That’s not what we’re doing. We are indeed supporting the national government but we are also arming their rivals. I understand the desire to squeeze out al Qaeda but we are risking repeating the mistakes of Afghanistan.

We want to get rid of al Qaeda-yet it looks like the Iraqis only tolerated them because they were active in opposition to the US occupation. It’s arguable that Iraqis would have rooted al Qaeda out even earlier if they hadn’t shared an enemy in the US.

…arm Sunni tribes who are opposed to the Shia-led government that we’re also arming.

are you suggesting that we don’t aid the iraqis in providing a strong national defense for themselves? perhaps you’re advocating arming one ethnic group but not the other.

what’s your solution besides “bring our troops home”? do you honestly think that president bush doesn’t want to bring troops home too? one is pandering and one is being realistic.

And our strategy to do this has been to arm Sunni tribes who are opposed to the Shia-led government that we’re also arming.

Care to wager how this turns out?

Along the way, we’re also moving towards helping to build a government and military that can sustain and further the military gains our military made.

Not only is that the definition of winning, and not only is it “doable”, but we’re well on our way.

Hillary doesn’t understand what victory in war is, nor does B-HO.