>>There are several questions we should ask ourselves, who sent this young Marine to Baghdad, questions we should be confident with, but, there is one today, arising, by facing the present and daily disaster.<<<

Perhaps I am not properly caffienated but I do not understand what you are trying to say with this paragraph

Mare,

what I am trying to say is that, given the actual goal of good part of the Coalition's troops is to train Iraqi police, we are failing at the job, very clearly.

While at this point, whatever the premises were for our presence there, nobody would be serious by suggesting to leave the country, we probably have to reconsider our strategy.

My thoughts are that:

1) the troops on the ground are a very limited number for the job, especially the US contingent is very much stretched,
2) the training job is failing,
3) a stronger diplomatic effort versus the countries in the area is needed. We all know several factions of the so-called guerriglia are funded by bordering countries.

Hope I explained myself better.

Different yes. As I said in The Plan, the WOT can not be fought and won while trying to adhere to the Geneva Convention (and with the UNweenies and "world court" ready to try our men and women. I do not believe it is stooping to their level, it is simply changing the rules and leveling the playing field.

Yes, now I understand better. I believe our failure can be attributed to the reasons you list. But it is a Catch 22. We need more boots on the ground, we have them, but popular opinion in the US is to decrease troop stength, not increase it. And as Zib pointed out we are playing by a different set of rules than the terrorists.

A couple of ideas:
Deal with the Syrian/Iranian behinds the scenes intervention more effectively. Ranging from economic sanctions all the way up to and including military action.

Seal the border,Iraq is roughly twice the size of Idaho. We'd need more troops but it woould go a long way in keeping foreign insurgents out.