What if the answer to Iraq is installing another Sadam (or reinstalling Sadam himself)?

[skip fox]

If it was the only answer, would Bush do it in order to save lives?

Would avoiding political damage trump a real solution?

What if partioning was the only answer. Because he's viewed it as a "non-starter" (although "everythings on the table") would he pick political consistency over his nation's benefit?

Maybe a timetable would really work. Would Bush even consider the possibility due to his previous statements?

I'm exaggerating the question, but you can see the drift. Bush would proably rather remain politically consistent rather than end the ruinous war. Yet he's a "patriot."

[RobertSeattle]

1. Bush should resign - and then HE can take over Iraq

But then, the name of Iraq should be changed to ClusterF***istan.

[Jacobin]

2. They will do that themselves

[bigtree]

3. tortures are up, detentions are up, government killings of Iraqis are up

media is being aggressively censored, all by a former exile enabled into power through sham elections under the occupation of the invading army . . . they have their dictator

[BurtWorm]

4. I don't know if he would do it to save lives.

I believe he would do it if they found a strongman who they thought would remain friendly to US (corporate) interests. On top of the oil, they have a multi-billion-dollar state-of-the-art embassy in Baghdad that they do not want to lose, and which they will lose (along with all the intelligence gathering technology that's going into it), if they lose Iraq.

[bluerum]

5. What you are really saying is that it takes someone from the region

with muscle, and brains to know how to use it to run the country.

Our guys are just targets and our leadership is terrible.

Saddam is not an option IMO.

[skip fox]

6. My question is not so much what will work, as what he ignores as a solution

due to politics and his limited vision.

At least that's the way I take it.

Although the notion of US reinstalling Saddam is the idea that (rightly, prohaps) sticks in the head.

[subterranean]

7. I believe they would install a pro-US version of Saddam

Bush would certainly not do it to save any lives. He might do it if the current government becomes uncooperative or tries to make us leave.
I don't think he will agree to partition the country (even if that's the best solution) because that might diminish U.S. control.
I think the Bush administration is perfectly willing to let this war go on as long as they think it is in their political (and financial) self-interest. Our top military leaders say the occupation cannot be "won" militarily; it requires a political solution. Yet as far as I can tell, Bush has shown zero interest in any non-military solution.

[Disturbed]

8. "would Bush do it in order to save lives?

He cares about people in Iraq or the US Troops and Mercs as much as I care about cockroaches. A deal will be forced upon the Iraqi Govt. to share power and oil profits and other US/UK Multi-Corp profits with the Sunnis. It is a political solution not a military one that is viable.

[kimmerspixelated]

9. You're probably right.

They have followed the money, and even if it is drenched with blood, they still intend to keep control of it!!! They have actually no intention of leaving...it is far too profitable.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. Just as long as he's a Republican...

Guard.

[spanone]

11. bush* has no need to worry about Iraq, it will go on long after he's gone.