At the risk of doing what I told fatwollit I try to refrain from doing, lol

"There's a chance that we can pull our ground troops out of Iraq. A base or two in both Iraq and afghanistan would more than suffice. A presence in the mideast along with a carrier and support vessels in the Caspian."

While I don't disagree that Bush has made plenty of mistakes and could have done better in the Iraq situation, the irony to your comment is that without Bush's action, neiher the base or two in Afganistan nor in Iraq would have ever been a possiblity. That I think is what was truly and ultimately the end game to the war - BEFORE we ever went in. While it bothers me to no end that this administration, the Clinton administration, the Bush dad administration, the Reagan administration, the Carter administration....well you get the picture....either believes they can't tell the truth about it, or refuses to tell the truth about such actions, I think considering the global political enviroment, those bases are and will be critical, and without the willingness to take the very difficult decision and to stick by it, we ultimately wouldn't have had the ability to get those bases. While I doubt you'll give Bush credit for that, you should really consider that he deserves some credit for that.

Frankly, my biggest issue is NOT the wars, but the prosecution of them. I'm of the philosophy to maintain strength as a deterrent, avoid war at almost all costs, but if you decide to go in, then WAGE WAR, OVERWHELMINGLY and COMPLETELY. The minimalist and high tech approach that Rumsfeld convinced them to utilize is NOT for war. War should be fought overwhelmingly and completly with all your force. That in the LONG run, IMO, prevents more war, and the slow bleed of war.