"We have bases, supply line. Supplies. Bunkers. Strongholds.
And anything you could deem necessary for waging a war. "

Anything necessary for waging a war...
Like the lives of ANOTHER 3500+ US soldiers that will just be pissed away for nothing?
Like ANOTHER few Thousand who'll be crippled, blinded and disfigured for life?
Like ANOTHER few Tens of Thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who will be killed by this bullsht?

The only soldiers who claim to have "actually been there" and talk crap like that were the techs stationed safely in Kuwait, or MPs sitting safely in the green zone, or grunts floating safely offshore on some carrier, who never "actually" took part in any "actual" fighting themselves.

"...no government likes whistle blowers, but at least we don't execute ours."

Did you miss the part about how he was afraid to say anything until he got back for fear he would be booted out of the green zone?

All the boys and all their toys, can't even secure the Green Zone. Military-Industrial complex run wild...

Do remember the Green Zone is a four square mile high security US military compound, protected by walls in some places that are 15 feet thick and manned by numerous US forces.

But we all agree that there is a very real police problem in Iraq. While I agree that multilateral enforcement and opening diplomatic channels with Iran and Syria are necessary (and let us not forget Turkey who is very wary of a potential Kurdistan), if the "number" is anywhere close to being correct, only more security forces can begin to quell the unchecked violence and the roving militias of all stripes.

I can't imagine that a person living outside of the Green Zone right now cares a whit about AIPAC or Palestine. They want, need, and deserve electricity, running water, and basic security. And American presence is essential to resolving this current problem (created and fostered by the incompetent and feckless bullish policies cited by Farhad) because the Americans are the only party with any resources. The moderate Iraqis have been starved by the stupid economic sanctions, the Kurds still decimated by Saddam, and the Baathists with knowledge/experience of governmental functions are still locked out.

And I think it profoundly oversimplifies things to say that the American presence is widely loathed. Certainly, the Sunnis loathe the American presence. The Kurds love us. The Shiites are ambivalent at best. Some of the most reliable reporters on the ground in Iraq (Burns, Packer, et al.) seem to indicate a deep ambivalence rather than a widespread loathing.

To the extent that the continued American presence radicalizes polity in the Middle East, it is the world we now live in. Radical Islam will not go away if Gaza and the West Bank is handed over to the Palestinians, though its appeal to young Muslims may indeed be dented by such actions.

Military escalation would only be viewed as an expansion of the forces, you do forget that while here in the west we put up with rhetoric, Iraqis are the ones who see massive military bases established in the Iraqi green zones. It would only drive more people into militias and various insurgent forces, the American presence creates this, there is a common enemy to attack by all sides.

From our perspective it looks like we are helping them out, but you forget that Iraqis were welcoming coalition forces in 1991, only to see them stop, pull back impose sanctions and empower Saddam to the point that you had to be in support of him or face certain death. Saddam is gone, the Americans are sticking around, Haliburton is making billions, while we are losing valuable voluntary troops. What's more sickening is that military presence is now little based on honor or duty, but economic reasons, going to small cities and communities to people who have nothing and hunting them down to recruit them into the army. Blackwater and other PMCs run around Iraq with no Army R.O.E. oversight or rules, they can take up any offensive position against Iraqis, the rules of the army don't apply to them.

More forces, more bullish positions would only strengthen and create the very Islamic army against the west. The only reason the American goverment will never pullout or do anything on it's own within this administration would be admitting defeat in their eyes, working multilaterally seems like such a horrible idea. However the fast pace of global economic interlinking must force the American people to reconsider their position, there is a chance now for a possible turnaround, but it will not happen, it takes a certain man to try and recover what has happened and that man is not in the White house. Nor has any candidate really proven themselves so much either.

Cheers on your response, your arguement certainly makes sense. However I believe that the US can ill afford another combat operation failure on the scale of Iraq, even a shift to plan B, not because of the implications in political shift but towards the American image over the last 60 years on the world stage. This would just deepen the US position in Iraq to one of long term occupation, already the military has plans for 11 or so permanent bases across the country with the Baghdad green zone being the heaviest developed.

It's interesting that you mentioned Battle of Algiers, yes the fact is the the French forces managed to stop the terrorist activities, however you fail to mention that through out that same time a political shift was taking place that ultimately countered the military successes achieved. This is the same thing that is happening right now at Congress, House and Senate.

The fact is yes, force deployment will end this situation because US forces are the best trained, the best equipped and are actively seeking new ways of countering the insurgency. But this is only the response now, there was no solid plan post capture of Baghdad because the administration in same ways probably hoped for a stand off with a limited Iraqi army not expecting the force collapse that occurred, a replay of Gulf War 1. There was no plan, well there was one but it got thrown out by the politicians.

However this would come at a severe political cost, the entire shift will change, the political process will paralyzed to use the same force responses if another event on 9/11 occurs because you will have those who will recall Iraq and Vietnam in the same breath, we cannot afford such a position with the American people who might not understand the wider implication of keeping a stabilized American presence in the Gulf.

I do not believe in pursuing a war that was put in motion by people who do not understand the local play out of the area. Bush Senior knew the country was too unstable to go into outright, his failure was not keeping up US force support in the same way that the Taliban goverment was toppled by support of the Northern Alliance.

In the mind set of the Arab people they draw parallels between this war and the Russian Chechen occupation that follows the exactly the same steps. There is a continuous force deployment by Russia, still peace and stability eludes them... they also occupy Chechnya because of it's importance to the oil supply.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dispatches-The-Dirty-War-in-Chechnya

Yes, sending more troops is probably the only sane policy. I'll get back to the probably a little later.

Why? Because the Middle East is the most strategic region in the world today; in other words it's not South East Asia. We have so many vested interests and long standing allies in the region, that even if the entire United States rallied around the idea of ending US involvement in the Middle East, it would still be several decades before our interests could be disentangled. The point is that if Iraq completely flys apart we will still have to deal with the consequences of a failed state; it is not as if we can just pull out and forget about the disaster that is Iraq. What happens there will continue to affect us even after we leave.

What could be potential consequences of a withdrawal? The Iraqi National Government has basically no authority outside of the green zone of Baghdad. What authority it has there is very tenuous. The reason the government hasn't completely collapsed is because of the support of two groups: the Americans, and the Shiite militias. American support of the government is able to keep the influence of the Shiite militias to a controlled level (although the Saddam execution video would suggest that we are increasingly no longer able to keep such influence controlled). If we withdraw all support of the government however, so that "the Iraqi's can do what they ought to be doing for themselves", we will leave behind a power vacuum that will almost certainly be filled by organizations like Moqtada Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. If the Shiite Militias are able to get control of the government we can almost be assured of "ethnic cleansing" of the minority Sunni, and possibly Kurd, population by the majority Shiites. Even if we are so anxious to end involvement in Iraq that we are willing to accept such a humanitarian disaster as an outcome, we have to consider the repercussions of leaving what will likely amount to genocide in our wake. Namely, Iraq's Sunni neighbors (like Egypt) will unlikely be willing to watch fellow Sunnis be slaughtered. An intervention by Sunni states will almost certainly provoke a response by Shiite Iran to protect Shiite interests in Iraq. As you can probably see, a regional war is a very distinct possible outcome of Iraq completely coming apart. That would cause a huge humanitarian crisis in the region and would provoke economic disruption around the world (given that the global economy needs Middle Eastern oil to run). Such a war would serve no one's interests, and it is in fact in everyone's interest to try to prevent it.

very good points, and I agree with most.
There are 3 options that I can see..

1) Indefinite troop deployment, the Iraqi government evolves into a kind of american hybrid system, green zones and "insurgent" attacks continue, eventual spread of "freedom" into neighbouring countries.

2) Troop withdrawal over the coming years, when americans are satisfied that they have done enough to say they tried, probably violent collapse of the systems put in place. Only to be replaced later by some unknown government system (probably financed by Iran).

3) Immediate troop replacement with UN forces totally devoid of any of the current "coalition of the willing", a UN oversight on political structure and an attempt to leave the Iraqi culture in place without diseasing it with International companies.

the third option is probably a little hopeful, as alot of countries are unwilling to risk their soldiers on an american adventure, but if it were truely an international effort there would be no nation state that would be the face of the occupation and would therefor act to calm the situation.

As is, it's a bloody mess, that has totally destroyed any faith I had in the US, UK or my own governments(Australia). The only way to start making it better is to take the current occupiers out of the play, and invest all efforts in trying to restore the damage done to the UN's reputation and in turn the Iraqi government.

And one more man with nothing left to lose when he straps that C4 to his chest and walks into an American patroled "Green Zone."