We need to do a lot more thinking about how the regime is going to evolve, how the bad guys are going to adapt their tactics, and what measures we're going to need in order to go forward.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
First of all we have to recognize that despite all the problems - and in some cases failures - that this regime has been much more successful, much more resilient, than people had anticipated.
The crises in North Korea, Iran, the Middle East, show how quickly things can change and how they can go wrong. We must be prepared. And right now the Army is not.
The bottom line is that after we defeat the armed forces of Iraq, that we will want to and need to provide stability throughout that country.
The president feels not only do we need to change these rogue regimes, but even our friendly allies, who really basically have, sort of, benign dictatorships, need to get with the program if they want to have long-term security and prosperity from terrorism.
We have to bring stability to Iraq, otherwise we will be faced with a future dilemma of sending our loved ones into harms way to stop a civil war or the rise of a new tyrant born from the instability that we created.
We are organized, we are moving forward, and the Clinton machine may not like it, but we're prepared for the fight.
In the remaining months, we should focus on achieving more robust international involvement in training of Iraqi soldiers, police officers, judges, teachers, and doctors - all key elements needed to end the sectarian and civil conflict and build Iraq's future.
We talk a lot about operational control, and that's having a better understanding of who's coming in and who's leaving, what the threat really is. We're never really going to get that.
You know that we are not in the regime-change game. We are against interference in domestic conflicts.
We must do everything we can to be more aggressive in confronting Syria about what they are doing in Iraq.