The only way to keep a wholesale slaughter from occuring is to parcel Iraq into separate regions, just like the Baltics. There is no way for anyone to reconcile 1400 years of hatred. You want peace, then break the country into pieces.

Charles, Seattle, USA/WA

Congressional auditors say that only three of eighteen 'benchmarks for progress' in Iraq have been fully met. General Petreus and Ambassador Crocker rebut that these set unfair standards for judging progress.

They were entitled so to do - but earlier, not now. If you object to some measure you must dispute it when it is declared, not after finding you have failed to meet it.

America has lost in Iraq. Their troops and ours are dying to save political faces, not in pursuit of any realistic prospect of a victory that anyone other than the warmongers could recognise.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

Well it will always be 1 step forward and 2 steps back for several reasons ,the iraqi priminister is too close tothe iranians who intern back the shia militants which are in turn in the police force so thats o no brainer 4 sure, the propergander is not helping as the facts are clouded ,the external interference is the trouble as iran /syria want it to to be ,the us has to abide by a code of conduct whilst the terroist are free to do as they please its just one big mess .people should be supporting the troops who lay their lives on the line for the freedom of iraq and should not be blamed for the idiot religion wars that they will allways be fighting no matter what or who is there ,iran syria just edge them on and supply weapons and logistics ,training to these terroist groups and i dont see how the us should be blamed for that.bad eggs wont make a good omelet the police should be made up of people that have left as they are the ones that want peace,and where has all the money gone??

jack, sydney,

"General Petraeus, might be a politically motivated, "nice guy", but nice guys and politics, don't win wars. The problem is, we no longer have real leaders like Patton, MacArthur, Ridgeway, or Walker, in today's army. Can you imagine Patton, or Ridgeway, accepting non-combat troops "symbolic support" from a coalition country military force half-heartly, supporting the U.S. led effort in Iraq? No, Ridgeway, or Patton, would lay down the law and all countries would be supporting the war with COMBAT TROOPS. Anyone of the above military commanders I mentioned, would tell Congress "LIKE IT IS." Anyone of the above mentioned military commanders would kick as_ and take pass, in Afghanistan, or Iraq."

Pointman #1, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Although international tyranicide is a good idea in theory the way the coalition has done it is completely naive.

1 The Iraqi army & civil infrastructure should not have been dismantled in the way that it was.

2 Iraq should have been saturated with troops from the begining - the surge is just too little too late.

3 Iraq should have been divided into different states according to its cultural/ethnic makeup.

4 All key infrastructure points like power facilities, sewage plants, museum's, archaeological sites, traffic junctions, admin centres & so on, should have been garrisoned. - Not just oil related buildings.

5 The whole country should have been disarmed and proper colonial government imposed, until the country was ready for democracy.

6 Civil disorder should have been punished with draconian ruthlessness.

7 The boaders should have been sealed with 45% of combat power devoted to boarder security.

8 Donald "We don't do nation building" Rumsfelt & others should have been fired.

Chris Gibbons, London, UK

This administration lied, used bogus data, exaggerated, used fear mongering tactics, and very poor judgment when it promoted the war in Iraq in 2002 - 2003. It will do the same thing with this bogus surege report, which is being written by the Whitehouse, and is based upon knowingly bogus data. (for instance when 400 plus human beings are killed by a bombing in Iraq, those people are not considered deaths from the insurgency). This adminstration will simply continue this tragic fiasco until it mercifully leaves power in 2009. Then it will blame everything on the next administration and Congress.
Bottom Line. The Iraq war was lost the moment we deposed Sadam Hussein. It was not hard to predict this That is why Bush I and his advisors did not depose him in 1991. This is not a Dem. v. Rep. issue. It is a competency issue. This administration is incompetent and completely dishonest. We have been placed in a no win situation that we cannot afford to lose.
Way to go Guys.

jon, portsmouth,

How can anyone, Democrat or Republican, honestly expect
anything other than the straight party line from General Petraeus?
Considering that the president sorted through commanders
until he found another one who was willing to echo the official
administration policy despite realities on the ground in Iraq, how can anyone be surprised? Get real!!!
The Democrats need to buck-up and do the right thing; tell
the president no more funding without withdrawal timelines.
If the Republicans block any pertinent legislation, so can the
Democrats. The true intent of our president is to "stay the course" until he is replaced. The new administration will then
be blamed for an unfinished mess in the middle east.

R. Phillips, Denver, CO

Bush made a lot of mistakes during the initial Iraq operation and some since then. But we are there, like it or not. We can not pull out. We would be handing it over to Iran who is a real enemy, both short term and long term. This nation is facing a real world crisis. We cannot rely on our old Allies. They are decrepit, weak-willed, and politically crippled by their welfare-state economies. We are still strong altough our consumer-based social system has seriously weakened us. Thank God for our military institutions,.

Jim Downs, Oceanside, California

Bush made a lot of mistakes during the initial Iraq operation and some since then. But we are there, like it or not. We can not pull out. We would be handing it over to Iran who is a real enemy, both short term and long term. This nation is facing a real world crisis. We cannot rely on our old Allies. They are decrepit, weak-willed, and politically crippled by their welfare-state economies. We are still strong altough our consumer-based social system has seriously weakened us. Thank God for our military institutions,.

Jim Downs, Oceanside, California

The US military has made significant progress against Al Qeada. Some progress has been made against the JAM. However, this does not change the fact that a "democratic united Iraq" is an oxymoron. You can have democracy, but that means following the will of the people, who want, mostly, a separate Kurdistan in the north and a separate Iraqi-Shia state in the South. Or, you can have a united Iraq, but you might as well raise Saddam from the dead, because you can do this only AGAINST the will of the people in Iraq.

So, military progress under Gen. Petraeus, a true military genius, is significant. But, the political "end state" that has been dictated by the White House, the State Dept. and Congress is still nuts.

gary, cedar park, usa

That Man In The White House claims the terrorists hate Freedom. Hmmm...Our calls outside the US can now be "monitored" by securtiy agencies, with no warrant required. Our e-mails are subject to scrutiny. And those who criticise the war policies of That Man In The White House can be Investigated at will. Who is it that hates Freedom?

Don Balya, Bridgeville, Pa., U.S.A.

Our military is to small to do Afghanistan and Iraq. What will Iraq turn into if we leave. It appears like they will kill one another and end up with another type of Sadam that takes controll.
What is going to happen to the other countrys that are dependent on us to keep them free that have the oil. I dont think we grow enough corn to make alcahol to satisfy our needs.
If we stay or pull out, it appears we need to go back to a draft where we get a cross section of people to fight for and keep peace.Our numbers are getting to small and our demands will increase. the can of worms are open and they are ripe.

Edward Gersch, Fairmont, mn.

"Military leaders cross swords over ‘surge’". Just as they did about the invasion and will about the withdrawal.
Stay tuned.

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

Good to see the first couple of comments here from realistic (and concerned) US citizens. A lot of people have been wondering if there is any defensible reason why an attack led from Afghanistan, with the backing of the then-Afghan government and possibly financed by Saudi dissidents triggered this onslaught on Iraq.
Get on with the real job before you get hit again!

KR, Stockport,

How intriguing! If an American from Colorado cannot figure out why they are in Iraq, what are the rest of us to think? I think a fair guess is that Bush's backers cannot leave there, for fear of what would happen to Israel, and to their petrol supplies (in that order). It would not surprise me if America was behind the 1st World War, just to obtain those two assets; as Churchill said, in a democracy you can fool most of the people for most of the time.

H. Grattan, Johannesburg, RSA

Hmmm. Let me see......

July - Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan administration, warned that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship under the newly passed National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, and launch a war with Iran within a year.

Sept 1st - The US moves in to their 104 acre Command Centre....sorry "Embassy".....in Baghdad, around which the US State Department has refused all requests for media tours citing "security" as the reason.

This week - Bin-Laden releases a new video urging another major attack on the West in the same week that Bush once again asks Congress to approve billions of dollars of war funding to continue with the war in Iraq.

Suspicious conspiracy nut?...Who me?...Never!

RW, Madrid, Spain

I am STILL trying to figure out just WHAT We are doing in Iraq! I certainly do NOT believe the "reasons" supplied by the Bush Adminstration. The bit about Terrorists following Us home if We leave Iraq is nothing more than a cheap scare tactic on Bushs' part and even if it WERE true, Terrorists might get the suprize of Their lives by coming here. I read an article in which a former Marine said He believed Pres. Bush to be a War Criminal. I think that is closer to the truth. I believe Bush LIED to get this War started and the never ending desire for Iraq to pass laws governing the distribution of Oil profits is what I believe to be the REAL reason for the U. S. presense in Iraq. WHY is it SO important to the U.S. for Iraq to pass laws about Oil Profits in Iraq? Because there are VERY INTERESTED Parties in the U.S.! If, after this long, Iraq is STILL a soup sandwich, what are a few more months there going to accomplish, BESIDES MORE of Our Troops dying, maimed, crippled or worse? I say N

Ron D. Maxwell, Austin, Co, Colorado

Our troops are very much over extended! Why our leadership puts such mental and physical demands on what was, before the invasion of Iraq, the strongest and best military in the World, is beyond all understanding. Does this administration have any idea of what they are doing? What is their exit plan?
What is the administration's plan to pay for all of the war costs in addition to the costs of re-building the infra-structure that has been destroyed by the war? How can anyone support keeping our troops in Iraq any longer?

Norm Bishop, Newport, USA/Oregon