[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by Mazer

I'm hopeful our troops will no longer need to be stationed there and our mission there will become a humanitarian one.

"Become a humanitarian one?" Gee, I thought that was what was being argued all along. Hussein! Despot! Eliminate! Operation Iraqi Freedom! Rebuild! Democracy! Aren't these all supposedly humanitarian goals and how dare we sit idly by while do-dah scooby-dooby-do?

But of course I think I know what you mean, humanitarian being more like food, clothing, shelter, aid and education and not, like, shooting and car bombs. ...But isn't that the kind of humanitarian aid you were just bemoaning? Seems like a cascade of contradictions there.

Domestic politics will of course make that next to impossible after 2008.

Not sure why you think that. Whoever Bush's successor will be, in the face of around 70% disapproval with the handling of Iraq, they'll probably have run on a platform of shifting gears and will follow through to some extent in an attempt to change the perception of our involvement. Reducing our military numbers there is surely the most humanitarian option at this point, even though our presence there in any form will no doubt continue to draw fire for some time.