justified or not, what do you think about the war, the new surge or any recent developments.

I guess technically it's not even a war. The armed forces of the sovereign state of Iraq gave it up years ago. This is really civilians attacking an occupying force. A bit like the French Resistance, without the sexy chicks and berets. Britain never accepted that Northern Ireland was a war (they did not want to elevate the "enemy" to a status above that of criminals) yet the situation is remarkably similar. But I guess we/you  have to call it one to give it a little credability.
And coming up with the word "surge" was a bit of genius. So much less embarrassing than "reinforce" with all its conontations of failure.
I find it hard to decide who's winning or loosing (or what winning or loosing actually means), but if you put a gun to my head, I'd say we're loosing. There is clear daylight between the US and UK now. The UK has definately lost its appetite (and ability) to continue the fight and is desperate for a way out. It is the hottest issue in the US with an election approaching.

It's become a 'war' of attrition. Eventually the US will have to give up on a battle they can't win, and maybe accept that it's not in everyone's culture to accept democracy. You'd have thought Vietnam would have taught them something.

Yep. I think we need to remember that as British we have to say "us" and not "them".
But then we had Malaya (an "Emergency", not a "War") to prove that an insurgency could be beaten. And I guess that the US can say that in 1941 no one would have anticipated Germany and Japan becoming capatilist democracies and trusted allies under US occupation.
And to be honest I don't think imposition of democracy was ever a US aim in Vietnam. They would have been happy with a right wing military dictatorship if that meant the defeat of the communists.
I love a quote from an Isreali general when asked about the difficulties of defeating a civilian insurgency. "Isn't it like looking for a needle in a haystack?" he was asked.
"Easy" he said. "You just burn down the haystack."

Our own senators (finally!!!) are starting to bring up the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. This undeclared war (police action?) is a losing proposition for anyone who doesn't have oil interests. Someone tried to tell me that we were fighting a righteous action because Saddam gassed the Kurds. I can tell you, the average American thinks the Iraqis flew the planes into the Twin Towers and a Kurd is something you find in cottage cheese. It's the ill-informed being steered by the self-interested.

There's a new movie out in the regular theatres on this topic, called No End in Sight. My parents saw it yesterday and found it "compelling.  Especially moving was the young Marine who did good work in Iraq,  worked with local Iraqis,  and saw it all fall apart."

Summary:
The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraqs descent into guerilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy, NO END IN SIGHT is a jaw-dropping, insiders tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the spring of 2003), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of occupation of Iraq through May 2003), as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers and prominent analysts.

It seems that the U.S. is thoroughly invested in maintaining a foothold in the region. I can't see them giving it up, unfortunately, whether Dems or Reps are in power. Sad but...

We desperately need a third party in this country--one that represents the PEOPLE.

the president has no intention of pulling us out....the lying bastard, people hail him for pulling out one, ONE military unit that was going to be rotated out anyway. we cannot maintain this. we have our armed forces doing 5 and 6 tours of duty, well beyond the maximum number of tours a unit can do...let the generals do their job, they know how to run the military, thats why they're generals and you're the fucking president

a poliitical fund raising travesty......but the terroists probally need to be contained at some point...

Quoted from somedude210

...let the generals do their job, they know how to run the military, thats why they're generals and you're the fucking president

Doesn't your constitution make your head of state also the commander in chief of the armed forces? Tis a monster of your own creation.
In the UK the prime minister has no legal right to tell the army anything operationally. That is why we were spared the horror of Churchillian tactics in WW11.
Hitler was CinC and HoS, and his inability to seperate the 2 roles cost him dearly.
Stalin soon learnt to bow out and left all military decisions to his generals. And won.

mm, funny that. well remember that when that idea came about, most presidents would have military experience anyway (since i mean, our first president was the general in charge of continental forces during the late stages of the revolution)

Actually I think you'll find that heads of state as commander-in-chiefs is common. Queen Elizabeth is ours. (Technicaly the prime minister is just the head of the government appointed by her - hence the modesty of 10 Downing Street and the luxury of Buckingham Palace, and Britains disquiet over Blairs presidential style)
It makes good constitutional sense. It should in theory prevent the military overthrowing the regime, as it is the regime that gives it it's orders. A military operating independantly of the state is a scary thought.

indeed it is. but it is when you cross those lines and make the military political, you start to completely f*ck up the country.


case in point: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/20/countdown-special-comment-the-president-of-hypocrisy/

There is a good practical reason for the head of state to have control over the military. To react quickly to immediate threats without bogging down in political debate. Defend the country first, then sort out the policy later. Unfortunately, this can be abused by a bad egg in power.

Damn, but the "surge" (love that word, just like "collateral damage" ) seems to be working.
BBC had a doco recently, following UK troops in action in Afghanistan. Whenever they stopped on patrol, the Afghan Army soldiers with them with would all sit down and smoke spliffs - even in dodgy combat situations. Presuming the Taliban don't touch the stuff it doesn't bode well for the future.