Defining victory in Iraq

[KafirChobee]

"Failure is not an option", per Bush43. And the Bushies have summated what victory means:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

Some real high fallutin' stuff in there. Of course their definition for victory seems decades away and rambles a bit. It seems to ignore reality, but why let that get in the way.

For me, it looks and sounds more like Vietnam daily. It is the same rhetoric, used four decades ago to justify a war that was just as unwinnable.

Still, I say let Bush have all the rope he needs - who knows maybe the "surge" will do more than simply waste more GI's lives. Maybe, the warring Iraqi factions will suddenly realize that America is their friend, all lay down their arms and love one another. Who knows, it could happen.

Or, the nightmare scenario that the Bushy's strategy paper outlines - becomes reality. Whether we stay the course, or not.

Regardless, how will we define victory? Is there a victory? Certainly not a military one - we won the war already; how does one nation win anothers civil unrest?

Define victory.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

That paper sounds like the same old rubbish, they are completely detached from reality and the last threads of any connection that anyone in the administration had are fast being cut...

my thoughts.... get out your pots and pans, place them on your head...you might need them come hell and most likely high water. :wall:




:hippie: "nar dood, we are winning and stuff" :stupido:

[Xiahou]

That paper sounds like the same old rubbishThat might make sense, considering it's from 2005. :idea2:

[spmetla]

I consider victory in Iraq to be the following:
A central government strong enough to not collapse at least not for a year or so (forseeable future) after the US leaves.

Perhaps a confederacy of the three regions only working together to share oil money.

Some sort of semi liberal govt. in power in Iraq, not Sharia law and not a dictatorship.

Not occupied by Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Syria when the US leaves.

I define US leaving as leaving Iraq for the most part but keeping around than 20K troops, those that are there are primarily for continuation of training and then security for those trainers. As well as continued airsupport via USAF.

Frankly I don't think the US really loses Iraq unless it gives up or the US is forced out from our bases being stormed and the embassy abandoned.

I envision all of this taking maybe 3 or 4 more years.

While my terms are considered unachievable by some people here I don't view them as me banging myself with a pot either.

[KafirChobee]

Here is the point, the conditions of victory as envisioned by the Bushies is not realistic or achievable in a few years or a decade. A stable Iraq is a wonderful goal - but, it is not ours to achieve ... it is theirs.

The idea that if we leave or pull back will make Iraq a safe zone for terrorists training camps and such? Well, it already is an on hands training area for terrorists. Americans get all teary eyed when 32 students are killed by a whack-job, but not even a sigh for the +150 Iraqis killed the same day by a suicide truck bomb. There is a disconnect for the Bushies and their supporters
between the reality that is Iraq, and their wishful vision for it or even the daily events that define it today. The wishfuk vision just ain't going to happen, and by throwing money and GIs at the problem will not change that reality.

A more appropriate term should be "order of withdrawal", defining realistic goals and guaranteeing oversight through limited military involvement. That is, we guarantee the sovereignty of Iraq but limit our military options to defending them against invasion - period. We can not solve the internal problems of Iraq. We can assist in rebuilding the infrastructure we destroyed (though thus far we have proven to be less than capable - then again this is presently being done by the same yahoos that messed up after Katrina), but we can't run their government for them - unless we want to impose another dictator.

Simply, there are no "victory" points for us in Iraq. The best we can hope for is to involve all the nations of the region to assure Iraq doesn't go any further into the blackhole we placed them in.

[Lemur]

It should be fairly obvious that the surge is really a punt (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013883.php). In less than four Friedman Units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_unit), Bush 43 can walk away whistling, and tell himself and others that the war was lost by the next administration.


It hit me the other day that what the surge is going to accomplish for Bush and Cheney is to take them through these next two years. By the time they can claim to have the extra troops in Baghdad it's gonna be May or June. They'll be there a few months till everyone has to admit that it isn't working . . . then it will be the end of 2007 and the argument will be about whether we should remove some of the surge troops. That will take a few months, at least, and we'll be in the throes of a presidential election. Bush won't want to do anything too "political" at that point, of course, so he'll happily leave it to the new prez to deal with the mess. And Bush and Cheney will spin it for all it's worth for the rest of their lives...

[spmetla]

In all fairness I actually support the buildup over several months for this "surge." It seems to allow the troops to be placed where the 'bad guys' are relocating. The surge seems to have very little success so far but a few hundred civilians less that were killed is a bit better. When Sept comes around Gen Petreaus better give everyone the straight poop on Iraq, he's tried to avoid the politics of the war as best as he could but he will need to say whether or not US forces are doing much good and whether or not a pullout is required.

I do agree with Khafir on the fact that the Bush & Co are completely out of touch with reality. Frankly though, I would like to see the US stay not out of fear of it being a terrorist training ground (I really don't see terrorism as much of a threat anyhow) but to try and limit the extent to which the Iraqis kill each other. I don't think that the bloodletting that the sunnis and shias will do when we leave is at all exagerated and feel that the US *owes* the Iraqis what little security we can give them. A low scale civil war is better than complete genocide being commited by both sides.

I really wish that the Dems and Repubs would come to some sort of reasonable agreement on the damn thing, I'd hate to be a military planner for Iraq when you don't know whether the politics in Washington allow to plan within a time frame of a month, a year. Immediate pullout or complete pullout before the end of '08 is not wise in my opinion, at the least I think that a pullout should be planned for the fall of '09.

Khafir, with your limited military involvement of the US would you still support the use of our spec ops working with theirs, the training of Iraqis, and of course the support of the might USAF? Right now their govt has very little heavy equipment which doesn't give them much of edge over the average insurgent who already gets to take the initative in any military action. I know we're gonna give them a load of M60A3s and M113s which should help the capabilities of their forces but they still need to be taught how to use the damn things.

@Lemur, I don't think anything that the Dems or Repubs do now can take any blame away from Bush & Co, I feel when he gets out of office there should be a complete investigation held of him and his administration. Their bungling of the war for the past 4 years is absolutely inexcusable and they should at least be held accountable for it.

[Moros]

Victory...

[Zaknafien]

What really irks me as an active duty US soldier who's actually been to these places, is the ludicrous propaganda being put out by the GOP on the whole budget issue. It's as if they're telling the American people, "these democrats want to steal all the troops' money" by not passing the budget. Like all of our weapons will 'poof' dissappear the moment the budget runs out. When in reality, the budgetary supplement is for the surge, not for current operations, which are funded through the next fiscal year already. Its almost criminal the way the republicans lie to americans every day.

[Ice]

Its almost criminal the way the republicans lie to americans every day.

Replace Republicans with politicians, and I'd agree.

[KafirChobee]

Khafir, with your limited military involvement of the US would you still support the use of our spec ops working with theirs, the training of Iraqis, and of course the support of the might USAF? Right now their govt has very little heavy equipment which doesn't give them much of edge over the average insurgent who already gets to take the initative in any military action. I know we're gonna give them a crap load of M60A3s and M113s which should help the capabilities of their forces but they still need to be taught how to use the damn things.

Personally, I have no problem with Special OPS continuing their mission, though it must be overseen closely and conditionally - i.e. defined as a training and oversight mission to Iraqi intelligence. The USAF will have a place in any administration that follows Bush43's - it is a gimme, and a necessity for any possible stability. The threat of bombs falling from no where, anywhere, any time is a deffinate detterent to the building of perminent bases by any terrorist factions, and may tends to keep the present Iraqi admin. in line.

As to supplying the Iraqi military with high tech munitions or armour - let them prove themselves to being committed to uniting the country as a nation first. Rather than pleasing Bush, let them prove to America that they care about their entire population and not just one sect (Shia).

Bottom line, for me, is we can't simply "be gone", but we must withdraw our troops to a safer position in the region. There is absolutely no reason for us to waste or risk the lives of our military personell for some unattainable goals that must be met by the nation's government we are now assisting.

Note: it was a fubar for us to invade, but to conceed entirely today would be as irresponsable as it was for us to leave behind all the Vietnamese that supported us in 'nam (and all the illegitate orphans, etc.). There must be a middle point, not a total surrender point - we must adjust to. Not a new day same thing, as the Bushies want - but, a new day, new way. Lets get real and not just political about the situation that Bush created. We cannot desert a situation simply because it is the easy way - but, we cannot continue as we are. We need a realistic political plan - as I said before, we must involve all the surrounding nations willing to assisting us in contributing to the stability of the region. It is time to get real about Iraq, and not just make it a political point that most Americans could care less about anyway.
:shame:

[KafirChobee]

One more curious point. The other night (I think on Bill Moyers Journal) it was pointed out that about 10,000 Iraqis have assisted our military and civilian interests. All these people have been threatened with death for assisting us. To date we have allowed 568 (or there abouts) of these families to migrate to the U.S. - it is just another travesty, but it is an American tradition to desert those that truely assisted us or those we need to be responsible for.

When the French left IndoChina they took everyone that assisted them, their soldiers offspring, orphans, and anyone they knew would be persecuted for giving them aid. When we left Vietnam, we just left - we left our soldiers indisgretions to live on the streets, the orphaned of ARVN soldiers, and though we did increase the number of Vietnamese allowed in (during the Carter administration) it was to little to late for many.

We are doing the same thing in Iraq, hopefully the next administration will acknowledge these people and get them out of what ever trap they are presently in.

One would like to believe we are a nation that learns from its mistakes (even though a majority of us got hoodwinked into this fubar - not me btw), one can only imagine the GOPists conceeding they have been wrong all this time. My hope is that we have atleast gained a conscience for our past ignorances. It is always easier to turn ones back on something they don't want to see or believe, than to face the problem and force our representatives to do the right thing. What a crime that we have yet to remove all those (Iraqis and their families) that have assisted us to a safe haven - America.

[spmetla]

Wehn we eventually pull out then yes, we should allow willing Iraqis to imigrate to the US. Doing it now though would naturally cause a bad "political message" that unfortunately keeps our friends there in harms way.

[Devastatin Dave]

One more curious point. The other night (I think on Bill Moyers Journal)
That says it all...:laugh4:

[KafirChobee]

That says it all...:laugh4:
And your point is? We ignore those that assist us in our wars? Or, that the source of the message is automatically wrong, because it ain't a rightist? Like Limpballs?
:balloon2:

[Agent Smith]

What really irks me as an active duty US soldier who's actually been to these places, is the ludicrous propaganda being put out by the GOP on the whole budget issue. It's as if they're telling the American people, "these democrats want to steal all the troops' money" by not passing the budget. Like all of our weapons will 'poof' dissappear the moment the budget runs out. When in reality, the budgetary supplement is for the surge, not for current operations, which are funded through the next fiscal year already. Its almost criminal the way the republicans lie to americans every day.

I'm sorry, but that is patently false. First, the budget is for all war related funding in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, has said at the beginning of April that if funds are delayed past May 15, the military may have to extend current deployments because it won't have the money to ready other troops to replace them.

Also, the Congressional Research Service said Army funds will run out by the end of May, but by transferring money from another account the Army can go as late as three weeks into July. They would have to remove money from other programs, such as the DOJ and the Pentagon, if no spending bill was passed.

I don't know where you got your information from.

[KafirChobee]

The latest definition of victory - straight out of Dubya's mouth, "Sucess is not no violence".

So, we have no plans to return the peace to pre-invasion days. We would be happy if it settled down to a Darfur situation though. :dizzy2:

[spmetla]

That's quite an assumption, how does leaving "no violence" out of a definition for victory mean that a situation similiar to Darfur is acceptable. I don't like Bush but that statement is being taken completely out of context, so long as "crusaders" are there we will have some violence happening along with the usual strife between the Sunnis and Shias. I still believe that so long as the Iraqi government is reasonably stable and not about to be toppled by the rival parties within that we'll have achieved a success, this is also coupled with that government not doing a purge of enemies the moment the US looks away.

[KafirChobee]

That's quite an assumption, how does leaving "no violence" out of a definition for victory mean that a situation similiar to Darfur is acceptable. I don't like Bush but that statement is being taken completely out of context, so long as "crusaders" are there we will have some violence happening along with the usual strife between the Sunnis and Shias. I still believe that so long as the Iraqi government is reasonably stable and not about to be toppled by the rival parties within that we'll have achieved a success, this is also coupled with that government not doing a purge of enemies the moment the US looks away.

It is not "no violence", it is "not no violence". In other words, when Bush & Co. determine that the level of violence in Iraq reaches there determined level of acceptablitiy (maybe equal to the Watts riots), he will proclaim victory (again) and begin a withdrawal of our troops presence.

Victory in Iraq is being redefined on almost a daily basis by the Bushys. Heck, Ms. Rice even said that the reason we are in Iraq is because the government invited us there - though I have a great deal of problem with this statement since I have no memory of Saddam asking us for help. Maybe she meant the present government of Iraq, it was a premonition from god; or some such. Actually it is something much simpler - they (Bushys) keep reaching back to things that worked in previous administrations to justify their own fubars, this one was based on the supposed Diem asking for help (they tend to forget we allowed the coup, ultimately his assassination, that overthrew him). It is as though they feel a need to continue to justify their reasons for invasion, and our continued occupation by constantly revising them - sooner or later, one of them might have a ring of validity that someone outside their true believer circle might buy into - after all the `wmd' thing worked once. If a blind man keeps swining a hammer at a nail, in time he may actually hit it. That seems to be their philosophy.

Btw, Your points are well taken. But, according to a report from our own intelligence oversight there, the present Shia government has already secretly set up their own secret police along the same lines as Saddam. So, once we leave it is inevitable that a strongman (or Ayatollah) will emerge and begin rounding up all the usual suspects - that is anyone that disagrees with them. It is inevitable, and there ain't a damn thing we can do about.

Not no violence. :balloon2:

[rotorgun]

I define Victory in Iraq as not having to be deployed, or watch my fellow military bretheren be deployed to such a worthless piece of ground that is infested by Sodomites and women beaters any more. Unfortunately, the powers that be have gotten us into a situation designed to make them and thier defense contrating freinds a great deal of money for a long time-all coming from the taxpayers mind you.

I believe that that is what they define victory as: a chance to give the military-industrial money making machine that was created during the cold war a means to continue making money. They have achieved what they desired-an unwinnable morass that we cannot leave without a major loss of national honor, that will require a long term (and I mean decades) military presence in the region, all needing the production capacities and services of thier industrial friends. It's like One Source on steroids for them.

By 2009, the culprits will all be down at the ranch counting thier billions while the poor and middle class finish the dirty work.

For me, the quicker we leave the better.

[Zaknafien]

amen brother. victory will not be had until the citizens of America wake up and refuse to accept the war profiteering and criminal actions of the corporations and their administration puppets.