What is a 'win' in Iraq?

[coda]

What is, or how do we define, a 'win' in Iraq?

This question has been bouncing around in my head for a while now and the 'civilian-killing' thread helped crystallize it. I have what I believe to be a fairly well formed opinion but before I post it I'd like to see what other ideas are out there (so as not to bias the sample).

[chm2023]

There is no "win" possible in my opinion. Best case: we withdraw and Iraq as a whole or as 3 separate states resumes the activities of a sovereign nation (or nations) as any form of government other than radical Islamic theocracy and incubator for jihadists. I think the radical Islamic theocracy is at least even money, protracted civil war better than even money.

Have a nice day.:hammer:

PS whatever happened to bringing Saddam to trial??? I think I know the answer, nobody wants to further rile the Sunnis.

Well now that Powell has been axed, and the spectacularly sycophantic Rice is in place (and an ex-Cheney aide given the NSC gig) we can all look forward to even more of the same well thought out and robust foreign policy. Be still my heart. If you want to really lose sleep, take a look at what Putin is up to--see how Bush measures up to a serious enemy, not a pushover like Saddam.

[John R]

Simple.
Come back alive.
Just like many other spats in the 20th century. No way is any side ever going to win.....

[coda]

Simple.
Come back alive.
Just like many other spats in the 20th century. No way is any side ever going to win.....

I don't mean to put words in your mouth but you seem to imply that pulling out now, unilaterally and completely, would be a win regardless of the state of Iraq after the withdrawl?

[John R]

I don't mean to put words in your mouth but you seem to imply that pulling out now, unilaterally and completely, would be a win regardless of the state of Iraq after the withdrawl?

No wasn't meant that...
Was more a statement that anyone sent there might say. "I've won as i've come home alive, not in a black bodybag"

No one will ever win in iraq, its a no win situation.
If you had wanted to win... :drop: then its easy to work out... Just drop a big bomb and level the place. No one left... then YOU have one.

[karen]

Agree with chm that there is no "win" really. Most of you know that I support what we are trying to accomplish over there but have felt for a while that we are not likely to accomplish democracy in a place that feels it has no use for it. Ideally a win would be some sort of rule where everybody had a say and religious differences could be overlooked-but don't see how that will ever work there. I would like to keep some other crazy dictator from taking over but short of a constant military presence forever don't see that as likely. I do think there have been some victories-schools reopened, some places with humanitarian aid actually making it to the people, power being restored to some areas etc but there have been losses too...war sure isn't pretty.

chm-sidebar-do you think Rice is just a yes-woman? Am curious as to why specifically??

[Joann Raytar]

Have we already accomplished what we started out to do, oust Hussein. Ousting the rest of his supporters is what is left. We are still there to prove that we don't liberate and run.

If we can stop the terrorists from destroying Iraq's resources, then there is a chance that Iraq can win. They will be able to raise funds and get the support needed to rebuild and educate.

Can we stabalize Iraq without the Kurds creating a situation similar to Palestine and Israel? The Shiah and Sunni pre-Hussein worked together relatively well. If the Kurds, ostracized from the others, decide they want their own state then rebuilding Iraq could take awhile.

[rinselberg]

There is no "win" possible in my opinion. Best case: we withdraw and Iraq as a whole or as 3 separate states resumes the activities of a sovereign nation (or nations) as any form of government other than radical Islamic theocracy and incubator for jihadists. I think the radical Islamic theocracy is at least even money, protracted civil war better than even money.

Have a nice day.:hammer:

PS whatever happened to bringing Saddam to trial??? I think I know the answer, nobody wants to further rile the Sunnis.

Well now that Powell has been axed, and the spectacularly sycophantic Rice is in place (and an ex-Cheney aide given the NSC gig) we can all look forward to even more of the same well thought out and robust foreign policy. Be still my heart. If you want to really lose sleep, take a look at what Putin is up to--see how Bush measures up to a serious enemy, not a pushover like Saddam.

What's Putin up to? Too authoritarian? Reckless nuclear proliferation? A new missile? What am I not losing sleep over, that I should be?

[rinselberg]

What is, or how do we define, a 'win' in Iraq?

When the natives start putting up statues of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz all over Iraq.

http://www.content.loudeye.com/scrip...900&cid=600111




http://www.internetweekly.org/iwr/ca...card_list.html

[rinselberg]

When there is a popularly elected national government of Iraq with Iraqi security forces that are clearly strong enough and willing to defend the government and maintain general order, country wide. Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis all playing on the same team, and not plotting against each other or trying to break up the country into separate parts. It's a tall order and it clearly is not just around the corner or just over the visible horizon. But I think that I have captured the essence of it.

[hcjilson]

the "coalition" forces will go home. When the last soldier departs the country, a civil war will erupt. The winner of this war will put forward another autocratic ruler and you will have the next "Saddam". That is a prediction only, but based on historical precedent. Sad but true. We can "win" nothing and will always be the bad guys to most Iraqui's.Even though there are many who profess to like us now, will prove to have short memories when we are gone. Sad but true.

[rinselberg]

the "coalition" forces will go home. When the last soldier departs the country, a civil war will erupt. The winner of this war will put forward another autocratic ruler and you will have the next "Saddam". That is a prediction only, but based on historical precedent. Sad but true. We can "win" nothing and will always be the bad guys to most Iraqui's.Even though there are many who profess to like us now, will prove to have short memories when we are gone. Sad but true.

I think you are too pessimistic about Iraq. Lebanon, it seems to me, pulled itself together after a long period of turbulence and intervention by Syria. I honestly don't know much about Lebanon, but it hardly makes the newspapers or TV these days. No news is probably good news, as far as the Middle East goes.

[Joann Raytar]

That is a prediction only, but based on historical precedent.

Out of curiosity, how many countries have been liberated by the US in modern times and what were the outcomes of those military actions? WWII Europe, Serbia, Kosovo, Panama, Haiti, Kuwait, Grenada and etc. Where are they now?

I think threat of an Iraqi civil war all depends on the Kurds. Iraq has the ability to finance it's rebuilding by selling its natural resources, oil, so I think the country has a chance. I think you see more civil unrest in countries that can't afford to rebuild - a kick em while they're down sort of situation. Economic weakness leaves an open door for opportunists.

[chm2023]

What's Putin up to? Too authoritarian? Reckless nuclear proliferation? A new missile? What am I not losing sleep over, that I should be?

Specifically referring to new weapons development, but the other stuff is fun too.

[chm2023]

Agree with chm that there is no "win" really. Most of you know that I support what we are trying to accomplish over there but have felt for a while that we are not likely to accomplish democracy in a place that feels it has no use for it. Ideally a win would be some sort of rule where everybody had a say and religious differences could be overlooked-but don't see how that will ever work there. I would like to keep some other crazy dictator from taking over but short of a constant military presence forever don't see that as likely. I do think there have been some victories-schools reopened, some places with humanitarian aid actually making it to the people, power being restored to some areas etc but there have been losses too...war sure isn't pretty.

chm-sidebar-do you think Rice is just a yes-woman? Am curious as to why specifically??

Rice was part of the first Bush team, spec as an expert on the Soviet Union. She was brought in to "tutor" W on foreign policy when the Republicans decided to run him for President. She never disagrees with Bush and did a poor job at running the NSC (no less an admin cheerleader than William Safire recently blasted her for this, ditto the British foreign service head), seems to have poor administrative and leadership skills from what I have read. Not a player versus Rummy, Cheney or Powell, draws all her power from her close relationship with W, none in her own right. I don't know if you saw her on the talk show circuit, but as the info on WMD and no Saddam/9/11 connection became clear, her rationalizations were pretty painful to watch.

http://www.slate.com/id/2109495/#ContinueArticle

Gonzales exhibits the same slavish loyalty.

[rinselberg]

I have not heard anything on the Russian weapons front that sounded scary to me. Sounds just like more of the same old nuclear standoff. We willl continue to be able to kill the Russians ten times over, and they will soon be able to kill us at the same time twenty times over. Seems pretty academic to me. I think that's why (by counterpoint) that Saddam's Iraq was more disturbing. NOT predictable enough. The view from here.

[rinselberg]

Oops, I FORGOT something!

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...23&postcount=9

[coda]

Here's what a win in Iraq actually is (pardon the hubris):


A single or multi-state solution with each state having a representative government, libertarian government. Each state must have the ability and desire to defend it's boarders against forigen and extra national (read terrorists) invasion.

Moreover the Iraqi peoples and the Muslim world must view the United States as, at minimum, no more evil than they did when we invaded. We must not allow the fundamentalist anti-American/anti-Western elements in the region more leverage in recruiting people and resources to their cause. In other words not only must we win the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqis but also the rest of the Muslim world.

Anything less and at best we've cut off our noses to spite our faces.

[Pete Hanlin]

Wow- all I can say is that a lot of you would feel very comfortable living in Europe right now (no, I'm not suggesting that anyone should move- just making a observation)... Having just returned from a week in France, it was rather interesting to both watch the European news channels and converse with my European colleagues.

As for a "win," I believe victory is an Iraqi people that have the opportunity to establish a freely elected government. We've already dismantled the regime that has oppressed them for decades, and we are in the process of diminishing the ability of terrorists to establish a new regime. All we can do is take the people to the doorstep of freedom and invite them to take the reigns. If Iraqis simply choose to return to oppression, that will be their choice- but I believe we are giving them a legitimate and new opportunity to self-determine their own government. Guess that makes me delusionally optimistic.

PS- I didn't realize that Powell had been "axed," thanks for clearing that up. Since news sources (like Time magazine) have been reporting since '02 and before that Powell only wished to serve one term, I blindly figured he simply wanted to move on.

[chm2023]

PS- I didn't realize that Powell had been "axed," thanks for clearing that up. Since news sources (like Time magazine) have been reporting since '02 and before that Powell only wished to serve one term, I blindly figured he simply wanted to move on.

He would have stayed on if asked, being "the good soldier"; Bush chose not to ask. I think Powell is wise to leave, he has precious little reputation left to salvage.

[chm2023]

All we can do is take the people to the doorstep of freedom and invite them to take the reigns. If Iraqis simply choose to return to oppression, that will be their choice- but I believe we are giving them a legitimate and new opportunity to self-determine their own government. Guess that makes me delusionally optimistic.

No but it makes you disingenuous. The way I read this, and perhaps I am mistaken, you're setting the table for the argument that civil war and/or the emergence of a radical Islamic theocracy in a post US Iraq is the fault of the Iraqis, and by implication, not in any degree our fault. Or, Colin Powell was wrong, this isn't like Pottery Barn at all, it's more like "you break it, oh well,
s--t happens."

Very clever, Mr H...diabolical but clever!;)

[jediron1]

I think General MaCarthur said it best:



"It is my earnest hope - indeed the hope of all mankind - that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past, a world found upon faith and understanding, a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice."
- General Douglas Macarthur

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
- Gen Douglas MacArthur

[Spexvet]

I think General MaCarthur said it best:



"It is my earnest hope - indeed the hope of all mankind - that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past, a world found upon faith and understanding, a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice."


- General Douglas Macarthur

"In war there is no substitute for victory."

- Gen Douglas MacArthur

Psalm 46


God Is Our Fortress
...

9He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
he breaks the bow and shatters the spear;
he burns the chariots with fire.

...

[chm2023]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/op...malley.html?th

An interesting idea. Putting all our eggs in the January national election basket is increasingly looking like a bad idea.

[mrba]

Rice was part of the first Bush team, spec as an expert on the Soviet Union. She was brought in to "tutor" W on foreign policy when the Republicans decided to run him for President.

Many people are brought in to tutor the president on a muriad of topics.

She never disagrees with Bush

Generally when leadership shows a united front it is considered a good thing. And please, you have no idea if she has ever voiced opposition to Bush privately.

and did a poor job at running the NSC (no less an admin cheerleader than William Safire r0ecently blasted her for this, ditto the British foreign service head),

I wasn't aware the British held the standard for a good job in anything, including foreign service.

seems to have poor administrative and leadership skills from what I have read.

A common issue for a genius to deal with. Absent minded professor? Who cares.

Not a player versus Rummy, Cheney or Powell

6 months ago Powell wasn't considered a player either. Was she a player when asked to testify to congress against precident? I think so.

draws all her power from her close relationship with W, none in her own right.

"Obtuse" is what I would have been called had I said that about the other side. Tell me, how do you see Rummy and Powell's power playing out, where Condi's is not? And where does power in the executive stem from other than the president?

I don't know if you saw her on the talk show circuit, but as the info on WMD and no Saddam/9/11 connection became clear, her rationalizations were pretty painful to watch.

I concur

Gonzales exhibits the same slavish loyalty.

Are you surprised? Would you expect Kerr'ys cabniet to be disloyal? As opposed to slavish loyalty, would you prefer, say, a traitor? Not sure what point is being made here, please clairify.