I find it hard to believe that you did not know this statement is a whopper: "70% of all Iraqis want American troops to leave immediately". There is a recent poll that says 71% think we should stay for a year. And Leftists state this as 71% wanting us out within a year. Cute, eh?

Almost none of these polls are scientifically valid, and the lack of scruples in conducting them is shocking. They like to leave out the Kurds, for example. And other parts, using "security concerns" as their excuse for an invalid sampling. Or they have the poll administered by an Arab polling agency from outside Iraq. And don't even get me started on the way they word the questions.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the great majority of the Iraqi people want us there now. And of course they don't like having us there. If we had armored humvees and our troops patrolling the streets here, we wouldn't like it either. The answer you get depends on how you ask the question.

In fact, part of reason for the sectarian strife is the Sunnis' fear that we are going to give up and pull out. This is causing some to distance themselves from the government and tribe-up for safety in the chaos they fear if we pull out.

"Much of the world (and a fair portion of the American public) may hate us today for our alleged arrogance. But they will spit out our name with contempt through time if we permit to be released the whirlwind that will follow our exit." This is very true. Our leaders have to weigh American public opinion heavilly and go against it only when they know it's for our own good, risking the results in the voting booth. But as for the rest of the world's opinion, we should forget it. We will be condemned no matter what we do. It's a game. And one shouldn't make choices so as to win others' approval. Before you know it then, you're making stupid and/orimmoral choices just to win approval. You need the moral courage to do the right thing even when you know you'll be villified for it.

We especially don't need foreigners' approval. That's prostitution. Europe will try to govern the US by manipulating us with that carrot and stick. The only opinions that count here are those of the American and the Iraqi people.

"The United States is not preventing civil war in Iraq. This is the same myth the British spread in 1920, when they didn't want to stop occupying Iraq."

This makes no sense. Shall we give him the benefit of the doubt and regard the "not" in the first line as a typo? Some of his other logic is so backwards, I'm not sure we can, but I will anyway.

Assuming the first sentence should be "The United States IS preventing civil war...." he goes on to say "Our occupation, and the constitution we've imposed on Iraq, deliberately pit ethnic groups against each other in an effort to direct violence away from the occupiers. Still, the bulk of the violence is directed at the occupying army and its collaborators. And it is getting worse, not better."

Better sources, please. We didn't "impose" its constitution on Iraq. It is true that the people who constitute the body of government officials are connected to sectarian groups and leaders. That's the UN's doing. It advised the Iraqis to elect party "lists" as in Europe, not individuals as in the US. The result is politicians with no real constiuency, with loyalty to the party that put them on the list rather than to the voters. As a result the government is part of the sectarian problem. In fact, there's much more tribalism/sectarianism among politicians and other officials than among the general Iraqi population.

The source is also badly out of date. June was ages ago. Back then "civil war" was just a myth of wishful thinking among those who want the bad guys to win. Since then, the insurgency has faded. This sectarian strife began to swell in August. Terrorists stepped up their efforts to influence our election, and others out of fear of the results of our election.

What should we do? The problem is the Iraqi government. Maybe (as Mohammed at Iraq the Model says) we should do what we've been falsely accused of and get in the game to back a "partner" group that will GOVERN the country. You know, a government not in the pockets of the various sectarian factions.

The military is high on the Transition-Team approach, embedding American troops with Iraqi units. That's making a big difference. How to do that with the police though? Military police from Europe would be nice in addition to our own, but we don't expect that.

We won the first war. Though the average guerrila or insurgency conflict lasts 10 years, we have done well to largely win that battle already. But this third war, the sectarian violence is dangerous. We can help the Iraqi people put an end to it, but we can't do it for them - at least not without a real occupation. That means shoving the current government aside to take matters into our own hands with at least 500,000 troops, which would mean we'd have to either keep them all there for the duration or greatly lengthen the tour of duty. And we're not gonna do that.

There's a lot of thought going into what we should do. The problem isn't so much the plan as the change in the conflict that has occured over the past few months. Have you heard how quiet Fallujah and other parts of Anbar province are? We have made great headway there. The insurgency is well in hand. But this metamorphic war has changed on us again, into sectarian strife.

If we can come up with a feasible "new direction" :-) I think we should give it our best shot. Iraq really isn't nearly as sectarian as the media portray it. The vast majority of Iraqis consider themselves Iraqis, not Sunni or Shiite. In fact, they're heavilly intermarried and live in mixed neighborhoods. So, the country isn't that fragile. The consensus I've heard from Iraqis themselves, Conressmen and Senators, and American military is that the problem is the government. It's regarded as so good-for-nothing that I've heard many Iraqis wouldn't mind a coup.

David V says: "Yet it appears likely that Bush will follow McCain's proposal and put 20-40 thousand more troops in."

Hmmm. President Bush has said nothing consistent with that. General Abizaid testified just days ago and said nothing consistent with that. Secretary Rumsfeld has said nothing consistent with that. The incoming Secretary of Defense has said nothing, period. Nothing supposedly "leaked" from the Baker Commission is consistent with that.

So, where is David getting this "apparition"?

Words do matter. 80% of the violence occurs within 36 miles of Bagdad. Not a civil war. (See Senate and House testimony of General Abizaid on November 15 before their respective Armed Services committees.)

Indeed, violence erupting in one city, like Berlin or Washington, doesn't constitute a civil war. Though it could of course spread throughout the country and become one. But I am sick of people calling things what they ain't -- to become a self-fulfilling prophesy by fear mongering.

There are many Iraqi blogs in English. Didn't you notice? Or didn't you bother to visit the blog and surf the links to see that? Then turn around and accuse ME of not reading.

Why are only the MSM middlemen "credible" in your eyes? CNN reliable? Indeed, CNN only overstated the crime in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina by about 100 times. Or didn't you know that? Did your media report that?

But since AR considers the press the only reliable source of information and thinks I am ill-informed and lying all the time, and since the New York Times can be counted to print every classified document it digs up, you should finally admit that what I have said is true:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/world/middleeast/29mtext.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

This was classified as all such information about a head of state would be, so as not to embarrass him or her. The Administration doesn't want to undermine Maliki, especially since he seems to want to do better.