People (in the US that is) are always asking me for my alternative solution to the current US occupation in Iraq, and to the current mess. They always stress that we cannot "just leave." This explains the consensus within the political spectrum over the continuation of the American occupation and colonization (enlightened for sure--colonization of the White Man is always enlightened especially when inspired by god, as is the case with the divinely inspired George W.) of Iraq. This also explains why John Kerry (who admitted in the past that he had committed war crimes in Vietnam) wants to send more troops and wants to employ more firepower. This passes as the debate in the US between the two parties. You always have to prove that you are more "patriotic"--that word again--by proving that you are willing to go to war, preferably against brown-skinned Arabs/Muslims. That earn you credit in the US political system. Such are the rules of American politics. This also explains why Howard Dean (who squandered $50 million of precious money on his losing campaign) kept reminding voters of the many wars that he has supported, and of his willingness to go to war again, at the drop of a hat, if elected president. Only Ralph Nader, to his credit, has proposed a withdrawal of troops within 6 (long) months. Those who preface their remarks about Iraq by talking about the need to stay the course and keep the troops are subscribing--willingly or unwittingly--to past colonial discourse and thought. They seem to be saying that Iraqis cannot rule themselves by themselves because they belong to an inferior stock of people. Do we need another century, with another series of wars of national liberation, to achieve a universal (nay American) acceptance of the principle of self-determination?