How to Win Iraq and Afghanistan (or at least Stop Losing)

So the whole Iraq War thing is hotting up again (did it ever really cool down?) and we have the Sheehans and the anti-Sheehans and the pundits and the morons wanting the whole world to hear what they think about Iraq and the troops and dead soldiers and live soldiers and elections and Iran and terrorism.

And now (in the tradition of loudmouth moron-dom) it's my turn.

1. Cindy Sheehan lost her son. You cannot belittle his sacrifice or hers. She must be given the utmost respect and honor, no matter what her views. Calling her behavior "disgraceful" and denouncing her as a "tool of the left" is just cheap and despicable (which I guess explains why Rush keeps doing just that).

2. Cindy Sheehan has a skewed perspective of the future of Iraq. Bringing the troops home will not solve anything. I hate to agree with W, but they need to stay in Iraq. If they don't this will happen:
530 pm: 138,000 fatigue wearing, gun-toting Americans leave Iraq.
531 pm: Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and his buddies stroll into Baghdad, kill a few (thousand) people and establish the Hardcore Fundamentalist Islamic Republic of Iraq - Osamas join free.
532 pm: The world says "Oh Crap."

3. America is not going to win Afghanistan or Iraq unless things change drastically. You don't want to reduce troop numbers. You want to INCREASE them. These piecemeal battles will help only the extremists. Quite frankly, things look really bad. I'm not going to harp on past mistakes, lies, false pretexts, misjudgements and stupidity. Forget what's happened. Look at where we are right now, and what needs to be done. Here are the steps I feel are needed to rescue what appears to be more and more of a lost cause:

1. The US needs to forget about North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Syria and all the other fun places it may want to invade (for now, anyway) and focus on just the two it's already caught up in.
FOCUS: IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

2. The US should increase, as much as possible, troop numbers in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Keeping the bare minimum required to give the impression of some semblance of order and security will not do. The extremists will not be deterred by such a wishy washy effort. They will be encouraged by the apparent indecision and lack of commitment on the part of the coalition. In addition, the general public will be more and more alienated from the cause as days go by; a status quo of instability and uncertainty is not progress - and every time a civilian dies in this long drawn out effort, more hearts and minds are lost. The longer these wars take, the harder they will be to win.
INCREASE TROOP NUMBERS SIGNIFICANTLY AND GO AFTER THE TERRORISTS.

3. There are some possible objections to what I just wrote:

a. This would mean putting more troops in harms way.Yes, it would. But you're not a soldier to sit around and claim benefits. You're a soldier to fight (By the way, this is one reason I laugh when soldiers and their families whine about their being sent to Iraq because they just signed up for the army or the National Guard or the Marines "to pay for college." You join the army to fight for your country. You take out a loan to pay for college. Idiots.). Sending more troops now means sending less later. Bringing the troops home would be a very selfish thing to do, especially considering the fragile situation that part of the world is in right now.
THERE ARE NO WINNERS IN A WAR THAT LASTS FOREVER.

b. Iraq and Afghanistan themselves and other coalition partners should play a larger supporting role.
YOU WANTED THIS MESS. YOU CLEAN IT UP. (*sigh* So ugly is the truth. TO W's credit, he's not shirking the responsibility one bit.)

c. Increasing troop numbers would imply a larger, longer occupation.Yes, this is a problem. I do have an idea however, and I'm sure no one will like it, but it may be a way to get stuff done. Keep the US military there, but have them under the command of Iraqis or Afghans of high rank. Yes, this is a strange, undesirable idea but if followed through with, it may convince the people of each occupied nation that the US and its allies
1. Do not consider themselves superior to the natives
2. Do not want a monopoly on power
3. Are there to help and are willing to do what the nations wants
4. Are clearly not an occupying force if they answer to native military officials
And then they may stop the hating. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. It is important however, that this not be just a typical PR junket. The commanders need to have real decision making power. The Iraqis and Afghans are not stupid. They know how to run an army. They just lack the strength and firepower they need. And the US, as a true friend, can provide that.
WORK FOR THEM, NOT AROUND THEM.

4. Stop whining about faulty intelligence and WMDs. What's done is done. Much as I would love to see some people get what they deserve, I'm sure God has a better payment-for-your-sins plan than I or any of the whiners out there, can conceive. Look at what's here, NOW. And fix it. This is to you, Dems. (Well, expecting you to fix it is probably asking too much. At least don't get in the way of those who can.)

5. Admit your mistakes. No one is perfect. I've lost what little respect I had for the current administration because they're hell-bent on telling everyone that they're perfect and haven't set a foot wrong. Psst. Mr. and Mrs. American Politicians. Let me tell you a secret. WE KNOW YOU'RE ONLY HUMAN DAMMIT.

So there you go. Not the most eloquent of posts. I dare say my ideas could do with a fair amount of fine tuning and making-sound-bettering but that's the core. I know it's asking a lot, but you're America. Talk the talk. Walk the walk... You know what the problem is? The rest of the world holds America to the high standards it holds for itself. You guys just don't leave yourselves any room for error... and then when shit happens... yeah. That's another post altogether.

This ends here.