I have a hard time believing these comments are coming from free thinking members of western civilization. We invaded Iraq to depose a Tyrant when we should have been in Afghanistan deposing Al-Queda. We have established a democracy is a country that has had a ruler of one form or another for over 2000 years and expect it to stay in place because everyone believes like us? Come on. Did President Bush or the Republicans lose the war? no more so than the Democrats lost Vietnam. We have quit preaching and gone to meddling and that is always dangerous. Should we stay? I don't see that we have a choice. I think the first thing that needs to happen is we need to get the politicians out of the picture and let the military do what we trained them to do.

Warren Graef, Stafford, Texas

I believe this Report and anyone who has watched World Politics knows this is exactly what will happen.
I don't like the war or losing our Soldiers but we have to stay for the duration just as we did during World War II and other Conflicts.
We need to be into the kinds of thinking our forefathers had when they did Custers Last Stand and the Battle of Bunker Hill and fight to the finish if necessary so we can continue to lead the World in the kind of Demoracy we all enjoy here in the United States.
We shed Blood in World War II and we shed blood in Korea and we have shed Blood in the Earlier War in the Persian Gulf and again we Shed Blood but it has to be done or the blood of the Iraq Citizens will be on our hands if we back out now and let Ethnic Cleansings take place the way it has in other countries.
But having said that I do not believe we should say we are killing in the name of Alla or in the name of God because men who fight for honor and Freedom make that choice.

R. Campbell, Toledo Ohio, United States of America

Pure BS.

If you think the Iraqi people would rather have saddam back in power, you should be forced to take a mandatory drug test, because you're on something!

SUNKL, Kapaa, USA, Hawaii

I think we should stay and make it work , theres 26 million iraqi's , it seems unlikely they all wish for the al-queda dream, whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of being in iraq, it's citizens need our help for some years yet.

darren, poole, uk

Oh my God! The Americans still trust in the "filtered" "analysis" of the US "intelligence".

I hope there are some Americans that realize that the timing of this article fits very precisely with the political fight that exists right now in Washington, about the withdrawal.

Come on! You can't be so gullible. Once again.

Josu, Basque Country, Spain

The factions at odds with each other in Iraq are Sunni insurgents, Shias, Al Qaeda and the kurds in the north. Al Qaeda is at war with everyone, the Sunnis are at war with the Shia but hate Al Qaeda while the kurds hate the Sunnis and want their own breakaway state. The US intelligence report claiming an Islamic state was in the planning by Al Qaeda is pure conjecture. Al Qaeda is a foreign influence who hold no more clout than the home grown Sunni insurgents or the Iranian backed Shia Mahdi army. The indigenous people of Iraq hate AL Qaeda as much as they hate the US led occupation. Al Qaeda will never have a foothold strong enough to call a base in Iraq. Meanwhile as the bourgouis west sit in their cosy living rooms enjoying the comforts of life, the average Iraqi has to put up with temperatures of 43c, no air conditioning, hardly any electricity and water shortages daily, under Saddam at least they had the basic amenities. They must love us for bringing them freedom and democracy.

lord_helpus, Huddersfield, UK

The right wing lost the whole of the mid-east- including Israel. ie, Lebanon war lost by same forces. We'll never have our foot in mid-east like we have in the past decades. It's over. Get used to it.

hwolters, Bisbee, Az

I'm not sure that the "left" is to blame for losing the war. Bush did just about everything in his power to lose it without so much as a peep from his critics. And just what did the ACLU have to do with the war? I guess that group is thrown in just to complete the conspiracy. Too many episodes of the X Files for the paranoid right. What I don't understand is why everyone believes that Al Qaeda has any more likelihood of holding these provinces than we do. I have seen nothing to indicate that they are any more welcome to the nationalist elements in these areas than the Coalition Forces. Yet everyone on the right jumps on opinion articles that somehow suggest that Al Qaeda will have a free hand running this region without any evidence what so ever. Does the right invest their money on such shoddy, speculative evidence? It is a wonder you folks made or retained any money at all. Keep your powder dry, folks - I'm a Libertarian.

Marv Swett, Richland, Washington

I'm with Vince P, Chicago, USA and Terry Gain, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada (first and second comments, above), and those who express those same thoughts.

yonason, tampa, usa

In my opinion the war against Iraq was a mistake from the very begining. I was against this. The Americans made a mess and they just can not pull out just like that.First of all they do not have any sensible solution what to do next. Withdrawal from the Iraq may create a greater problem than there is now. I think the Iraq/s case must be resolve together with the others Middle East countries.

Marcin, Zielona, Poland

The Al-Qaeda influence in Iraq relates directly to, and, owes everything to the US/UK led occupation of the country, also, it gains much support as a result of the cozy US inspired relationship between Israel and the Sunni regimes of the area. (Saudi, Jordan etc.,) Al-Qaedas influence will increase unabated until the Sunni regimes in the area listen to, and, act on the will of their peoples, rather than on the wishes of the US/UK lead powers. Long term, bearing in mind time is on the side of the indigenous population, (Al-Qaeda & other anti Western/Israeli movements in the area) were I a betting man I would not put any money on the Wests plans for the region, or, the longevity of the pro-western regimes who act in concert with them!

Kevin Sullivan, London, UK

If the U.S. had not liberated Iraq , sanctions would have ended and Saddan would be well on his way to having the nuclear weapons he pursued for years. Read "Saddam's Bomb" by McGrory and Bhattia. Libya would not have given up its pursuit of nuclear weapons and the AQ Khan network would not have been detected No mid -east country could have legitimately been denied the right to nuclear weapons if Sadddam had them. No amount of Bush bashing can alter these facts.
It's good to see the Times finally acknowledge that al Qaeda is reponsible for most of the killing in Iraq. Al Qaeda wil not succeed. Twenty five of thirty one Sunni tribes are fighting al Qaeda alongside American and IA forces. al Qaefa has been driven out of Ramadi. They are now concentated in Diyala. They will be defeated there.
Up to now the MSM has done an effective job of hiding al Qaeda's true role in the violence. Once it is is understood support for the mission will return and AQI will be defeated.

Terry Gain, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

I can't believe all of these idiotic remarks about woulda, shoulda, coulda. Wake up. We invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam and created a democratic parliamentary government with a constitution.

The majority of Iraqis want to live in peace. Al Qaida in Iraq are a small fraction of the current population. We can defeat them if we have the will to do it.

Stop blaming the Repuiblicans. The majority of Democrats also voted to go to war in Iraq. Now that things are tought, Hillary Clineton wants to re-write history by revoking the permission of Congress for the US to go to war.

All of you out there. Ask yourselves this: Do you want a viscious evil terroist state in the middle of Iraq? If not, stop whining and get behind the US to fix this .

Norman, Naples, Florida

What is most interesting are all these people placing the blame of this story on Bush.

Lets review something.... instead of doing what they have to in order to save thier lives, Al Qaida is instead preparing for it's new after-party Life.

Now.. what do you suppose is given them so much confidence that they're going to be around during the After-Party.

Geez.. its you.. the very same people blaming Bush for everything. It's you and your constant demoralization and opposition to the war. Just as with Vietnam, Al Qaida knows its salvation comes via the Anti-War movement, since only the Anti-War movement can defeat the US military. Al Qaida cannot destroy it. You say Bush made a mistake... well your political postures have more effect on the morale of the enemy than 10 million mistakes by Bush. They know Bush will hang in and go after them for as long it takes. they know you will hand them Iraq.


Who lost Iraq? Leftists, Anti-Americans, Appeasers.

Vince P, Chicago, USA

Chuck’s comments illustrate a fundamental crisis of our democracy in the US. The issues we face as a country are continually more complex. In order for our system of government to be successful, the people of our country need to have the capacity for critical thinking and reasoning. Chuck’s thoughts are merely a jumble of extreme right wing buzz words. My guess is that he watches Fox News 24/7 and his thinking is driven primarily by his gut and emotions. We have to be educated, logical, critical and rational to effectively participate in our government, otherwise we will collectively steer this ship onto the rocks.

MATT, HICKORY, NC

Just curious --- how is it that this dramatic story, via "US intelligence officials", comes from Tel Aviv?

Scott, Birmingham, UK

Chuck, as a member of the "Left", it will be tragic if an Islamic State is created in the Sunni regions of Iraq. I truly hope that it won't come to pass. But seeing how miserably the "Right" has managed to conceive and execute this war, I'm not optimistic.

The fact is that the Bush administration had no idea of the implications of victory over Saddam - the insurgency, the enormous increase of Iranian power, the burgeoning civil war - an ignorance that amounts to criminal negligence. This is just the latest disaster in a very sorry record.

The "surge" of recycled troops will not work. Nothing less than a full scale re-invasion is a plausible option to pacify the country. But without any clearly-articulated aims, this is a sacrifice that Bush cannot ask of his countrymen. The best option is to threaten the Iraqis with leaving, forcing them to stand up to the plate. It's a risky strategy, but the other options are worse.

Philip, Stuttgart, Germany

The irony is appalling. Nearly 20 years on, we risk having the region end up in the same position it would have been had the Saudis and Kuwaitis in 1991 accepted bin Laden's offer to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait instead of turning to the West for help.

Can there be any more damning indictment of putting trendy, superficial modern managers in charge of things as important as foreign policy and the military?

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

I am amazed at the viewpoints put forward by the US contibutors.
When are you going to understand that the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice?
Afgahnistan was a war of neccessity, and the international support provided bears that out.
The lies that were told to justify the invasion have obviously taken deep root in the American psyche. If nothing else it proves that Goebbels Big Lie technique of mass propaganda has worked on the population of the USA.
The NeoCons have created a self fulfilling prophesy, how it will end is anyone's guess now, but it will not be pretty and it will not be cheap-both in terms of money and lives.

Steve, Luxembourg, Europe

Poor old Chuck has fallen for all the US propaganda. Moreover, he seems to see the Iraqi conflict as a party political issue in the US rather than a serious issue of Middle Eastern security. Face it Chuck, you totally underestimated and misunderstood the strength of insurgency within the region and how best to cope with it. The Democrats would have been as hopeless in this situation as the Republicans have proven to be. My prediction is that, as US forces leave gradually, all subsequent problems within the country will be blamed on the inability of the your rather hopeless puppet regime in Baghdad to maintain order. Shades of The Shah in pre-revolutionary Iran, methinks. It was not meant to end this way, was it?

Dwyfor , London, UK

I truly believe that all these insurgents had ALREADY been in place in Iraq for many years-maybe since just AFTER the 1st Iraqi conflict. They were not noticed as they didn't wish to be noticed. They were part of Al-Qaida making plans to overthrow any moderate moslem country or ideals. I feel they were also targeting the Christian-Judeo countries.

Therefore, when we went into Iraq the second time to get Saddam, the coalition in a way "opened a can of worms"! This can of worms is now what we are fightingi-"they" were discovered and now rebel-almost like digging in the garden & all of a sudden coming upon a nest of ants. They swarm and IF they find you will bite!

Now as long as the children of Iraq are on the streets and not in schools-as long as the mothers of Iraq support the culture of death-there will continue to be new recruits in the world of the terrorists. It is time to take those children & put them into schoolst-time for moms to teach their children LOVE of LIFE! NOW!

Linda, Aviano, Italy

If we hadn't invaded and deposed Saddam, someone writes, then al Qaeda would never had this chance to come to power. Which begs the question. Is the Left incapable of letting go of the fact that it could not save its beloved Saddam? You tried. You failed. He's hung. Get over it. Your hero is gone. Now, you're given the choice between finishing the war and destroying al Qaeda's desires to destroy Bush's hopes for democracy in Iraq. Clearly, given the choice between Bush and al Qaeda the Left is brazenly on al Qaeda's side. That's how profound their hatred is for Bush. Great hatred. Little concern for consequences.

Chuck, Salt Lake City, USA/Utah

America needs more troops in Iraq there's no other way. America needs 1-5 million soldiers. 300,000 soldiers will not do the job and we can not trust Iraqis to control their security because they will turn it into sectarian violence. Laws need force so that they are imposed and respected. Once it’s calmed down then America will set the rules of the game.

You can not trust a drunkard until he sobers up and the Iraqi people are now drunk. Giving the Iraqi people guns to control their security is mad! First they need to sober up and then give them the guns. Until they sober up America needs to control the Security. Iraqis need to live in a period of civil law for at least 5 years before they begin to sober up.

Yang Hunt, DC,

It's not strange, Marc. Your scenario of invading Iraq leading to worse assumes the Islamic State's founders didn't exist before the Iraq war. Undoubtedly, they were one of many groups planning the same thing in the middle east. Iraq simply rearranged the order of these groups but didn't change anyone's motivations. We would have had to deal with what we still face one way or the other, no matter what we had done after 9/11, stay home or go to war. But to say that Iraq wasn't the proper target, I'd agree to that. Iran.

Zev, Jacksonville,

Wow, what a revelation! Who on Earth would think that Al-Qaeda would try to create an Islamic state! Like it happened in Chechnya in 1998? Or, as usual, the obvious has been missed by CIA yet again? And we thought that US is a "world power". Apparently it's not.

Oleg, Toronto, Canada

It wasn't only the Republicans that invaded. Most Democrats had also voted yes for war with Iraq. hmmmm. It's only during the difficult part that they say that if they new now what they new then they would have voted against. Very convenient for them. Always taking the easy way.

Do the right thing, Mesa, Az

Liberal Democrats across America must be excited at the thought of al Qaeda positioning themselves for our pullout.
They believe the enemy is not in nor never has been in Iraq.

We can win wars with our enemy. We swiftly defeated Sadaam, but because we underestimated the difficulties to bring together the Shiia and Sunni in their own country, the liberal media and Hollywood leadership of our country have pounced on the opportunity to weaken our powerful military. The day is coming when our weakness thanks to liberals, and organizations like the ACLU will create a time when the militant Islamists, and the likes of Chavez will visit our country with very bad intentions.

Robert L., Phoenix, Az.

What a strange thought, to say that America's Democrats would be responsible for an Al-Qaeda state in the Sunni part of Iraq...if the Republicans hadn't invaded, Saddam Hussein, detested by Al-Qaeda as an atheist, would still be in control and Iraq a single country. Yes, Saddam was a very wicked person, but bringing him down only led to worse. The Americans reviled the French for not jumping in with them on this war, but they have long experience in dealing with the realpolitik of the Middle East with its less-than-perfect choices.

Marc Waller, Montreal, Québec, Canada

Gee, you think?

Vituperator, New Orleans, USA

An al Qaeda state in Iraq seems like a fair reward to the Democrats allies. They've borne the brunt of the fighting in the war on Bush. Compared to the Democrats, who only talk tough on Bush, al Qaeda has shed its blood. If al Qaeda is going to have a state, this will be a big moment for all on the Left. They can celebrate knowing that the war they wanted to lose and worked so hard at least helped those they truly respect.

Chuck, Salt Lake City, USA/Utah