Quote:A little slow for my liking, but I'll settle for a slow end to the war versus no end.What I gather from what you are saying then is that the war ended a long time ago and the US has an extended police force there now. Even if you measure it by the yard stick of "combat operations", then we were done in June 2008 (as announced by Al Maliki).
Do you believe then the extended police force might draw down by 2011, and it might draw down to perhaps German levels (~50,000). Or, do you think it might draw down to British or Italian levels of about 10,000? Balkans (1200)? Korean (25,000)? Japan (30,000)?
After all the campaign rhetoric and posturing is over, what is clear to me are; 1) The war ended soon after the tanks drove into Baghdad, but a cadre of people who are anti-military frame the debate as if Saddam's phoenix will rise from the ashes, or that the Iraqi people will suddenly radicalize simultaneously and attempt to forcibly eject US forces. 2) The question of the our role in continuing to police the world, which is extremely expensive, and usually contrary to US domestic interests, is never on the table for debate. 3) There is no "Change" and there is no "Hope" of a change in the US policy of policing the planet.
What our government soft shoes around is the reality of what happen in these "wars" is that we engage in a process; 1) crush the opposition with superior force and technology, 2) pacify the population, 3) police until civilian authority is restored, 4) remain to insure long term security and as a base for further expeditions.