That is my point. To acknowledge the problem is not a plan. This was always going to be the result of the removal of Saddam. We didn't know what to do about it then, and we don't know what to do about it now.
We have surrounded Baghdad, and maybe that will stop the escalating violence, but if not it certainly sends a powerful message to the arab world and it may become a source of powerful anti-american rhetoric if Baghdad remains encircled by the military.
The military is not meant to occupy a country and police a civilian population. We would never accept that in America. We cannot be surprised when some react violently to our presence, setting aside the people who lose friends and loved ones directly or indirectly as a result of the conflict.
The reality is that whenever we leave Iraq it will probably continue to degrade into civil war with the net result being that Iraq will become a fundamentalist muslim state allied with Iran. I hope very much they can make a coallition government work between the various Iraqi interests, but it doesn't seem that way.
In between is an occupation that takes 500,000 troops to sustain even the minimal 10:1 troop:insurgent, assuming govts estimates of 'active' AQ/resistance in Iraq are accurate, not the 150,000 we currently deploy. If you also count the additional 200,000 'part-time' support for AQ/resistance the govt. also believes exist, even 500,000 is not enough.
If we are not prepared to put the necessary amount of troops in Iraq, why do we ask our brave men and women to expose themselves to the additional risk that is created by insufficient numbers?
Am I wrong? Is there anyone who thinks we have enough or more than enough troops in Iraq in terms of the sufficiency of our military strength?
I am certainly open to a contrary view, as I would like to continue to educate myself on the topic.
Here is the latest madness.
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/150/world/Suicide_bombing_south_of_Baghd:.shtml