A majority of Americans now think the US will succeed in Iraq

TGF UKIP

James, Al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army may do their very best to queer this pitch. I'm sure they would love either Clinton or Obama, and especially Obama, to succeed Bush. It could, therefore, be a difficult six months for US Forces particularly if they move to sort out the British disaster in Basra. If, crossed fingers, all is manageable between now and November it gives not just McCain a great advantage, it also bestows a chance on the congressional Republicans to row back some of the many gains the Democrats were counting on making. Unfortunately, past performance and present leadership doesn't lend too much hope in that particular sphere. I just hope they listen to Carl Rove.

Ricochet

It is hard to achieve a goal if you don't have one. Unless the aim was to bring immeasurable suffering with death aand destruction. This was the cradle of civilization, now it is a toxic wasteland.

Sam

Yes, Ricochet. And don't forget the children. Be sure that those who survived will remember.

Passenger57

Hmmm...seeing as 'ultimately' means, "in the end",this poll means nothing if "the end" isn't defined."Hey,we've succeeded in Iraq! Yes, it's the year 2159,but..." Furthermore,they should also have asked: When the US ultimately "succeeds" in Iraq-will they leave?"

Ted Tedford

Ricochet: Iraq was a toxic wasteland before the coalition went anywhere near it. Under Saddam, 'death and destruction' was state policy: now it is the province largely of criminal thugs and fanatical Islamists, and progress is being made against them all the time. The coalition has made lots of bad decisions since the war, but your comment is lazy.

John

Ted Tedford: Not in the way Ricochet means, that is, literally. Search the web for "PhDs before US attacked Iraq" and "Iraq depleted uranium birth defects".

Ian C

Al-Sadr has given up and gone to Mullah school in Iran. The real danger is whether Al Qaeda can pull off a massive stunt or smaller series to convince the US public otherwise and whether the Sunnis who have been armed by the US turn again. The flip side for McCain is that the Iraq problem becomes so small this year that voters in Nov. elections ignore the issue. Fine balance. McCAin still needs the Dems. to appear flaky on this and therefore national security.

Ted Tedford

John: The reports I read refer to birth defects alleged to arise from DU weapons used in the 1991 war. How is that relevant to the discussion of the current campaign? As an aside, who do you think is likelier to deal with public health issues in a disinterested way? A democratically-elected Iraqi government, or the Saddam family regime?

John

Ted Tedford: Surely, DU use in the current, 5-year-old campaign has far eclipsed that of 1991 in both mass and geography. And don't ignore the social aspect of wasteland: millions displaced and hundreds of academic and professional leaders murdered post-Saddam. To be fair to Ricochet, s/he didn't specifically mention the Saddam era. I respectfully disagree with the claim of steady progress put forth by you and the American govt/media. A little digging turns up a much more complex situation, and Iraqi popular support for the occupation/government is far from solid, even compared against Saddam.

allan w massey

The 1st world war lasted 4 years,the 2nd world war lasted 6 years,the Afgani war 7 years and still going,yhe Iraqi war 5 years and still going very strong,the American have no hope in hell to win these two wars this is the down fall of America thanks to Mr. Bush

Nick Kaplan

Ricochet do you really believe Iraq was “was the cradle of civilization?” Surely only to the extent that Nazi Germany was the ‘cradle of tolerance’, the USSR the ‘cradle of aspiration’ and your mind the ‘cradle of common sense!’