And the Winner Is...

[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?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

Sure you can.

[KarlXII]

Sure you can.

The point is, was it worth it?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sure you can.

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.