To: TimF who wrote (12355 ) 2/16/2006 6:50:31 PM From: thames_sider Respond to of 543671 I think a lot of them, at least a lot of their leaders, are fighting to try and dominate the country. That almost certainly was true. It probably still is, for the non-Shia (since the Shia pretty much have the control they want in the south), or if not dominate the country to at least rule a part of it.Also I'm not sure that we really qualify as occupiers anymore. Well, we've got an awful lot of troops there, overwhelmingly the most powerful forces. And we say who goes where, not the Iraqis.Iraq has a democratically elected government that we are supporting, it isn't a colony ruled by a American appointed governor. But we don't take orders from them. Until we do, we're in control - or as you say, probably a good portion of the insurgents perceive the US as an occupier. and I doubt many non-insurgents would say otherwise.I think cutting and running now would result in much of the retention of the "Factors that would tend to increase those numbers" while also adding new ones, and eliminating at least some of the "Factors that would tend to decrease those numbers". We put our paw into the jar... now there are no good answers, I agree. We need to emphasise the good things we have done (basically removed Saddam and put at least a start to a democratic framework in place). But more so we need to swallow humble pie and stop doing the bad things. So, revoke the forced privatisations, they're too readily portrayed as asset-stripping and the worst of colonialism; pull back to our bases, act only when requested, and make it very clear we'll be vacating those bases completely according to a set near timetable; and above all, start caring and showing we care about Iraqi civilians and casualties, rather than acting as invaders and overlords.