From the Mobile Press-Register:

WASHINGTON — In December 2003, U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner had just wound up his first trip to Iraq when news broke of the capture of deposed President Saddam Hussein. It was surely, Bonner said at the time, a turning point in a conflict that had already claimed some 450 American lives.

“The reality is different from the hope,” Bonner, R-Mobile, said in a phone interview Monday from Amman, Jordan, where he had arrived several hours earlier from Baghdad.

While still hopeful that Americans would one day be able to look back on their foray into Iraq as “a courageous decision that made a positive difference,” he also alluded to the possibility of failure in the goal of creating a stable, democratic nation.

“We may look back and say we gave it our best shot and we did everything we could do to make it a success. And at the end of the day we could not make people accept the gift of freedom.”

American troops don’t think that point has yet been reached, Bonner immediately added, but he gave the Iraqi government just six months to bring order to the country or risk a further downward spiral.

“Time is not their ally,” Bonner said.

Although unease over the Iraqi enterprise is growing among GOP lawmakers, there still “aren’t very many” willing to voice those misgivings publicly, said Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

Amid tight security and 115-degree temperatures, Bonner and four other members of Congress spent just over 24 hours in Iraq after arriving Sunday afternoon from Kuwait aboard a C-130 transport. During that time, they heard briefings from top American commanders, met with Iraqi interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani and saw a demonstration of the Predator drone aircraft at an air base north of Baghdad.

Although one of Baghdad’s frequent power outages scotched a planned breakfast with Alabama soldiers Monday in the Green Zone, Bonner — loaded with Auburn University and University of Alabama souvenirs — said he did have lunch with about a dozen troops from the state, including two from Mobile County and one from Jackson in Clarke County.

After flying to Rome on Tuesday to meet with the head of a multinational peacekeeping force, lawmakers are scheduled to return to the United States today.

During their stay in Iraq, violence continued unabated. On Sunday, the Department of Defense reported that four Marines were killed the previous day, adding to a military death toll nearing 2,600 since the United States invaded in March 2003. On Monday, gunmen kidnapped 26 people from the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce and a mobile phone company office in Baghdad, according to the Associated Press.

Nonetheless, in phone interviews Sunday and Monday, Bonner found some grounds for optimism since his last trip, such as Iraq’s adoption of a new constitution and the fact that much of the country outside of Baghdad is relatively tranquil. He also took heart from a meeting with a group of 10 workmen preparing a war monument to reopen. Despite the Sunni-Shiite strife wracking the country, the men were unaware of each other’s religious backgrounds, Bonner said, and laughed when they found out.

While the Bush administration had once hoped to begin troop reductions later this year, no one is now comfortable speculating on when that might happen, Bonner said. As to when the United States should conclude it can do no more in Iraq, Bonner said that decision would rest jointly with the White House, Congress and the public.

But while he suggested that responsibility for failure would rest with the Iraqi people, retired University of Alabama political scientist Donald Snow also pinned blame on American policy-makers.

Before the invasion, Snow said in a separate phone interview, experts warned that Iraq could fall apart, only to be ignored by the White House and the Pentagon.

“We created the conditions for what’s happening right now,” Snow said. 

From CNN:

Two bombs exploded in a Baghdad soccer stadium Wednesday, killing 12 people and wounding 14, police in the Iraqi capital said.

Such is the ideology of our opponents in the global war on terror.  They think nothing of leaving bombs in a soccer field intentionally targeting children.  This isn’t the first such incident and, regrettably, I doubt it will be the last.

After learning the horrid details about the brutal deaths of two American soldiers I was left wondering last night why this wasn't a huge story in the media.  I contrasted the relative non coverage of this event with the blanket coverage given to the alleged Haditha massacre or the Abu Ghraib scandal.

The first thing I concluded is that reaction is all about expectations.  America's military is composed of thoroughly professional men and women who conduct themselves with the highest ethical standards.  When we learn about them ALLEGEDLY shooting innocent people we are shocked because we didn't expect it.  When we learn they used questionable interrogation tactics we are shocked because we didn't expect it.

But, when a group of Muslim extremists capture, mutilate, and behead American soldiers we are enraged, but not surprised because we expect such actions from them.  When the Muslim extremists kidnapped three busloads of workers we were not shocked because we expected it.  Such is the enemy we face.

It is hard to restrain my emotions when I hear about how those two soldiers were murdered and then left in a booby trapped field.  It really makes me understand why people say this is a war that can't be won militarily.  This was the first time during this war that the thought of using overwhelming and vastly destructive force against our enemies entered my head.  We could easily destroy all who oppose us.  Iraq could be turned into a nuclear wasteland in a matter of minutes if we so desired.  But to what effect?  We would kill 26M people in order to neutralize a few thousand terrorists.  Then the reaction from the estimated 700M to 1.2B Muslims throughout the world would be swift, uniform, and not to our liking to say the least.

Those are the two cutesy phrases that Republicans and Democrats are using to portray each others position on the Iraq war.  The trouble is they're both right.

I'll be the first to say that I hate the usage of cutesy phrases in political debate.  They are tools used to play down to people who can't engage in critical thinking or who are too attention span deprived to follow a serious, but complex, argument.  But, they do make for nice little hand grenades to use in the war of words.  It is both convenient and effective for Karl Rove, speaking to the party faithful, to say John "Cut and Run" Murtha.

If we pull out now it will be a huge black eye for our country from a foreign policy point of view.  Whatever credit we have earned by showing resolve in the face of adversity would evaporate.  Countries in need of help would think twice about requesting or even allowing the U.S. to provide such help in the future.

Decreasing our troop presence is key to eliminating the insurgency.  They insurgents are engaging in attacks in large part because of the fact that we, as an occupying force, are there.  If we are fueling the fire how does staying help Iraq "stand up?"

The war is damned expensive, as Murtha pointed out on Meet the Press yesterday.  That is probably the most salient argument for pulling out the troops that the Dems have leveled.  Most people in a position to influence policy regarding the Iraq war understand how to perform a cost benefit analysis and they probably understand the law of diminishing returns.  Going into the Iraq war most politicians had a pretty high pain threshold for removing Saddam.  We knew that the cost in money and blood could be significant, but it was a price we were willing to pay.  How much are we willing to pay to support an increasingly costly and bloody campaign with no objective as discernable as removing Saddam?

The Democrats' arguments against the war over the past year or two have been flawed in my opinion.  There should be no mention of lies or faulty pre-war intelligence.  Their argument should focus squarely and exclusively on the conduct of the war and the state we are now.  Faulty intelligence or not, Saddam practically wanted the war.  He drew a line in the sand and basically said, "If you don't attack me now after all my blustering, then I know that I can engage in secret weapons programs with indemnity."  Going to war was the right move.  Staying in a protracted guerilla war is the wrong move.

I still think the only way out with dignity is to be asked to leave.

From a "Plan B" point of view I don't understand why the Republicans are attacking Murtha with such ferocity.  Murtha is a very conservative Democrat.  Personally, I think his recent vocal opposition to the war is simply a political move trying to win support for his attempt to become majority leader if the Dems win the House.  Obviously the Republicans would like to retain control of the House, but if they lose then wouldn't they prefer to have a centrist majority leader like Murtha rather than a far left leader like Pelosi?

The best way to bring home our troops without undermining all the sacrifice they have made may be to get kicked out.  President Bush should suggest to Maliki that he make a very stern, public order that the United States and others withdraw troops from Iraq as a means of both countries achieving their respective objectives.  Our objective is to bring our troops back to American soil without leaving Iraq engaged in a civil war.  Iraq wants to establish their nascent government as a legitimate force.

By ordering the international occupational forces out of the country Maliki can gain the respect of all the warring factions.  The insurgents who are killing Iraqis are using their hatred of Americans to justify their brutal attacks.  Without the catalyst for violence the insurgents will face far greater resistance from the general population, some of whom now sympathize with the insurgents on a certain level.

The mantra from our elected leaders has been, "when they stand up, we'll stand down."  There would be no shame in coming home within the ground rules we have established.  By vacating Baghdad and leaving in place a new government with instant "street cred" we create the best opportunity for peace and democratic governance in Iraq.

I'll admit up front, this post is a bit of a stretch.  But I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility.

The insurgents in Iraq, as well as extremist terrorists around the world, know that suicide bombings are very powerful tools.  They can extinguish many innocent lives, although this is not the primary motivation for the attacks.  These attacks are meant to incite fear in the public - and they are dreadfully effective.

There is something hard to conceptualize about a person who is willing to trade their life for a cause.  Our soldiers, firemen, police, etc. know that there is the potential to lose their life in the line of duty, but for the suicide bombers death is guaranteed.  Additionally the notion that anyone around you could be a murderer is upsetting.  I lived in Maryland during the DC Sniper period and the fear in the region was palpable.

These insurgents know that their relentless suicide bombings erode public support in the U.S - which is one of their goals.  The alleged massacre in Haditha will do more to erode public support than any suicide bombings.  Is it at all possible that the terrorists are intentionally designing situations that will test the limits of our soldiers' restraint in order to provoke a Haditha-like response?

Think about it, the terrorists plant an IED and wait for unsuspecting Americans to trip the device.  When the IED explodes - possibly killing or wounding American soldiers - the insurgents "sacrifice" themselves by rushing into the area and creating the semblance of a threatening situation.  They planned this ahead of time so they know to be unarmed.  They provoke the soldiers and hope that a stressed GI makes a bad decision and kills an "innocent," unarmed man, woman, or child (terrorism is not the sole domain of men).  Their death at the hands of "cold blooded" Americans is widely publicized both in the U.S. and abroad.  Public support washes away and the terrorists win the war.

I know that this tactic isn't a great idea from a statistics standpoint.  Our soldiers are well trained in the rules of engagement and it may take many attempts to provoke such a response, but what else do these terrorists do with their spare time?

(Note: I am not in any way shape or form implying that Haditha didn't occur or that, if it went down as alleged, the Marines who were responsible shouldn't be held accountable.)

I told you it sounded far fetched, almost like a kooky conspiracy theory.  But then again…