Iraq debate: the soft spots

ILLUSTRATED: There are weak spots for both sides of the Iraq debate.

Ok, there are more than two sides, but there are two main arguments being made. "Stay in and finish the job..." and "bring the troops home now...(perhaps with the caveat of "a residual force to fight al qaeda"). The first argument has a gaping logical hole. The second requires a moral acknowledgment.

I attended a town hall like forum last night on Iraq, all sides had well informed, articulate advocates. But it became clear to me that the George W. Bush position advocates have no real comeback when asked about the practical limitations of resources. Or lack thereof. This refers to funds and troop strength vis-a-vis our overall force structure. Raise the issue of raising taxes or continue borrowing from China, Saudi Arabia and others. Force people to explain the force structure. I was given the right wing talking point of the high retention rates in the military, and replied with the fact that re-enlistment bonuses have skyrocketed.
In sum: Oil revenue deal + security = political solution. We don't have the time or resources to walk the walk to see through a ten year plan.

As for the "get out now" crowd, they need to at least acknowledge that there will be a bloodbath, and perhaps a multifaceted genocide beginning next year. We are responsible for the conditions our president caused, and so we all bear a moral accountability. Have an answer that makes it clear that the American army has done what it can and the Iraqi people will have to create its own political order.