My Solution for Iraq

President Bush received the long-awaited Iraq Study Group report Wednesday, and pledged to take its recommendations for war policy in Iraq "very seriously," though "we probably won't agree with every proposal."

"I will take it very seriously and we will act on it in a timely fashion," Bush told reporters at the White House after meeting with the group for about an hour. Read more.

Click here to read excerpts from portions of the ISG report

If you were president, would you use the Iraq Study Group recommendations to revise your strategy in the war-torn region? And if yes, how?

E-mail us at and share your thoughts!

Here's what FOX Fans are saying:

"I would thank them very much, and then throw most of the report in the trash can. Do you really think talking to countries like Iran or Syria is going to help when they are mostly to be blamed for the problems going in Iraq? No, I don't think so. We do need to sit down with the Iraqi government and ask what they want. If they want democracy, then show us by getting their act together. If not, then we are gone. I'm a 66-year-old grandmother, and this is just not rocket science." — Georgette (Renton, WA)

"If I were president, I would tell the Iraqi Study Group, thank you, but no thank you. I am the president, and I make the decisions. I don't listen to polls. I don't listen to people who want to kill Americans, and that includes some Democrats who believe in the destruction of America as we know it." — Lori (El Paso, TX)

"We went into Iraq for the right reasons. When we found there were no weapons of mass destruction, staying to find Saddam Hussein was reasonable. When he was finally captured, that was probably the time to get out. We didn't, and the country has just disintegrated since then. The sects in Iraq have always hated each other and always will. Whether we put in an additional 100,000 men will make no difference, the situation will not improve. Besides that, we don't have an extra 100,000 men. Our volunteer military is not designed that way. Therefore, it is time to come home. Did we 'win?' Well, we accomplished what we set out to accomplish. If 'winning' means we leave a loving, trouble-free society behind, we will never 'win.' So bring our soldiers home and be proud about it!" — Bernard

"Frankly, a dialogue with Syria and Iran would have the same effect as similar policies did with Hitler and Mussolini in 1937 and 1938. It would simply pave the way for a more horrific conflict. We must convince the American people that, as Roosevelt said, 'America in it's righteous might will see the war through to absolute victory.' Nothing else will suffice. Iraq has become the Spain of the pre-WWII error." — Cliff (Herndon, VA)/i>

"How do we get so many civilians to be military experts? Why not a committee of military leaders to come up with a plan, and leave the civil side outside." — Percy (Eufaula, AL)

"I believe the best solution for Iraq is to divide the country into two separate countries, such as South Iraq and North Iraq. Those who want to return to a dictatorship should have a portion of the country. Those who want to maintain the democracy should have a portion of the country. Eventually, they would merge again as East Germany and West Germany did." — Gary (Douglasville, GA)

"From what I heard during the reading, I would say it sounds like a well thought out plan. It has us going the extra mile to accomplish success in Iraq, but it also requires a United States of America, something that has been missing the last six years!" — Nancy (Montana)

"I would use the study group's advice, in addition to the 'facts on the ground,' to develop a comprehensive policy, including a revision of the U.S. mission in Iraq, definition of conditions under which troop withdrawal will occur and a plan and time line for achieving those conditions. Policies can always be altered by circumstance, but they can be road maps for getting from one place to another. The best road out of Iraq will be paved by a well thought out policy." — J.R. (Houston, TX)

"The ISG on Iraq is just that — a 'Study Group.' This is a group to find potential solutions to critical issues. The data and recommendations presented by the ISG should be considered along with all other available recommendations. Although the members of this group are very astute, they are not clairvoyant." — Terry (Rocklin, CA)

"The excerpts are long on 'woulds,' 'coulds,' and 'shoulds,' and short on useful suggestions. With all due respect to our elder statesmen, an idealistic teenaged girl could have written the report. Don't forget, our enemies do not want democracy in the Middle East; they want to kill all of us 'Westerners.'" — CJ

"I backed the Iraq war. I still do. BUT anytime we make the decision to send our young men and women to war, we should not withhold anything in our arsenal to win that war and come home safe. I do not believe we are doing that." — Ann (Waco, TX)

"If I were President Bush, I am not so sure that I would lead by the reactions of these old has-beens. I've never seen so many armchair generals telling our president how to run the war. I would instead release our military to get the job done, by freeing them to fight wherever the terrorists hide." — Virginia (Young Harris, GA)

"The war in Iraq cannot be "won" in the traditional sense, because it is a part of a global war on terrorism that will take decades to 'win.' That being said, it is possible to 'succeed' in Iraq by meeting the stated objectives of a viable government capable of governing, sustaining and defending itself. To that end, the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group have a better chance of succeeding, than the "stay the course", which is obviously not working. If, as has been suggested, our presence in Iraq is the 'cause' of the civil unrest and violence, why not try this approach: as soon as the violence ends, and we will then withdraw!" — Jerrold (Timonium, MD)

"Ignore it, and go in to win." — D. (New York, NY)

"Absolutely. Former Secretary of State James Baker is a brilliant, no-nonsense person who did an unbelievable job for former President Bush. Some extremely strong, well-thought ideas were suggested in the report and it would be in the president's best interest to consider and implement some of those ideas. I'm a supporter of the President, and the report would do him well to act on it." — Jeff (Saratoga, NY)

"A terrible idea. Volunteers will always be better than someone forced to join." — Tom (Cincinnati, OH)

"If I were president, I would have my staff put forth enormous effort to find ways to implement these recommendations, without compromising the absolute requirement of stabilizing Iraq as another ally in the Middle East. The concept of forging a stable ally from an implacable enemy worked in Japan, and we're still there. It worked in Italy, and we're still there. It worked in Germany, and we're still there. It has worked in many countries in many regions of the world — who can seriously believe that it cannot work in Iraq? That is, of course, unless you subscribe to the "Vietnam all over again" mentality, but that is a whole other topic." — Richard (Cocoa, FL)

"If I were president, I would thank the committee members for their work and say some pleasantries about the report. After they left the office, I would stick it in the bottom of some drawer, never to be referred to again. The report doesn't discuss how to win, just how to lose without admitting we lost. I would pay more attention to the DOD report put together by Gen. Pace." — Myren (Waipahu, HI)

"If I were President, I would take thousands of troops out of Germany, Korea and elsewhere and move them to the borders of Iraq. I would also ask how surrender in Iraq helps us in the War on Terror. There IS a war and we cannot survive if we refuse to recognize that we have an enemy." — Beverly (Canton, MI)

"If I was president, I would take under advisement some of the recommendations. But when it comes to asking or accepting help from Iran or Syria, forget it. You have to be the most stupid person on Earth to believe that Iran or Syria is going to help Iraq; they would just take the country over and then there will be an even bigger problem. I would leave most of what needs to be done in Iraq up to the top military leaders. I would also run all the news reporters out of the country so what ever happens, just happens." — Eddie

"These so called experts are selling the soul of our democracy! If Bush acts based on their recommendations, it proves we have not learned a thing from history. My nephew was killed in Iraq last year and this report is a slap in the face to all the troops that have given their lives or were seriously injured in defending our way of life. Baker's comparison of talking with Iran and Syria and our years of discussions with Russia are other examples of the idiocy we continue to harvest in Congress and the Senate. Iran and Syria are not super powers except, for the stature we choose to afford them. God Bless America." — Rick (Powhatan, VA)

"I would use the study group recommendations as one of many resources in formulating a new strategy for the region. I would evaluate every proposal individually. Then I would incorporate the best elements of this and other proposals to try to find an optimum solution. The underlying policy of establishing a free and democratic Iraq is the only thing I would be unwilling to change." — Jude (Waco, TX)

"I think the panel has done nothing to settle the argument. Both sides hear only what they want to hear. They haven't done anything that the President hasn't done every day — evaluate the situation with the information at hand and correct the strategy accordingly. The liberal media and politicians are convinced that we are losing, can't win, and will continue to blast the president." — Don (Green Cove Springs, FL.)

"Being ultimately responsible for the outcome of the Iraq conflict, I would listen to the recommendations made, but keep my own counsel and advisors with proven track records of being right. At this point in time, Iraq has descended so far into violent factionalism that only an Iraqi military takeover has any hopes of quelling the violence and restoring order — it's obvious the Iraqis are not ready for democracy yet. Under a (U.S. backed and guided) military "guardianship", the infrastructure for democracy can be gradually built and implemented; although not what we hoped for, it has nonetheless become necessary. I'm afraid that if this is not done, Al Sadr and his growing militia will eventually stage a coup of their own, and Iraq will become a satellite Islamic dictatorship of Iran." — Ed (Redmond, WA)

"It's time for a change in the U.S. Iraq policy, as pointed out in this new report. It's time for the Iraqis to start standing up and fending for themselves - something they have been obviously unwilling to do up to this point. Americans should stop dying for a populace that's not willing to protect itself." — Will (Des Moines, IA)

"If I were President Bush I would follow their recommendations as long as their recommendations were compatible with my strategy! They aren't even military experts or experts on what is happening on the ground in Iraq." — Kevin (Denver, CO)

"If I were president, I'd wish for half the power and magical wand solution waving power that most attribute to the office." — Nick

"No way. There is no blueprint for VICTORY, just sniveling consensus. You don't achieve objectives by consensus, you do it by winning. That is the missing element. Bush will continue on with his plan, and he has one, listen to the JCS and CENTCOM and march on to a winning strategy in Iraq and the War on Terror." — Bob (Delaware)