I'm against that idea anyway but I think the thing is the Bush administration does not want to drastically increase the fighting forces on the ground there. It will make it seem as if we are beginning the battle for Iraq all over again. I also don't think it will solve the issue because they are not fighting a military force there, it's guerilla fighting with surprise exploding donkey carts and automobiles. Baghdad has erupted in violence and they would need to begin to try to lock down that city and fight street to street, house to house, building to building. It would mean a rapidly increasing death toll of our own soldiers and civilians. In other words, politically for Bush, it would be ugly. Just look at the issues we've had with getting Fallujah locked down. The answer everyone always goes to is call in the airstrikes, which leads to massive civilian loss of life (with a country we're not at war with by the way), which leads to hatred of the US military.

The UN is in charge of the negotiating process there. As we agree Dale, our troops are handcuffed but it's not over political correctness that they are handcuffed. It's because Iraq is now sovereign nation that we no longer see as a threat and we are not at war with. Our troops are just there now to keep the peace (and act as targets for suicide bombers etc.) while the UN guides them toward some sort of election...some day. The Bush administration has been trying to promote the situation to Americans as all sunny and full of progress. So, now when they are confornted with the truth of the situation and the fact that it's a disaster there...well it makes Bushco look bad. They don't want to look bad in an election year. Hence I wouldn't expect them to suddenly drastically increase our fighting force there.

The last thing is, what will we win there if we declare war in Iraq again? Nothing. So far we've won nothing there. Yeah, we did get rid of Saddam, which may or may not be better for the Iraqi people only time will tell. The next guy that takes over may decide to do a little ethnic cleansing there...he might be some crazed hardcore fundamentalist that loves the USA but just hates all Shiites or hates all Sunnis...we don't really know and these people are pretty well split into such hardcore groups that have wanted to kill eachother for years that no matter who is elected or chosen there is bound to be a bloodbath of a civil war there.

I think you are correct that these people understand fear and ruling with an iron fist and perhaps that is exactly why Saddam ruled the way he did. He held the threat of I'll kill everyone and anyone over their heads...perhaps preventing the warring factions within his own country from going off the rails. It's a sick thought and a sick situation but I don't think we have brought them freedom and democracy there and that giving them jobs and something to work at is going to change these people into Wal-Mart shoppers.

I think that country needs to find it's own way. That has nothing to do with being soft on terror or politically correct. That's a hard thing to say because I think no matter which way you go a bunch of people are going to get killed there. I just think if we're involved the numbers will be a lot higher and could lead to a more intense terror assualt on the United States.