And the Winner Is...

War in Iraq won? That's un-possible!

Tiny article that 75% of the forum will hate.

Quote:

---

A US soldier is safer in the "war" zone in Iraq than he or she would be in the city of Chicago today

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Lag Between Networked and Disconnected

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2T5FgJd...aqikidflag.jpgGreyhawk is right, folks who are just realizing the war in Iraq has been won are arriving to the party after the keg has been tapped.

Greyhawk on 7/17/08, "we won."

And for the record, ID on 7/16/08.

We believe the US has already won in Iraq. People may accuse this blog for being overly optimistic, but we believe we are being realistic. There are many, many reasons, too many to cover, why we believe this, but one anecdotal statistic sticks out that implies the war is over. Thedeath toll of US troops in Iraq in July through right now is eight. That is one fewer soldiers than died in the one firefight in Afghanistan earlier this week. A US soldier is safer in the "war" zone in Iraq than he or she would be in the city of Chicago today, which interestingly enough, may be where some Iraq veterans find themselves in the near future. This is also why we believe the trip to Iraq by Barack Obama isn't a fact finding mission to determine what next, rather we expect him to pledge US support for the Iraqi's through the upcoming election, talk about how good things are in Iraq, shift the discussion towards Afghanistan, and we won't even be surprised at all when Obama returns home to declare victory in Iraq...

The war in Iraq is over, it isn't war anymore, it is reconstruction and security through one more major election, then what we believe can be described as a "fading phase" will begin that disappears US troops gradually from the everyday lives of the Iraqi people.

OK so Obama hasn't declared Victory yet, but either Bush does, or Obama will. I don't know that I can take credit for being a sage though, I read Greyhawk and at the time was probably reading the same tea leaves he was.

As for Afghanistan, everything said on the blog in that July post still applies today.

What do y'all think?

By most objective measures we won the war in 2003. You don't really "win" an occupation, that's not how things work.

How many of Iraq's people died in the same time frame........sine US soldiers have armor and live on protected bases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

By most objective measures we won the war in 2003. You don't really "win" an occupation, that's not how things work.

---

Ok - it seems like we have "won" the occupation. So what you are saying is that by no standard can we ever win the Iraqi conflict?

We can never win now because of semantics?

When our primary objective for the occupation is complete we have "won". If fatalities are down in Iraq and we can scale down forces while the Iraqi government runs itself in a just and responsible manner...

WIN!

EDIT: It seems the word "war" has a more expansive meaning link

Tuff- Please do not troll the members of the forum is such a manner by indicating they want us to lose.

Secondly- We haven't "won". Only once we can fully pull out of Iraq, and the country fully stands on its own two feet, can we state to have "won" the occupation. Are we winning? The situation would seem to be in that favor. However, lets not forget the number of militia groups that are essentially being paid to keep their heads down, as well as those being paid to help in actual combat. Once Iraq can show itself to have a government capable of flexing its muscle and putting the militias down, through whatever mean the Iraqis deem acceptable, then it can truly take the final steps to a "win" for us.

Isn't the reason both candidates agreed to withdraw us troops in the near future because violence was winding down?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Isn't the reason both candidates agreed to withdraw us troops in the near future because violence was winding down?

---

Yes. I just want to hear you guys say it.

It is tricky; We can't leave until we've won and we can't win until we've left.

I like to think more simplistically about this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

When our primary objective for the occupation is complete we have "won". If fatalities are down in Iraq and we can scale down forces while the Iraqi government runs itself in a just and responsible manner...

---

And you have just demonstrated the rather arbitrary nature of declaring a win in the current occupation. What, exactly is our "primary objective"? Is it to create a stable democracy? Is it to create an environment with a certail level of violence? Is it to improve the standard of living in Iraq? Is it to heal the differences between Sunni, Shia and Kurd?

Iraq is a bottomless hole that would happily swallow all of our good intentions. As I said, we won the war already, five years ago. If you feel that we've passed some golden mark that allows you to declare victory again, then by all means, do so. I'll spring for confetti if you'll buy the champagne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

It seems the word "war" has a more expansive meaning link

---

Too funny! From your link:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...rmania/War.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Iraq is a bottomless hole that would happily swallow all of our good intentions. As I said, we won the war already, five years ago. If you feel that we've passed some golden mark that allows you to declare victory again, then by all means, do so. I'll spring for confetti if you'll buy the champagne.

---

Life is a string of victories and defeats. We've won once, we are winning again at a new challenge. Iraq is far from bottomless.

The world will be better off once we get the new Iraq off of the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Iraq is far from bottomless.

---

Heh, tell it to the Brits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Yes. I just want to hear you guys say it.

---

Iraq can never be 'won' anymore. For this to happen, Iraq would need to be proven a serious international security threat in 2003, and had to be turned into a stable democracy at relatively modest expediture in life and finances somewhat soon after the invasion. The latter is no longer possible, the former seems very doubtful.
So no, at the - totally unforeseen - costs of $2 trillon*, 4000 US lives, the pr disaster of Abu Graibh, the shame that mercenaries brought to US standing in the world, and five years of extreme internal violence, Iraq does not at all resemble a win followed by ever more wins against new challenges.

To present Iraq as a string of victories upon victories reeks of fanboyism, of partisan blindspots. Perhaps the last two US administrations made some, shall we say, mistakes and miscalculations regarding Iraq?


However, yes, compared to the unmitigated disaster that the Iraq invasion looked like in from 2004 up to last year, the situation has improved dramatically. Who knows, turning Iraq into some sort of stable, relatively peaceful country seems not impossible, or even unlikely, anymore. This is an achievement in its own right. Cause for optimism too.
Anti-Bush partisanship that refuses to acknowledge the successes that Bush II had in cleaning up the mess from Bush I reeks of partisan blindspots as well.


*$2 trillion. That would pay for the financial bail out program, and for national healthcare, and would still leave enough to save GM, Ford and Chrysler. All this was spend on an imminent danger that was not there. Some win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

To present Iraq as a string of victories upon victories reeks of fanboyism, of partisan blindspots. Perhaps the last two US administrations made some, shall we say, mistakes and miscalculations regarding Iraq?

---

To present it as a string of defeats reeks of what?

If you buy $500 million dollars worth of lottery tickets you can't "win" the lottery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

EDIT: It seems the word "war" has a more expansive meaning link

---

This link of yours is the freakiest thing I've seen all day. First it told me there were no definitions for "war," then it listed twelve, and now it's trying to relate to me in some weird way I can't fathom ...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...rWisconsin.jpg

LOL@ "TAKE THAT COMMIE DEFEATIST FRENCHMEN!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

If you buy $500 million dollars worth of lottery tickets you can't "win" the lottery.

---

Sure you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Sure you can.

---

The point is, was it worth it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

The point is, was it worth it?

---

Spending $500 million dollars to win a jackpot of $500 million dollars is a nonequivalent comparison. It implies that freedom for 30,000,000 people has a dollar value and that we have met it.

I believe that a stable Iraq without tyrannical rule will be more rewarding than many of us can imagine. For the United States, for Iraq, and for people all over the world.

I'm no stickler for a particular brand of democracy, only that people can appeal to a government that abhors arbitrariness and that answers in a real and reviewable way to its entire constituency.

I think that we need to find the victories in Iraq particularly because it has cost so many so much and is intertwined with an honorable objective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Spending $500 million dollars to win a jackpot of $500 million dollars is a nonequivalent comparison.

---

I always though lottery's were around 1 million. Hence the "500 million for 1 million".

Quote:

---

I believe that a stable Iraq without tyrannical rule will be more rewarding than many of us can imagine. For the United States, for Iraq, and for people all over the world.

---

Why's that? Why is Iraq so damn special that it's put above places like Sudan where people have been suffering for years? We could've done a damn lot more good helping poor nations get back on their feet. I mean, with all the money we spent on Iraq, we could've been helping out the starving people in the Congo and end the Darfur genocide.

Quote:

---

I think that we need to find the victories in Iraq particularly because it has cost so many so much and is intertwined with an honorable objective.

---

To find non existant weapons?

Which actually raises the question, when did Iraq stop being about the Weapons that we went in for and start becoming the great crusade of liberation? Was it around the "Mission Accomplished" mark?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

I always though lottery's were around 1 million. Hence the "500 million for 1 million".

---

Lottery value varies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Why's that? Why is Iraq so damn special that it's put above places like Sudan where people have been suffering for years? We could've done a damn lot more good helping poor nations get back on their feet. I mean, with all the money we spent on Iraq, we could've been helping out the starving people in the Congo and end the Darfur genocide.

---

Iraq is special for many reasons. For the ideological reasons it has feet to stand on when we help it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Which actually raises the question, when did Iraq stop being about the Weapons that we went in for and start becoming the great crusade of liberation? Was it around the "Mission Accomplished" mark?

---

When we realized that there were no WMD's. We went in for a number of other reasons, all of which have been consistently articulated for many years.

Security from WMD proliferation was one of the primary objectives and the objective that best helped sell the war to the American people. I beleived then as I blieve now that the war in Iraq has been worth the cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Iraq is special for many reasons.

---

Those being?

Quote:

---

For the ideological reasons it has feet to stand on when we help it up.

---

And again, all the money we spent on Iraq, we could be spending getting poorer nations on their feet. But we had to go find those weapons- I MEAN LIBERATE THE MIDDLE EAST FROM HITLER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seireikhaan

Tuff- Please do not troll the members of the forum is such a manner by indicating they want us to lose.

Secondly- We haven't "won". Only once we can fully pull out of Iraq, and the country fully stands on its own two feet, can we state to have "won" the occupation. Are we winning? The situation would seem to be in that favor. However, lets not forget the number of militia groups that are essentially being paid to keep their heads down, as well as those being paid to help in actual combat. Once Iraq can show itself to have a government capable of flexing its muscle and putting the militias down, through whatever mean the Iraqis deem acceptable, then it can truly take the final steps to a "win" for us.

---

By those standards we have never won WWII. The war in Iraq was won, the occupation and stabalization of the country though is a different matter. I'll agree though that it's getting alot better there, and hopefully with continued support it will stand on it's own. With Obama having won the presidency though I doubt we'll stay. He'll try and abandon them as quickly as possible, leaving the monsters we loosed to tear that country apart, what a guy:2thumbsup:.

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...mplished-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

With Obama having won the presidency though I doubt we'll stay. He'll try and abandon them as quickly as possible, leaving the monsters we loosed to tear that country apart, what a guy:2thumbsup:.

---

I don't think so. I think it will be the difference between stopping at the end of the yellow light or at the beginning of the red light.

I believe that we will be there as long under Obama as we would have been under McCain. I believe that we will still have little consultant forces in Iraq for some time. Obama will start to pull out slightly before McCain would have.

Obama isn't stupid, but I won't defend his constituency that called for immediate withdrawl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Sure you can.

---

Then why doesn't bill gates buy a bunch of lottery tickets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Then why doesn't bill gates buy a bunch of lottery tickets?

---

Ask yourself again what you are comparing. Then ask if you want to stand by your analogy.

You could have just said "we've over paid", but then you'd get into an argument that put a physical price tag on a metaphysical value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...mplished-1.jpg

---

Nice picture, taken at the end of the Iraq war after the defeat of Sadam's forces and begining of the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. That is mission accomplished is it not? The enemy was defeated, his country occupied, that is victory. Occupation and insurgency is not a continuation of the war against Sadam's forces. Or are you trying to suggest that Sadam's army wasnt defeated, that the insurgency is a continuation of the defense of Sadam's military?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I don't think so. I think it will be the difference between stopping at the end of the yellow light or at the beginning of the red light.

I believe that we will be there as long under Obama as we would have been under McCain. I believe that we will still have little consultant forces in Iraq for some time. Obama will start to pull out slightly before McCain would have.

Obama isn't stupid, but I won't defend his constituency that called for immediate withdrawl.

---

I truly hope that will be the case, but Obama still wont give much credit to the effectiveness of the surge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

I truly hope that will be the case, but Obama still wont give much credit to the effectiveness of the surge.

---

Everybody loves to go on about the Surge, nobody wants to mention the Sunni Awakening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

War in Iraq won? That's un-possible!

Tiny article that 75% of the forum will hate.

---

Why exactly would we hate it? I have heard these claims and implications that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq want the Coalition to lose or are somehow supporters of Saddam or Al Qaeda made with depressing regularity over the last 6 years. Are you seriously saying that you still don't understand the reasons why so many people were opposed to the Iraq war?

Still, the apparent progress in Iraq is certainly good news. A Pyrrhic victory, which is the best that can be achieved now, is certainly better than a defeat, and a stabilization of the situation in Iraq to the point where we can withdraw significant numbers of troops would allow us to focus on winning the real battle in Afghanistan, which should have been the focus all along.

I'm not quite sure of the cause for the triumphalism however. There's still plenty of danger of things going horribly wrong in Iraq so to be claiming the war is "won" does rather smack of counting chickens before they are hatched. And even the situation does continue to improve, it still wouldn't be a vindication of the initial invasion or the Bush doctrine; my objections to the war were always more fundamental than simply the fact it was going badly.

Compared to the situation a few years ago I would consider the current one a major succes. Credit where it's due.