And the Winner Is...

[Lemur]

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

[m52nickerson]

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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?

[BigTex]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

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.

[Lemur]

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.

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

Too funny! From your link:

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Lemur]

Iraq is far from bottomless.

Heh, tell it to the Brits.

[Lemur]

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 ...

[KarlXII]

LOL@ "TAKE THAT COMMIE DEFEATIST FRENCHMEN!"