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/ir...y_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.




"nar dood, we are winning and stuff"

[Xiahou]

That paper sounds like the same old rubbish

That might make sense, considering it's from 2005.

[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. In less than four Friedman Units, 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...