Latest deadly attack in Iraq calls for U.S. realit

[twpdyp]

Latest deadly attack in Iraq calls for U.S. reality check

Wed Dec 22, 6:21 AM ET Op/Ed - USATODAY.com

That fact hit home with gut-wrenching force Tuesday. Four days before Christmas, at least two dozen people, including 19 Americans, died on a U.S. base in Mosul in one of the deadliest single attacks of the Iraq war.

The strike was the latest reminder that Iraq, five weeks before elections, remains a cauldron of uncertainty. That argues for realism - over hollow optimism and political spin - as the costs mount. In human cost, more than 1,300 U.S. troops have died to date. In dollars, a request for another $80 billion is expected to push the war's price tag above $200 billion. And no end is in sight.

Americans are worried. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll last weekend showed 58% disapprove of the way the U.S. has handled Iraq during the past few months. For the first time, a majority - 51% - regrets the decision to go to war in the first place.

These figures do not yet amount to a Vietnam-style hard turn against the war. But they are reason to think about questions that matter most. Namely, just what are U.S. troops fighting for in Iraq? What is the best-case outcome? And can it be achieved?

President Bush (news - web sites)'s sober assessment Monday of "mixed" progress in Iraq was a nod toward realism. But he insisted that "Iraq will be a democracy." That may be true one day. But not any time soon and not democracy as Americans know it. The best-case scenario is some sort of representative government with an Islamic flavor. Even that's unlikely without the kind of security that has eluded Iraq since the invasion in March last year.

A reality check could begin by sensibly addressing the most immediate worries:

•Are Iraqis being properly trained? The U.S. has pinned its exit strategy on Iraqi forces taking over security. Bush acknowledged on Monday that Iraqi troops aren't ready; some are fleeing under fire. But why are they doing so badly, and can the problem be fixed? Insurgent attacks on Iraqi recruits provide only a partial explanation. Problems range from skimpy training to misleading data about Iraqi forces.

•Are there enough U.S. forces, and are they being adequately protected? There are 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, strengthened by 20,000 for the elections. Still more may be needed, particularly given the weakness of Iraqi troops.

Meanwhile, Tuesday's attack on a "soft-target" mess hall tent, amid the controversy about armor on Army vehicles, raises fresh questions about whether everything possible is being done to protect U.S. forces.

The Jan. 30 elections are a major milestone, but they will not automatically stop the insurgency or a slide toward civil war. Resolving the mess in Iraq requires the administration to be both resolute and realistic.

For now, it's long on resoluteness but short on realism.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...day/20041222/cm

I have said all along if you are going to be a bear be a grizzly. We are at war and should stop with this politically correct version of a war. Crank up the planes, load up the bombs and get on with it. We would lose less lives in the long run if we stopped this ***** footing around. As they used to say where I grew up "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight, bring a bigger gun."

[Mad Manfred]

Well, this is what happens when you go and squat in another country...people fight back.

PS. No mention of the other Iraqis killed and the 80 wounded? Just the Americans...