The horrible problem is that just about any policy about Iraq is a certain failure. Not many people understood at the time of the illegal invasion the pure horror we were unleashing by smashing the government there. These are the actions the next President of the USA should do to get us out of Iraq with the least harm to troops, the world, and our economic and political interests:

1. Cancel all scheduled replacement or escallation troops, but maintain supplies and equipment to support the troops already there.

2. As troops on rotation get rested up in the USA, send them to Afghanistan, as necessary, but not back to Iraq, and make sure they are properly equipped with body armor and armored vehicles and other supplies they need.

3. Immediately cut all funding to Blackwater and other mercenary troops. Congress should enact a law such that all violence committed in the name of the USA is to be done by military personnel only.

4. As troops are due to be rotated out of Iraq, rotate them out. Military commanders should ensure the safety of our garrisons in Iraq by consolidating forces and other necessary actions as our troop numbers decline via the rotations. No troops are to be rotated in.

Using this plan, we will be entirely gone from Iraq in two years from its inception.

Yes! So long as it can be a multinational withdrawal. We could (might - oh no!) just walk sideways. Do we take the oil with us, or go back for that later?

No, it can be a unilateral withdrawl. Just do it. Let the other countries do what they will. If the UN wants to move in and own the problem of reconstruction, let them.

Regarding the oil, it belongs to Iraq. We went in there to get it, but we had no right to it. The Republicans talk a good game when it comes to the free market, but they would rather take than buy it.

Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion. ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/ )

Rick, do you think there is any way that there can be such perceived accepted benefits to the Iraqi people that would warrant or induce recompense to the coalition(probably through oil) for the vast amounts of money spent to (so-called) free them?

$400 billion. I'm ill just thinking of all of the good causes that money could have been put towards.

No.

So, why isn't there more investment in fusion?

Energy production from nuclear fusion is a long-shot technology. It may never work. Maybe the UK should lead the way on this one. The USA is clearly not interested in progress anymore. We seem to have been in retrograde motion since 1994.

http://www.jet.efda.org/

The title of this thread says what everyone already knows, that Bush can't or won't get us out. He is basicly hanging on and running out the clock. His strategy is transparent and obvious. We already know what he plans to say as he exits, "I didn't cut and run"

A unilateral pullout is the best option. No other country wants in there. They sent a few token troops because USA bullied them or bribed them into it. It was a huge collosal gigantic mistake to go in. It was worse than that, it was a con job and a swindle. Or has anyone forgotten about the weapons of mass destruction? That was supposedly the reason to go in. The real reason may have been because Israel ordered it done. They are the only ones that seem to have benefited from it. They hated Saddam with a passion and have played the american card many times. Our politicians have no choice but to obey when Tel Aviv sends an order.

It was not to grab oil. That is a fantasy of the left. How much oil have we grabbed? None at all. If you are going to have a fantasy, at least make it a tiny bit credible. Bush's fantasy about the WMDs fell apart right away but then he said as long as we are in we can't get out. That would be to "cut and run" which is somehow shameful. I thought admitting a mistake was a sign of maturity and wisdom. Persisting in folly is a sign of great foolishness. Unfortunately, it's worse than that. It's criminal.

The quicker we get out the better.

Someone answer me this: Why is it that the majority of the country is against our continued occupation, the democrats are in power and they are against it, but we stay in? Not only that but there is no timetable for withdrawal. If the country plust the democrats plus many republicans are against it, why does it keep on with no end in sight? I'll give you the answer later.

It's all about the oil.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22838/

The idiots thought it would be easy sailing to take the oil, but the insurgency wasn't planned for. Nothing was planned for. After all, they're incompetent. Conservatives! What a joke.

The neo-con's over confidence in the US' technological superiority blinded them to the fact that effective asymmetrical warfare can be waged with a relatively primitive tool set.

If it's all about the oil why is it we haven't grabbed any? Rick you say it's because we were incompetent and didn't have a plan. I thought the plan was to grab the oil? So which is it? If we went in to get oil, why haven't we done that? I'm still waiting for an answer.

No, we went in because we were ordered to go in. Bush was ordered by his bosses who wanted Saddam out no matter the cost (to us). He has to stay in or lose the support of the media. He is so unpopular that if the media turned against him he might be impeached. So he stays in.

Side note: Why is it the democrats joined in with Bush in supporting the war? I thought they were against the war. That's what they told us. But they just handed Bush a blank check and about another $100B to do whatever he wants with it. No timetable for withdrawal was added to the bill. No restrictions whatsoever. The democrats just pretend to be against the war.

It's all an act. When Bush wants more money, they will huff and puff, put on another act and give it to him. The war will continue until the country gets totally fed up with the acting going on. Or just before people wise up and start to support a third party, they will pull out. Long about 09 they will start pulling out. And we will still not have gotten a drop of oil. It's all about the oil??? Pfffft

After Iraq's infrastructure was smashed, the US troops did not guard the borders so Al Qaeda terrorists entered the country. The US troops did not guard the weapons depots, so 480 tons of high explosives were taken from one site alone. That's about 100 five ton trucks full, so the insurgents have no lack of materials for their bombs and IEDs. However, the US troops were ordered to guard the oil ministry, which they did.

If you recall the recent history, in the first year of occupation, many attempts were made to start the oil flowing again, but they were all foiled by the insurgents. Pipeline explosions were in the headlines. Remember? They aren't so frequent now because they don't get fixed very quickly. The oil still is not flowing, and won't until the occupiers leave and Iraq sets about restoring itself in its own way.

You are right about the majority of Democrats being complicit in the war authorization. Their votes are on record and we will see if the people re-elect them or throw them out with the Republicans.

More evidence:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html

It really is about the oil.

Military Robotics should be used to monitor the situation.
The Pentagon should redirect its financial resources at
manufacturing of advanced robotic regiments.

It is the only solution, besides that it will foster activities related with Iran.

Then we will be able to create our Imperial Cosmic Navy.