Iraq is a man made disaster. According to the UN, 6000 Iraqi civilians were killed in July and August of 2006. In September so far, over 66 American soldiers have been killed. In 2006 nearly 20,000 Iraqi civilians and security forces have perished. The status quo in Iraq is unacceptable; Iraq is slowly and steadily becoming a horrendous humanitarian tragedy.

In addition to the loss of human life in Iraq, a leaked National Intelligence Estimate prepared in April 2006 by 16 American intelligence agencies asserts that US invasion of Iraq has become the single most important reason for the growth and expansion of Al Qaeda and Jihadism worldwide, increasing terror and making the world less secure.

Amidst mounting criticism of his Iraq policy, President Bush denies that his adventure in Iraq is a failure. He claims that we are winning in Iraq and also warns that unless we stay the course we will lose the war on terror. Iraq in his opinion is the key to winning the war on terror.

But the American people are foxed no more. They are beginning to come out of the spin zone.

The unending and unrelenting stream of bad news from Iraq is finally sapping the American will to fight a war of choice. The recent victory of Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman in the Senate primaries in Connecticut has served as a signal that public opinion in America has changed with regards to Iraq, and the coming elections in November may very well become a referendum on whether America should "stay the course" in Iraq.

Recent polls by NY Times, CBS and CNN indicate that nearly two-thirds of Americans [62%] believe that things were going badly in Iraq. Now, 51% believe that there is no relationship between Iraq and the war on terror. This is a significant shift since June 2006, when only 41% believed that Iraq had no connection with the war on terror. Nearly 82% Americans indicate that Iraq will play a very important role in their voting decision in November and 59% of those polled oppose the US war in Iraq.

There are now two reasons why there will be increased public opposition to continued US presence in Iraq. The first reason is the specter of American failure to achieve its goals in Iraq; a world without terrorism and a Middle East without dictatorship. There is a limit to how long Americans can continue to support failure and watch thousands die on a daily basis. The second reason is the growing realization that there was no linkage between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. While Americans do want to win the war on terror - there is no other option on that score - they may not wish to continue to lose in a war which was optional to begin with.

So far there are two plans for Iraq on the table: the President's plan to stay the course, and the demand by some Democrats such as Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, to schedule an early withdrawal. In my opinion, neither plan truly safeguard's America's security interests.

While invading Iraq was wrong on many levels, withdrawing from Iraq will not solve the problem; on the contrary it will only only compound the dilemma. A precipitous American departure will lead to a full-blown civil war with more bloodshed in Iraq, which will destabilize the Middle East and undermine oil supplies. It will also embolden the radical forces in the region, who will interpret US retreat as a US defeat. It will inspire them to do more and will attract more recruits, garner more support and perhaps launch more ambitious projects in the region and elsewhere.

In the long run, a failed state in Iraq may very well enable the emergence of territorial pockets under radical control that could become bases for Al Qaeda and its mimics that could threaten US interests across the region and also subvert European security more aggressively. These groups also bring death, destruction, and destabilization to Muslim societies wherever they operate from. Clearly, it is in nobody's interests to see radicalism thrive in the Muslim World.

The US cannot stay the failed course in Iraq, it's a travesty, and it cannot withdraw immediately. Both will lead to catastrophe, only on a different time table. We desperately need a third way.

The key problem in Iraq is really the inability of the US to put more boots on the ground to patrol every street and every nook and corner in Baghdad. Security in Baghdad is the first step to peace and stability in Iraq. Also the visibility of US occupation incites more anger and violence and also to some extent justifies the insurgency. The US can perhaps diffuse problem by "Muslimizing" the occupation of Iraq, by demanding key Arab and Muslim allies to provide the necessary additional troops.

This year alone, we will be paying Egypt $1.8 billion in military and economic aid, Jordan $468 million in economic and security aid, Pakistan $370 million in military assistance, and Indonesia $75 million in military and economic aid. Why can't these countries provide 50,000 troops collectively to patrol Baghdad and save Muslim lives? How can the Muslim world simply stand by and watch a Muslim nation implode without stepping forward to help?

Perhaps US bravado and ascendant unilateralism has kept them away until now. But everyone can now see how desperate things are. The US desperately needs help and its Muslim friends must be made to come forward. It is time for the US to call in some favors; a quick workshop in humility for the White House staff may help kick start the process.

The failure of the Bush administration to acknowledge that it has committed gross errors in its vision as well as in its strategy and execution of the Iraq invasion, is forcing the American public to choose between a losing strategy and defeat. It is time for the President to be more honest, to acknowledge his mistakes and seek fresh ideas to resolve the crisis.

Last December, Families of the Fallen for Change (http://www.fofchange.org) put forward a four-part plan that lies in the middle of the two extremes described above.

First, after announcing its intent to withdraw, the U.S., through either the UN or the League of Arab States, would negotiate with all Iraqi parties, including insurgents, except Al Qaeda.

Second, parties would negotiate a floating timetable for withdrawal by percentages.

Negotiations would include the starting dates for the first and subsequent withdrawals as well as the percentage to be withdrawn in each stage.

Third, in exchange for this, the Iraqis would agree to an equal percentage reduction in violence that leads to injury or death of Coalition forces and Iraqi civilians.

Once the first withdrawal is begun, Iraqis have 30 days in which to reduce the violence by the agreed-upon percentage.

If they comply, the second stage of withdrawal and violence reduction would begin.

If they do not comply, the next withdrawal would not begin until they do so.

Once violence drops to 15 percent of the agreed upon starting level, all coalition troops would leave Iraq. The remaining 15% is allowed for violence sponsored by Al Qaeda

Fourth, American financial aid would be available only if the Iraqi government demonstrates the sharing of (1) power in the government, (2) control of the Ministry of Security, and (3) proceeds of oil revenue.

The plan gives Iraq time to restore essential services and create new jobs. giving Iraqis a stake in the future.
It also sets in motion Coalition withdrawal geting us beyond ìstaying the courseî we now have.

Many members of the House and Senate have seen the proposal. Many have praised it. Congress ignored it.

Seven days after Congressional decisions to stay the course this past June, 11 Iraqi insurgent groups agreed to cease all attacks immediately if the U.S. would set a two-year timetable for leaving.

The Bush Administration rejected this.

Yet this offer is evidence that the opportunity remains: conditions for some kind of negotiated withdrawal are there.

Leadership is required to set it in motion.

Paul E. Schroeder
Families of the Fallen for Change
Fathr of LCPL Edward A. Schroeder
KIA Haditha, Iraq, August 3, 2005

>>Why can't these countries provide 50,000 troops collectively to patrol Baghdad and save Muslim lives?

Because, the first time thier shot at, the Egyptian troops would run for thier lives, the Jordanians would hit the ground, the Pakistanis would stoutly stand thier posts and not go anywhere and the Indonesians would look over and say, "So, this means we're doing this alone" and be the only ones to run after the insurgents...maybe.

The US must withdraw immediately. There is no security, no justice and hence no peace. The invaders must leave. Period. This article seems like a tamer version of something Dick Cheney might author. Truly pathetic that Muslims have been so coopted as to side with non-Muslims and place their so-called interests first.

The call for governmental control is absurd. The rest would work perfectly. Remember the last time the US tried to meddle in foreign politics with personal control? Welcome to the new Iran.

Reply to Abu Nurah:

Immediately withdrawal is not in the cards. Bush won't. The Democrats seem bogged down in a date certain.

So the responsible thing is to come up with alternatives, which is what Families of the Fallen for Change has done. We can throw stones, or use them to build something.

Reply to Nudge: I don't know what you mean by governmental control. Whatever it is, the point is our plan has not been tried. Who knows? If it were tried and an agreement could be reached, it might work. The point is no one knows because no one has taken any initiative to try something else.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we can throw stones, as mentioned, or we can use our heads and work something out. I prefer the latter. Had we done that in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem.

Paul Schroeder
Families of the Fallen for Change.

While governmental control may seem absurd

>Because, the first time thier shot at, the Egyptian troops would run for thier lives, the Jordanians would hit the ground, the Pakistanis would stoutly stand thier posts and not go anywhere and the Indonesians would look over and say, "So, this means we're doing this alone" and be the only ones to run after the insurgents...maybe.<

There you have it, another third rate attempt at right wing analysis. Nothing like neo-Nazis, gang members and other degenerates breaking into peoples home in the dead of night, molesting the woman, and taking the men away to some torture center......

Holy crap! I thought the hadith said that the satans were chained up in Ramadan! How did you get loose, M?

>Holy crap! I thought the hadith said that the satans were chained up in Ramadan! How did you get loose, M?<


But I'm not pigment challenged, and I'm not part of an organization which rapes and murders kids either. Since when did you start following Hadith gomer? Oh but I forget even the munafiqs in the Prophet's(saw) used to pray 5 times a day.
Give my best to Abu Al-Airiki.

naudhu billahi min ash-shaytan ar-rajim...

LOL what a character.

The only way to fix this situation is for the United States and Britain to withdraw and have the nations of the Arab league, the OIC and other muslim nations maintain a peace keeping force in the country. Even involvement of the UN and Non aligned movement who have a mass of resources to provide would be cool.

No more US involvement oustide security agreements and maybe payment for damages incurred.

>> Oh but I forget even the munafiqs in the Prophet's(saw) used to pray 5 times a day.
The filth you spew brother.

>The filth you spew brother.<

Didnt I tell you not to talk to yourself? Its historical fact that even munafiqs during the time of the Prophet(saw) used to pray 5 times a day. If you dont even know that, go do some reading masalatron. There are some excellent Islamic bookstores on Devon street.

>>Its historical fact that even munafiqs during the time of the Prophet(saw) used to pray 5 times a day.

So do tell exactly what that history has to do with me??

>So do tell exactly what that history has to do with me??<

Just that it has a funny way of repeating itself.

The shaytans take many forms...

>The shaytans take many forms...<

So what do you make of the one in the mirror?

>> Just that it has a funny way of repeating itself.

What I find funny is that you elude to some special disposition. Though you don't inform it with any honest observations. Seems like you want everyone to fit into the characters of some wild fable you've concocted. That you no doubt will avaoid presenting to the world. You don't find yourself the bad pattern of insulting and ignorant behavious. You see that in everyone else. History definitely repeats itself. Jahilliya was behaviour more than education. But that can't be learnt from a book. You're informing your own exclusive club. And you tell yourself that Allah loves you and hates everyone else. What can I say. If being honest makes OmarG a munafiq in your eyes. I wonder where a great, kind and noble american reformer like yourself stands? Do you work for the government?

>Do you work for the government<

Are you on Haldol? Go outside once in a while and breathe, before your brain starts to rot from all that festering stagnation and cognitive dysfunction.

What a terrible waste of a Ramadan for him. I wonder if his mother taught him to write like that...

>What a terrible waste of a Ramadan for him<

What a futile exercise, fasting and still being a munafiq.

>I wonder if his mother taught him to write like that...<

I wonder what you may have accomplished if both your parents were around...