:UEYQa.56200$3o3.3767310@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >>
> > > >> "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:nQXQa.26905$GF2.6771024@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > > >> > "John Willimans" <john@no-spam-ever.com> wrote in message
> > > >> > news:BRXQa.56146$3o3.3764356@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >> Snip...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > > And we still get 15 dead/month and uncounted wounded. It is
> > > >> > "liberated"?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Right, and in about 280 years the KIA's will catch up
> > > >> > with Vietnam. I like the way Leftists are always thinking
> > > >> > ahead.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> There were an average of 370 deaths in the Vietnam war from 1961 -
> > > >1965.
> > > >
> > > >Ah, U.S. involvement in Vietnam did not get heavy
> > > >*until* 1965. In Iraq, we have already defeated the Hussein
> > > >regime and taken control of the country. There is no equivalent
> > > >of the Viet Cong and certainly no North Vietnamese Army
> > > >in Iraq. You'll find that disappointing, I'm sure, but it's the truth.
> > > >
> > > ><snip list of courageous American soldiers who have died
> > > >in Iraq because they don't deserve to have their names posted
> > > >by an imbecile>
> > >
> > > Dude... if there are 200+ American dead in four months, having
> > > "...already defeated the Hussein regime and taken control of the
> > > country", and given that "There is no equivalent of the Viet Cong and
> > > certainly no North Vietnamese Army..." present in Iraq, isn't this a
> > > *bad* indication and not a good one? Only three weeks of those four
> > > months represent major combat.
> > >
> > > The job got done in Iraq, unlike in Vietnam as you point out,
> > > yet US soldiers are dying almost every day where you suggest there is
> > > no significant enemy. What happens if the resistance in Iraq really
> > > organizes and *seriously* arms itself?
> > >
> > It would have to get weapons from somewhere. If the US figured out where
> > they were coming from, that would be reason enough to attack that
> > country. The Cold War is over, the policy of pretending all roads don't
> > lead back to our real enemies is obsolete. If Syria is funnelling arms
> > in, Syria is likely to see regime change.
> >
>
> Sounds like "draft" time to me.
>
Since there is no shortage of soldiers, I doubt it.




> > And assuming they did get serious again, they would start to present a
> > good target for what the US military has the most advantage, attack from
> > the air and heavily armoured vehicles such as tanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Furthermore: are Iraq casualties of no concern UNTIL such a
> > > time as they reach Vietnam levels? You are not concerned now?
> > >
> > Are you concerned about how many Americans have died since the Iraqi war
> > started from lung cancer?
> >
>
> It's called "Preventable". Look it up.
>
The lung cancer isn't largely preventable? What are you saying?

John Willimans wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde" <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3F146B54.4C857CEF@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > John Willimans wrote:
> > >
> > > "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:nQXQa.26905$GF2.6771024@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > > > "John Willimans" <john@no-spam-ever.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:BRXQa.56146$3o3.3764356@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > Snip...
> > >
> > > > > And we still get 15 dead/month and uncounted wounded. It is
> > > > "liberated"?
> > > >
> > > > Right, and in about 280 years the KIA's will catch up
> > > > with Vietnam. I like the way Leftists are always thinking
> > > > ahead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There were an average of 370 deaths in the Vietnam war from 1961 - 1965.
> We
> > > have 200+ in *4 MONTHS*.
> > >
> > We've had 32 combat deaths since the end of major combat. 32. More
> > people have died in accidents.
>
> And that doesn't concern you? You aren't concerned that over 200 Americans
> have died and it now is starting to look like the "evidence' for going to
> war was falsified?
>
Intelligence data is often not conclusive. The documents that were
thought authentic turned out to have been forged. There is other
information, however, suggesting that Saddam did seek uranium. None of
this matters because Saddam should have been overthrown just for the
human rights violations totally over two million people since he invaded
Kuwait.



> And *YOU* ***** about Clinton?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>
I recall that Clinton bombed Iraq because of WMDs that Clinton said Iraq
had. I recall that Clinton bombed and invaded the Balkans for purely
human rights reasons. In the case of Iraq, the human rights reasons were
orders of magnitude greater.

"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.0307151704.69ea7790@posting.google.c om...
> "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<80YQa.26906$GF2.6774374@twister.nyc.rr.com>. ..
> > "M Potter" <m_k_potter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:371117a5.0307151046.459643eb@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3tUQa.26854$GF2.6717210@twister.nyc.rr.com>. ..
> > > > "Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > >
news:8gUQa.55556$0v4.3795791@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in
message
> > > > > news:b9eb3efe.0307150624.263a83fc@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/...postwar.php?nn
> > > > > n=6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Analysis: U.S. failed to plan for postwar Iraq
> > > > > > Knight Ridder News
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WASHINGTON - The small circle of senior civilians in the
> > Defense
> > > > > > Department who dominated planning for postwar Iraq failed
to
> > prepare
> > > > > > for the setbacks that have erupted over the past two
months.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans
because
> > they
> > > > > > believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open
arms
> > and
> > > > > > Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as
the
> > country's
> > > > > > leader. The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State
> > Department
> > > > > > experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure
to
> > back
> > off
> > > > > > from their favored exile leader and when their scenario
> > collapsed
> > amid
> > > > > > increasing violence and disorder, they had no backup plan.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course! I couldn't believe the pre-war optimism that we
> > would be
> > > > > welcomed, celebrated as heros, and democracy easily
installed.
> > I
> > noted that
> > > > > experts in political systems (like they have at the CIA and
> > State
> > > > > Department) have long concluded that sort of thing isn't
likely
> > in a
> > country
> > > > > like Iraq. They let fantasy dictate strategy, wishful think
> > tank
> > thinking
> > > > > dictate policy...and America will pay the price.
> > > >
> > > > Two and a half months after Iraq was liberated:
> > > >
> > > > http://nytimes.com/aponline/internat...P-Iraq.html?hp
> > > > Iraqi Council Convenes in First Step Towards Self-Government
> > > > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> > > >
> > > > Filed at 2:06 p.m. ET
> > > >
> > > > BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A 25-member governing council of
prominent
> > > > Iraqis from diverse political and religious backgrounds was
named
> > at
> > > > an inaugural meeting Sunday, the first national body since the
> > fall of
> > > > Saddam Hussein and a crucial first step on the nation's path
to
> > > > democracy.
> > >
> > > Yes, this is the relatively easy part, picking 25 "prominent
Iraqis"
> > > and calling them a governing council.
> >
> > Actually, finding 25 Iraqis from the various factions within
> > Iraq who were both suitable and dedicated to the job
> > of forming a new government was probably pretty difficult.
>
> Not really since those favored by Wolfowitz, Perle and the Pentagon
> got in real easy! And since we originaly got the Bath Party and
then
> Saddam in Power in Iraq,
>
>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/aburish.html
>
> We are most likely looking for a more mild form of the Bath Party
> and a Saddam type Leader to run our Empire there! It is just a
change
> in our appointed leader for Iraq! Rome did it all the time also!
And
> since we are building two huge intelligence facilities there,
>
> http://debka.com/article.php?aid=512
>
> we are apparently staying with troops for a long time until our new
> Saddam can weild total power again - a More cute Saddam of course!
> But one that will keep our influence there!

You're a fairly considerable imbecile, did you know
that?

"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<80YQa.26906$GF2.6774374@twister.nyc.rr.com>. ..
> "M Potter" <m_k_potter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:371117a5.0307151046.459643eb@posting.google.c om...
> > "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<3tUQa.26854$GF2.6717210@twister.nyc.rr.com>. ..
> > > "Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:8gUQa.55556$0v4.3795791@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:b9eb3efe.0307150624.263a83fc@posting.google.c om...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/...postwar.php?nn
> > > > n=6
> > > > >
> > > > > Analysis: U.S. failed to plan for postwar Iraq
> > > > > Knight Ridder News
> > > > >
> > > > > WASHINGTON - The small circle of senior civilians in the
> Defense
> > > > > Department who dominated planning for postwar Iraq failed to
> prepare
> > > > > for the setbacks that have erupted over the past two months.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because
> they
> > > > > believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms
> and
> > > > > Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the
> country's
> > > > > leader. The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State
> Department
> > > > > experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure to
> back
> off
> > > > > from their favored exile leader and when their scenario
> collapsed
> amid
> > > > > increasing violence and disorder, they had no backup plan.
> > > >
> > > > Of course! I couldn't believe the pre-war optimism that we
> would be
> > > > welcomed, celebrated as heros, and democracy easily installed.
> I
> noted that
> > > > experts in political systems (like they have at the CIA and
> State
> > > > Department) have long concluded that sort of thing isn't likely
> in a
> country
> > > > like Iraq. They let fantasy dictate strategy, wishful think
> tank
> thinking
> > > > dictate policy...and America will pay the price.
> > >
> > > Two and a half months after Iraq was liberated:
> > >
> > > http://nytimes.com/aponline/internat...P-Iraq.html?hp
> > > Iraqi Council Convenes in First Step Towards Self-Government
> > > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> > >
> > > Filed at 2:06 p.m. ET
> > >
> > > BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A 25-member governing council of prominent
> > > Iraqis from diverse political and religious backgrounds was named
> at
> > > an inaugural meeting Sunday, the first national body since the
> fall of
> > > Saddam Hussein and a crucial first step on the nation's path to
> > > democracy.
> >
> > Yes, this is the relatively easy part, picking 25 "prominent Iraqis"
> > and calling them a governing council.
>
> Actually, finding 25 Iraqis from the various factions within
> Iraq who were both suitable and dedicated to the job
> of forming a new government was probably pretty difficult.

Not really since those favored by Wolfowitz, Perle and the Pentagon
got in real easy! And since we originaly got the Bath Party and then
Saddam in Power in Iraq,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/aburish.html

We are most likely looking for a more mild form of the Bath Party
and a Saddam type Leader to run our Empire there! It is just a change
in our appointed leader for Iraq! Rome did it all the time also! And
since we are building two huge intelligence facilities there,

http://debka.com/article.php?aid=512

we are apparently staying with troops for a long time until our new
Saddam can weild total power again - a More cute Saddam of course!
But one that will keep our influence there!




>
> I suspect that they'll make very good progress, create
> a federal system that gives a lot of control to regional
> and local authorities so that the various ethnic and
> religious communities can be accommodated, and in
> the end come up with a fairly strong government
> that features some pretty strong law and order functions.

Why?? We did not do that with our first installment of Saddam!

>
> In the meantime, the U.S. and U.K. need to keep
> killing the snipers and assorted terrorists, keep
> working on the infrastructure, and get the oil industry
> up and running so that there's a good homegrown
> supply of cash.

Or a usable supply of cash for Halburtin and other Corporations
identified with Bush and Cheney! I seem to remember Bush saying we
were going to pay for Iraq's rebuilding = Now we have version 4aFP1 -
Iraq Oil enriches Haliburtin and the new leaders we put in power!

You may recall this debate on Book-TV last week in which Conservative
Richard Posner says that we don't have a Democracy in the US and
should avoid it like the Plague!:

http://www.booktv.org/General/index....l+ Assignment

On Saturday, July 12 at 4:00 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Posner - Jamin Raskin Debate
Description: From American University in Washington, DC, Richard
Posner and Jamin Raskin debate the idea of what constitutes a good
democratic government. Richard Posner argues that democratic
governments work best when they are run by political elites
("specialists"), working through established governing institutions,
with minimal input from the public. He says that humanity is made up
of wolves (those who will fight to gain wealth and power) and sheep
(those who are naturally subservient and politically uninterested),
and that the goal is to create a system of government that will
domesticate the wolves to serve the greater society of sheep. Jamin
Raskin supports the idea of "participatory democracy," in which
citizens play an active role in government. He argues that governing
institutions cannot always be trusted to act in the interest of the
general public (as was evidenced during the 2000 presidential
election) and that constitutional amendments are required to guarantee
that the public's democratic rights are always protected. Both authors
answered questions from the audience following their remarks.

Author Bio: Richard Posner serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit and is a senior lecurer in law at University
of Chicago Law School. Judge Posner is the author of several books,
including "Economic Analysis of Law," "The Problems of Jurisprudence,"
and "Overcoming Law." Jamin Raskin is a professor of law at American
University in Washington, DC. Professor Raskin is the author of "We
the Students: Supreme Court Cases For and About Students."

Publisher: Raskin: Routledge 29 W. 35th Street New York, NY 10001
Posner: Harvard University Press 79 Garden Street Cambridge, MA 02138

Buy the Book

Dr. Hannibal Lecter, posting as "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote in message news:ys1Ra.26977$GF2.6900127@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> You're a fairly considerable imbecile, did you know
> that?

You're psychotic. Did you know that?

>
>

"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:8gUQa.55556$0v4.3795791@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:b9eb3efe.0307150624.263a83fc@posting.google.c om...
>>
> http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/...ty/q-postwar.p
> hp?nn n=6
>>
>> Analysis: U.S. failed to plan for postwar Iraq
>> Knight Ridder News
>>
>> WASHINGTON - The small circle of senior civilians in the Defense
>> Department who dominated planning for postwar Iraq failed to prepare
>> for the setbacks that have erupted over the past two months.
>>
>>
>> The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because they
>> believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms and
>> Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the
>> country's leader. The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State
>> Department experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure
>> to back off from their favored exile leader and when their scenario
>> collapsed amid increasing violence and disorder, they had no backup
>> plan.
>
> Of course! I couldn't believe the pre-war optimism that we would be
> welcomed, celebrated as heros, and democracy easily installed. I
> noted that experts in political systems (like they have at the CIA and
> State Department) have long concluded that sort of thing isn't likely
> in a country like Iraq. They let fantasy dictate strategy, wishful
> think tank thinking dictate policy...and America will pay the price.
> What they have to do is swallow their pride, go to the UN, and work
> WITH the rest of the world and recognize we are NOT the kind of
> unilateral power they fantasized us to be. Their dreams have been
> proven illusionary.

"Proven"? Only to those with a pre-determined leftist worldview.

These things do not happen overnight.

Let the New York Times explain it to you:

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Winning the Real War
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
July 16, 2003

Last Sunday was the most important day in Iraq since the start of the
war, and maybe the most important day in its modern history. It was the
first day that one could speak about the "liberation" of Iraq. It was the
day that a multireligious, multiethnic Governing Council of Iraqi men and
women began to assume some power and responsibility for their own country
— the most representative leadership Iraq has ever had.

And what was their first act? It was to declare that April 9, the day
Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, would be a national holiday.
President Bush, Gen. Tommy Franks and The Weekly Standard could all call
April 9 Iraq's V-E Day, but it became real only when the first
representative Council of Iraqis embraced that day as their liberation.
It is way too early to know whether this appointed Iraqi Council will
flourish and pave the way for constitutional government and elections in
Iraq, which is its assignment. It will first have to prove itself to the
Iraqi people — and prove that while most Iraqis may not want us or
Saddam, they do want one another. But these are not quislings, and
therefore the Council's formation is a hugely important first step. This
is what we came for. There is hope.

Had you been watching most American news shows or cable TV last Sunday,
though, you would not have gotten a sense of this. They were focused
almost exclusively on who was responsible for hyping Saddam's nuclear
arms potential. This is understandable. The notion that the president may
have misled the nation into war, and then blamed it on the C.I.A., is a
big story.

For me, though, it is a disturbing thought that the Bush team could get
itself so tied up defending its phony reasons for going to war — the
notion that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that were
undeterrable and could threaten us, or that he had links with Al Qaeda —
that it could get distracted from fulfilling the real and valid reason
for the war: to install a decent, tolerant, pluralistic, multireligious
government in Iraq that would be the best answer and antidote to both
Saddam and Osama.

If the Bush team wants to win the real war, it must keep its eyes on the
prize and that means the following:

First, U.S. forces need to finish the war. Sorry, Mr. President, but
"major combat" is not over as you declared. Because major combat never
happened in the core Sunni Muslim areas of Baghdad and the Sunni triangle
to the west, where 80 percent of the attacks on U.S. forces now come
from. What happened instead is that two divisions of Saddam's Republican
Guards, which dominated these areas, simply melted away, and are now
killing U.S. troops. These regions need to be reinvaded and then showered
with reconstruction funds.

Second, we must provide massive support for the new Council in Iraq to
enable it to assume more powers as quickly as possible. The more power it
assumes, the more it speaks for Iraq and Iraqis to the Arab world, the
more it will be clear that America is the midwife of Iraq's liberation,
not its occupier, and those who shoot at us are shooting down Iraq's (and
the Arab world's) future. Russia, France and Germany hold most of Iraq's
$60 billion in foreign debt. Most of this needs to be forgiven. The Bush
team needs to get off its high horse and challenge, and reach out to,
Russia, France, Germany and the Arabs — to get those who were so ready to
coddle Saddam's dictatorship to support a self-governing Iraq.

Third, according to Peter Bouckaert, senior researcher for emergencies at
Human Rights Watch, over 20 mass graves have already been uncovered in
Iraq, and there may be as many as 90. One grave alone in Hilla is
estimated to contain 10,000 people murdered by Saddam's regime. Human
Rights Watch estimates that there are 300,000 people missing in Iraq.
President Bush is flailing around looking for Saddam's unused weapons of
mass destruction, when evidence of his actual mass destruction is all
over the place in Iraq. Yet the Pentagon has done almost nothing to help
Iraqis properly exhume these graves, prepare evidence for a war crimes
tribunal or expose this mass murder to the world.

Eyes on the prize, please. If we find W.M.D. in Iraq, but lose Iraq, Mr.
Bush will not only go down as a failed president, but one who made the
world even more dangerous for Americans. If we find no W.M.D., but build
a better Iraq — one that proves that a multiethnic, multireligious Arab
state can rule itself in a decent way — Mr. Bush will survive his hyping
of the W.M.D. issue, and the world will be a more hospitable and safer
place for all Americans.