Defining victory in Iraq

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.