The only folks who believe the John Hopkins study are the anti-war crowd. Pro-war blogs have debunked it to death. But leave all that aside. Most of the deaths that DID occur didn’t have to happen. The insurgents could have sought representation in the Iraqi government but chose to kill instead; outsiders trained, armed and funneled through Iran and Syria could have stayed home and minded their own business, the Muslims in Iraq could settle their sectarian differences peacefully instead choosing to kill. The groups are not dictated to by the US – they CHOOSE to kill.
&nbsp

The commentor evidently believes that if there was a stable Iraqi government(able to defend itself against outsiders) and reasonably free of former Ba’athist high officials(the US is in Iraq for a reason, after all) that said stable Iraqi government would have to ASK THE US TO LEAVE. In reality their heads would be spinning from the suction created by the US leaving. No one would have to ask anyone – the US would be GONE.

just how the Iraqis themselves feel about the U.S role

The Iraqi government wants the US there and has said so repeatedly. Not forever of course, just until the Iraqis can fend for themselves. And it is good to pay attention to the wishes and desires of the Iraqi government in regards to the presence of US troops and other US policy matters. But it should not be forgotten that US forces are not visiting Iraq for pleasure; the troops are there to carry out US policy – not to have the Iraqis tell them what to do or when to leave. Foreign governments, whether Iraqi or any other government, should not be making US foreign policy decisions. Frankly, I don’t much care how the Iraqis “feel about the U.S role.” No more than I would’ve cared how the Germans ‘felt’ after WW2.

… is this venture simply not worth it … growing fundamentalism, U.S troop deaths, possible terrorist attacks in the U.S directed by Iraqi nationals opposed to foreign troops in their country …

We in the US are very lucky that the US leaders didn’t consider that fighting the Axis powers during WW2 was a “venture simply not worth it.” If US leaders during those days performed similar calculations of(to rephrase slightly) growing Nazism and Fascism, U.S troop deaths, possible Axis powers attacks in the U.S directed by Axis citizens opposed to foreign troops in their country” the Nazis, Japanese and Fascists would probably have won. It just wouldn’t have been “worth it.”

Inherent in this attitude is the assumption that fighting terrorism only creates more terrorism(which is a fallacy) – otherwise the cracked equation offered up wouldn’t make any sense. As a foreign policy attitude it could be summed up as …. If the US would only be nice the bad, bad terrorists would go away … which WAS the US foreign policy before 9/11.

I believe that most accurate number is over half-a million as the John Hopkins study proposed

The only folks who believe the John Hopkins study are the anti-war crowd. Pro-war blogs have debunked it to death. But leave all that aside. Most of the deaths that DID occur didn’t have to happen. The insurgents could have sought representation in the Iraqi government but chose to kill instead; outsiders trained, armed and funneled through Iran and Syria could have stayed home and minded their own business, the Muslims in Iraq could settle their sectarian differences peace

I’m all for limiting anyone’s time in office, at any level. The fact that an individual can spend a lifetime in “public service” only underscores the fact that that individual gets more and more out of touch with those he/she claims to represent the longer he/she’s in office, and increases the opportunities for corruption to flourish. Early lawmakers had to sacrifice to be in government; Jefferson was only a few miles away from his home in Monticello, but didn’t see his family for more than two years while in office.

Perhaps we need a Constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms of Representatives to six and Senators to two–a twelve-year limit for each office. The effect on members of Congress would be a greater number of individuals holding office and heightened competition among the long-timers. There must be some measure that will reduce the resemblance of Congress to a peerage.

The people could still send someone to Washington for twenty-four years, and if that person serves so brilliantly that the people want more, they can elect him governor of their state, campaign for his presidency or lobby for his appointment to the Supreme Court. That should be more than enough governance from anyone.

What is an ROE? Hell, you thought I must be proposing a genocidal ROE. And now you don’t know what it is????

Crap.

“Rules of Engagement”. When a soldier may or may not fire. The stricter the ROE, the tougher it is to decide to fire, the easier it is for the bad guy to do his thing and the less likely it is that the civilized soldier will survive the encounter. The bad guys are greatly interested in ROE, since,with proper planning, they can do anything they like.

It also applies to supporting fires such as artillery and close air support. How long to get clearance for artillery support, I asked in a class going on forty years ago. An hour, maybe a day. Maybe never. I tried to explain that to my father who’d been in a less restricted war and his question, once he decided I wasn’t pulling his leg, was to ask, what traitors did that. LBJ and McNamara.

Restricted fire zones and no-fire zones got a lot of guys killed and hurt in Viet Nam.

The ROE are promulgated ostensibly to protect civilians, but apply even where there are no civilians, probably in a vain attempt to appease the hippies.

Yeah, yeah, I know. The US just loved the East Timor genocide. Is there a genocide anywhere we didn’t either do, support or cheer? Beats me.
The Muslims were doing the killing supported and supplied by the Indonesian army which works for a majority Muslim state.

You can connect violence with Islam or not. My point is that Muslims, the tiny minority amounting to about a hundred million, have a different idea of what their faith consists of than we who are familiar with the Judeo-Christian tradition will easily understand. Therefore, it is easy to offend their faith. What they do about it is, of course, write letters to the editor. Never anything else.

The 650,000 additional deaths report was kind of odd. They figured a far lower pre-war death rate than other organizations have. So even if the post-invasion rates were correct, the dodgy early rates would give an incorrect (higher) figure. One poster speculated that the way it happened is that the evil sanctions killed off the weak and vulnerable and the OIF program later fed the tough survivors. Well, we know about the half million kids.
There was no explanation for the vast disproportion of military age males, either. One would suspect they would be the least vulnerable to reduced nutrition and medical care. But apparently not. What the hell. If some dead civilians are good for the left, more are better. Whatever it takes.

But, no I don’t agree with the notion that violence is meaningfully connected to Islam – and yes I’ve reviewed the ‘evidence’ – I feel it is a canard to blame Islam for being a violent religon – simply put I don’t believe that about Christianity either or Judaism despite the many references to murder and mayhem in the Torah and Old Testament – or the history of violence surrounding Christianity that simply is far greater in scale than it is in Islam.

None of which has much to do with dicussing the Iraq war and it’s success and failure – unless your telling me that, for you, it is simply necessary to conquer Muslim nations because they are evil – in which case, I haven’t much to argue one way or the other.

My comment was the number of deaths in Iraq is reaching genocidal numbers – total deaths i.e Iraqi, American, civilian, insurgent. And yes I believe that most accurate number is over half-a million as the John Hopkins study proposed – simply put it is the most stastically reliable – and morally reliable source about the IBC.

As such a very serious topic. That’s what I mean. But I’m glad you think I’m not stupid – but I’m not sure what that is an indicator of – other than I might have some points of disagreement with you. Nothing to be afraid of though.

BTW – what in ROE?

I’d only say to your considerate response is that it sounds more like the original aims rather than a outline of steps needed to be taken to bring about those goals. Goals that even you would have to consider might not be attainable as the situation now stands. And yes I know that you feel there in no option to simply leave Iraq and have a failed state(it needs to be said that even those on the left opposed to the war are NOT advocating immediate withdrawal) whereby fundamentalists can organize and be funded through oil profits to attack U.S targets home and abroad.

But if certain developments are true(and I know there is the challenging gulf in interpretation and difference)- such as the number of foreign fighters in Iraq and just how the Iraqis themselves feel about the U.S role(I’m assuming it’s negative – and not because I want it that way either – so relax)in their country and THIER interpretation of the U.S role -than at what point, for you, is this venture simply not worth it i.e growing fundamentalism, U.S troop deaths, possible terrorist attacks in the U.S directed by Iraqi nationals opposed to foreign troops in their country? Is their a ceiling in terms of cost to America – and of course to Iraq – where it simply becomes counterproductive to have U.S troops in Iraq? If a Shia, democtratically elected goverment comes into power and attains some measure of stability as asks the U.S to leave would you support that – particularly if U.S troops were to remain?