I posted a link, also, which apparently you neglected to read. This is a telling omission, madkow. From the link:

"A draft of the report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said Iraq met only three out of 18 benchmarks, The Washington Post reported. The report is to be delivered to Congress on Tuesday.

The findings appeared at odds with a more positive assessment the White House gave in July that Iraq had made progress on eight out of 18 benchmarks."

So, based on past experience with the way Bushies twist & spin information, who are you gonna trust: the investigative arm of Congress, or the White House?

;)

We have no idea what will happen when we leave Iraq. Here's a pretty good essay covering the subject:

http://www.commondreams.org...

I hope you read this one. From the article:

"The honest (though not very satisfying) answer is that no one really knows what will happen in Iraq after the United States leaves. Interestingly, a poll in March found that a majority of Iraqis thought the security situation would improve immediately after a U.S. withdrawal. But things could also get worse — and anyone who claims to have a crystal ball is lying."

Here's another question for you to ponder: based on your definition of democracy, how does that mesh with the reality of muslim clerics & their involvement in government? Sure, we have the occassional minister who runs for congress, but they (pretty much) leave Leviticus at home when they decide how to vote. No one here advocates stoning mixed-fabric wearers, for instance.

I think you need to seriously evaluate your definition of "all hell breaking loose".  Missing some goals does not mean that all hell has broken loose. (And BTW, I failed to find what the news articles were talking about when they said that only 3 goals were met- did you even read the benchmark assessment report? I posted a link.)  I believe I already went through the scenario of "all hell breaking loose" in a previous post and you considered it outright silly.  Apparently even though we are involved in a war in a region you consider to be not cohesive, you think that if we pulled out, war would be just "silly" and improbable.  We are stabilizing because, if we left there would be war and it would be a very ugly war.  If you would like to see what kind of weapons and armaments there are in the region, see this website: http://www.globalsecurity.o...

I don't know how long it will take for tolerance to come about- that is not something anyone can predict.  Perhaps when they remember that they are all human beings and recognize the rights of others.  It took the United States a long time to recognize the rights of women and Black Americans.  And we were a fully functioning state prior to this recognition.  Do you recall that America is considered a melting pot for the world?  We have first-hand experience in diversity and it has proven to be one of our greatest strengths.

Democracy by it's very nature is perfect for overcoming diversity.  The formal definition is: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.  Could you suggest a better form of government for a diverse population?  Democracy enables all citizens to have a voice- not just the elite, not just one religious group, not just one ethnicity.  Please, if you know of a better form of government, let me know.

So I'll ask again: if the Iraqi government is determined to have missed 15 of the 18 benchmarks, does this mean "all hell has broken loose"? If the number of deaths in Iraq hasn't been reduced, if the necessary basic services (water, electricity, jobs) haven't been provided to the civilian population, if the number of young Iraqis being rounded up to "clear" an area has increased, do any of these mean we aren't as "stabilizing" a presence as once believed?

I'd also still like to know, in your opinion, how democracy can overcome the lack of national cohesion in Iraq. How long do you think it will take to bring tolerance of religion to Iraq, something that's necessary for a diverse people to live together without killing each other?

All right, I'll bite back:  A presence is stabilizing when it prevents all hell from breaking loose.  We went in there and messed a lot of things up- why would we just leave it to degrade into something even worse?  Though how I got into a position of having to defend Bush's current plan is beyond me.  I've said from the beginning that it was faulty and needed to be changed.

I am reading up on the benchmarks, not having known exactly what they are.  This is the source I am reading from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/n...
It appears that these are the areas we have satisfactorily completed (and I quote them verbatim):  (1) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review, (2) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions, (3) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committes in Support of the Baghdad security plan, (4) providing three Trained and Ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations, (5) Ensuring that, as Prime Minister Maliki was quoted by President Bush as saying "the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] secratian or political affiliations, (6) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Iraq, (7) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected, and (8) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

Benchmark vii, "Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq" is not recommended to proceed yet, even by the UN.  Benchmarks 10 and 11 would probably be of the most interest to you.

BTW, this document is an interesting read into the situation:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/n...
And this is interesting too: http://www.whitehouse.gov/n...
You might see them as propaganda, given the source, but they are an intriguing view into the situation from the viewpoint of the Executive Branch.

No silliness? Really!?!  [/Stan from Southpark voice]

All right then, I'll bite: what's your definition of "stabilizing"?

Based on your answer, please then tell me if you would consider missing 15 of 18 benchmarks set for Iraq either a good sign, or a bad one, as far as our stabilization goes?

http://www.reuters.com/arti...

No, I was being quite serious.  At this juncture, I consider the US to be a stabilizing presence rather than an instigating one.  And I, accepting that my mind is restricted by insurmountable ignorance on matters of humankind and the future, feel that this is an accurate assessment of a likely outcome.

But if you feel we've reached an impasse, then so be it.  It was a lovely debate :)

Oh okay, we're just being silly now. I get it.

;)

Oh, you're tough!  But this just makes it all the better :)

So I am unrealistic... for wanting to see Iraq at peace, for wanting the Middle East to move beyond the stagnation and cultural impasse.  Yes, I do severely lack an in-depth understanding of Iraq and the Middle East, both culturally and politically.  But that is because I am not Iraqi or Middle Eastern or Arab or Muslim or Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurdish.  And what I know of the region is through books, the internet, and the beer-goggled media.  And I think this is probably true of the vast majority of people.  In short, my lack of a direct relation to the situation means that I do not have a true grasp of the situation- so I should buy into the belief that Iraq is a last cause?  Utterly hopeless?

I understood your hyperbole very well.  I just considered it irrational.  To satisfy you, if a tyrant were to come to power in the US, I believe the American people would resist internally and welcome the help of other nations.  Yes, I really do believe that.  When we were under the rule of Britain (a tyrant), we banded together and fought, and we asked the French for help.  So the Iraqi people did not band together.  So we assume they wanted Saddam in power and despise us for removing him.   So lets withdraw immediately, and leave them with a new dictator.  How about a nice man in the way of Pol Pot?  Is that more to your liking?  Would you have us become isolationists once again?  Like Switzerland... they don't do anything, but at least they don't piss anyone off...

Ok, so the Iraqi people are not stepping up to reclaim their country (as you insist) because they don't want democracy (as you imply).  They want theocracy (which I don't believe clashes with democracy, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it does) and they are intolerant of any other religion or culture besides their own.  This splits Iraq into thirds... so lets split it.  What happens?  First we'll need to force many people to pick up and leave- to move into the appropriate religion "zone".  Second... what?  We leave them to form their own theocracies?  We leave them open to the influence of Iran?  We leave valuable oil lines vulnerable?  How about we just stop using oil all together... quit cold turkey (thus crippling ourselves in the process)... and leave the Middle East to fend for itself.  How about we break alliances with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other US-friendly countries?  How about we prepare for war on a scale as never before seen? 

Do you think that will bring the soldiers home?

Well madkow, you've got a lot of info there. Some of it is pretty good, but much of what you've written isn't the reality of the situation, I'm afraid.

First, have you seen the increase in young men being detained in Iraq? This is exactly what happened when we first entered the Iraqi countryside four years ago, & it was a fiasco. In fact, you should read the book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq for a detailed discussion about how to handle an insurgency. In short, the occupying force never wins the strategic goal of security/political stability by detaining thousands of people in grand, sweeping round-ups. Many military commanders pointed to the French/Algerian conflict early on in our occupation, when these sweeps first occurred, but were ignored. Seems they're being ignored again.

Second, the hypothetical I laid out about our invasion over Bush's leadership wasn't meant to be taken literally. I assumed you'd understand I was taking the point of view of the invaders, who would inevitably justify their actions by pointing to Bush's vile tyranny. Just as we did in invading Iraq. Sorry you didn't follow my hyperbole.

Third, the goal of Islamic extremists is to rule the world, including the US, as a Muslim theocracy. And who's to say that American democracy is a good match with Muslim theology? When you look at successful Muslim countries like Indonesia, the one factor they share is, again, a national unity & culture. Here's a question for you: how exactly can democracy overcome the sectarian & fundamental differences of the Iraqi Sunnis, various Shia sects, & the Kurds? While many of our founding fathers were deist in principle, there was still an under-riding current of Christian unity when they developed our republic. There was a general tolerance of religion among that group of men. Where's the corresponding unity, or even tolerance, in Iraq?

Finally, the strawman you created around the soldiers serving in Iraq really insults those serving our country right now. I think the troops realize they are doing their duty by putting their lives on the line every day. Those of us who want them home know they're doing a damn fine job at providing security, as well as just staying alive, day after day. We just want them home soon, so they don't have to risk their lives as part of their daily jobs. I don't think anyone believes the military is a tip-toe through the tulips, as you assert.

    Oohchild, I am researching the French occupation of Algeria.  It isn't something I have learned about yet, but I will learn what I can about it as quickly as possible.  From what I have read so far, Algeria was occupied by the Berbers and the Arabs (who ruled over the Berbers).  The French invaded because of financial dealings gone awry.  And then they turned it into a colony and subsidized settlement by European farmers.  This is a quote from a French soldier, Lieutenant-Colonel de Montagnac: "This is how, my dear friend, we must do war against Arabs: kill all men over the age of fifteen, take all their women and children, charged the buildings with them [i.e. probable allusion to military brothels], send them to the Marquesas Islands or elsewhere. In one word, annihilate all that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs."  Do you really think that this is what Bush is doing?  So far in my research, I fail to see the similarities.  Or are you saying that this is what you would like to see happen.  You were vague.

    "Imagine a Muslim country invades us in order to rid us of our leading tyrant, George W. Bush" 
George Bush a tyrant?  Hardly.  He was elected by the people... and re-elected by the people.  Definition of tyrant: n. any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically.  I certainly didn't elect a despot. (Well, I didn't re-elect a despot.  I wasn't old enough to vote in his first election.)  And after his bungles and fiascoes, Bush doesn't carry much power anymore anyway- at least, not with the American people.  He is already a lame duck.

    "Do you really believe we would just roll over & allow martial law, in order to make us a Muslim territory?" 
Of course not.  But are we trying to make them a Christian (or insert any other religion) territory?  Do we give a *hoot* about changing their religion in any way?  A conversion to democracy from totalitarianism is what we are aiming for.  And I, for one, would not want to be under a dictator and would welcome democracy.  That is the challenge to the Iraqi people.
    It is not our goal to rule over Iraq.  It is our goal to have a self-ruled, democratic Iraqi government that is sympathetic to United States interests in the region.  That was precisely what my comparison to Germany and Japan was all about.

    "There are more people there interested in killing Americans than building a successful nation. While this atmosphere prevails, there cannot be significant progress."  I disagree.  I think there are a few people interested in killing Americans, as well as their own people, and they terrorize the majority that want peace and prosperity.  Thus why we are trying to root out those few and allow the majority of good, decent Iraqi people to progress toward life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to quote our founding fathers.

    And, to perhaps the most sensitive and emotional issue, the soldiers.  Soldiers fight and some soldiers die.  This statement is not intended to minimize their contributions and their lives, but rather a statement of fact.  A young man or young woman who enlists is grossly naive if they expect to never risk their life.  And do they not realize that their purpose is to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief?  Those men and women that enlisted and insist on not serving because they deem the war morally offensive are- forgive my bluntness- stupid.  Did they think the life of a soldier is picking daisies and frolicking through the green grass?  They are people, yes, but they are also the tools of war for the American people, and it is within our right to use them to that purpose.  (Ah, but I can hear the emotional outcry already...)

To clarify for everyone we haven't lost the war in-fact when you move into a country take over its capital and hang the former president one can say the war is won.  Its the occupation that we are loosing, we should have just let cards fall where they may and not be in the middle.  Every time someone says we are loosing the war it weakens us and strengthens our enemies. We have won the war its the occupation we are loosing.  GET U.S. OUT of the middle of Iraq.  If we leave the middle east all together another country will come in and blockade access to oil and then all those soccer moms in SUVs, and big oil companies wouldn't be very happy.  Its a big picture thing.  Either we occupy and control the flow of mideast oil or China or Russia does. O ya i cant stand Bush and our system is completley broken and unfixable without throwing out the entire current government. 

The real sin is that JimR is correct.  The next president will have to clean up little Bush's mess but in the meantime - our kids are dieing.  We all know that we are moving toward leaving - so every day Bush keeps up his war games is a crime. 

Yes madkow, I'd love to see the successes of Germany and Japan be repeated in Iraq, but I also love to stay in touch with reality. The Iraqis really don't have a national identity because of the ethnic factions that are endlessly fighting for power, the greatest source of unity they have shown was after the Iraqi soccer team's victory. There are more people there interested in killing Americans than building a successful nation. While this atmosphere prevails, there cannot be significant progress.

It never ceases to amaze me when people who have no idea about a certain culture are convinced they know how to handle said culture.

"Irritating the Muslim world" is one of the most uninformed utterings I've heard in a long time. Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment, madkow: imagine a Muslim country invades us in order to rid us of our leading tyrant, George W. Bush. Do you really believe we would just roll over & allow martial law, in order to make us a Muslim territory? C'mon, gimme a break!

As I said before, we need to get out of Iraq & stop these young people from dying, and the sooner the better.

One other point about Germany & Japan, madkow. Not only did they have the national identity & unity necessary for rebuilding after WWII (which Iraq doesn't have), they both declared war on the US (which, again, Iraq did not.) A better analogy for you to use would be France's rule of Algiers, if you really want to know how to handle a Muslim occupation.

Thank you very much for offering solutions!  Now that we have moved past the "woe is me" we can get into the real problem solving!

    I think the biggest problem here is the simple fact that the Middle East was left in disarray by foreign powers, just like Israel (abandoned by the British) and all of Africa (hopelessly locked in post-Imperialism).  It was wrong to force borders where they made no sense and groups together that wanted nothing to do with each other.  It's like forcing a woman to wear a corset- it causes her body to be misshapen and makes her unhealthy.  But what's done is done, and we need to work with what we have.

    I'm most inclined to accept #4- not as a permanent solution though.  I believe the Iraqi people do have a sense of identity now and would like a future that is more certain.  Yes, oochild, I do think it is valid to compare Iraq to post WWII Germany and Japan.  We crippled two countries and through occupation raised them up to be formidable world powers.  I would love to see that happen in Iraq.  We just need to push aside this fear of irritating the Muslim world and finish what we began.