What is this "we need to have a victory in Iraq" stuff I've been hearing

[Skidmore]

the last couple of days from the military. Mother of a soldier just called in to Washington Journal saying this. I've heard politicians in the Republican party put that crap out there too. This is not a freaking football game! How much money do we need to invest so the home team has a "win." What next? Bake sales? What's a "win" anyway? How many broken or dead bodies or shattered minds is enough for the war machine?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. This would be the same old and tired shit all wrapped up

in bright new wrapping paper with a real pretty bow around it.

[Crankie Avalon]

2. Probably more like "we need to save face in Iraq." The way to put off the admission...

...that our soldiers "died in vain" is to make sure even more keep dying by prolonging the stalemate another two years till after the next election when maybe there will be a way to try and divert the blame to the next administration.

[shadowknows69]

34. I think it needs to be said

this country has to drop the rabid nationalism and wake up to reality. The soldiers did die in vain and there is one man responsible for that. The blood of thousands scream out for justice. Impeach now.

[Avalux]

3. They won't let go of it -

too stupid to realize Iraq can't be "won" militarily. Dumbass McCain wants to put more troops in - WHAT troops??

[Postman]

4. This "we have to win" mentality must be a sign of some mental illness

what is it with starting wars on lies, getting your ass handed to you, and then declaring "we have to win"...

I'm sorry. No. You don't "have to win".

You should lose.

You lied about the reasons, You killed who knows how many innocent people. You destroyed their country and divided ours.

No. You should lose a war that is immoral, unjust and unethical. Period.



.

[Phentex]

8. YES! It's right up there with "We have to fix what we broke!"

WHY!?

"You lied about the reasons, You killed who knows how many innocent people. You destroyed their country and divided ours." Exactly. All of that was done for no damn good reason.

And now they say we have to fix it?

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. I'm watchingn CSPAN now

What a moran that caller was. And this senator LIKES Rumsfeld. Sheesh. They just don't get it, do they?

[tavalon]

6. Okay, fine

Let's declare victory and get the hell out. I suggest today as a fine day to do that.

[Skidmore]

7. What's your definition of a "win"?

How long are you willing to commit to this war that should never have happened?

[tavalon]

9. That is my point

We need to get out. Today would be the best day. OK, yesterday would have been better. Never going would have been best. There will be no real win there ever. So, just like with Vietnam, we need to declare victory and get the hell out. NOW.

So the answer to your question is that I have never, ever been committed to this war. I participated in the huge protest before the war started and I even disagreed with the Afghanistan war. I thought we should go in with a surgical strike team to Afghanistan (a la Isreal) and get Bin Laden. It didn't happen that way and both of these wars were disasters.

[Skidmore]

11. Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I couldn't decide if you were

being sarcastic or were really trying to say that leaving Iraq is "cutting and running." We need to fix it or win.

[izzie]

14. How do you fix it? I think only the people in Iraq can fix their country

Please do not bring up Japan and Germany. They wanted to fix their own country. We did not do it with a gun at our back after they gave up. Didn't England try this once in Iraq and have no luck? I just do not get what we are trying to do and what is the army doing besides getting blown up? I've lost it all on this war and having any reason at all. Can we look any more the fool if we pull out then going in in the first place?

[Skidmore]

15. We needs to get out of other nations period. We need to let

other peoples chart their own destinies and manage their own resources. We need to learn how to talk to other peoples and listen to them. We need to stop exploiting people through this argument of free markets. It has become literally a tyranny of the markets.

[izzie]

21. Iam with you on this. War may e good at times but not like this

I am sort of anti-war but I see the point of it at times but this is just over my head. I see the President has a 'group' also working on it and they will have their results out just before Baker's group. Now what does that mean? I just do not see Bush getting out of this war. You must have known people who are sure they are right even if proof turns out they are wrong. I have. Plus this nut case has sort of talked him self into thinking God gave him this great information. Put power on top of that and it is trouble .

[MGD]

26. "We need to let other peoples chart their own destinies and manage their own resources"

Do you really believe that if we pull out of Iraq, the Iraqi people will be able to chart their destiny and will be able to manage their own resources? We will leave them to the mercy of terrorists and, by terrorists, I mean Iran. And, by at the mercy of Iran, I mean a puppet for China.

[Igel]

17. The problem is that either the people that we'd like to

come out on top--or the people that the majority of Iraqis would want, whatever that means and entails--might not. It wouldn't be the first time that a minority managed to get the upper hand over the majority simply because they have bigger backers, a greater will to power, or better equipment.

Read the entirety of the NIE portion that was bandied about a couple of weeks ago. Most people assume the reasoning for one part is iron-clad, and dismiss the rest as foolishness, when it's the same calibre of reasoning behind both parts.

[walldude]

19. England did try and T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence Of Arabia)

left alot of good advice. Too bad the Shrub was too busy with his fake reading list to read something that actually might have helped.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lawrence.php

[gratuitous]

20. Germany and Japan offer some clues about how to fix it

Granted, the United States took a big hand in organizing the post-war societies in those two countries. But in order to "fix" Iraq, it would require that we spend a hell of a lot of money, and not dictate where it goes or how its spent. Ultimately, though, it would be far cheaper in just about any terms you'd care to name to go that route.

Who should decide how the money is to be spent in Iraq? A coalition of the willing, I'd say. Committees and councils of Iraqis, along with advisers from the United Nations. The U.S. funds it, we offer some advice, but reconstruction folks aren't bound to follow any of it. Bring on board the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds to make decisions and to work with one another on the crews to build power generators, sewage treatment plants, and the other infrastructure of modern life.

Give that six months to get that going, and then evaluate the process and everybody gets to decide the direction of the next step. And again, the U.S. pays for it.

[MGD]

29. The problem is, they're in the middle of a civil war. There's no point rebuilding

until they settle their differences. IMO, it is further complicated by terrorist elements fomenting the sectarian violence. There is little doubt in my mind that they intend to fill any power vacuum created by the effects of our withdrawal and the civil war. They are fighting for control of Iraq's land, people, and resources. There is the distinct possibility that they will use those resources to press their offensive against us at some point in the not-to-distant future.\edit spelling

[bowens43]

10. There is no feasible scenario, no foreseeable outcome,

in which the actions of the United States, in Iraq, could be considered a victory. The war against the people of Iraq was a criminal act.

[MGD]

24. There are very foreseeable scenarios and outcomes which could be considered defeat for us however.

Disastrous even. As such, it seems logical that not realizing those outcomes/scenarios will be considered victory. As such, your argument is flawed.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Codeword: Peace With Honor = Bugout

The parallels to things from all the wrong things we did in Vietnam and are replaying here are stunning...this is the latest.

First we had the "elections"...similar to the ones the U.S. attempted to stage in South Vietnam that never took and ended up in a military dictatorship headed by Thieu. Malaki is our contemporary Theiu.

Then there was the "Vietmazation" that was supposed to turn the bulk of the heavy fighting to the well-trained and equipped South Vietnamese Army. Billions were spent on equipment (including a lot that was dumped into the South China Sea in '75) and years were spent in creating a national army...only to see it fold like a deck of cards in April '75.

Now we're seeing the "Peace With Honor" game being played again. The GOOP knows the longer this war goes on, the more toxic it becomes for them. The politically expedient get the message with each poll on the war and they're looking at the next election. Many see what happened to Chaffee and see that continued support of the war could mean their bacon in 2 years. The endgame is on. It's to create some kinda parallel universe scenario where withdrawl is viewed as a "victory" by the right wing hive.

[lapfog_1]

13. Let's hear t for "peace with honor", err, I mean "victory in Iraq"

yeah, that's the ticket. :sarcasm:

The last time we had an evil bastard in the White House... we would have impeached him and removed him from office.

We can lean from the past.

[wisteria]

16. Republicans got their talking points. Nothing less than victory will

do. Yet, they don't define exactly what they consider a victory.

[Beelzebud]

18. I'd like just 1 person to define "victory" and "win" in regards to Iraq.

[MGD]

25. OK.

Winning means:

1.) we leave Iraq with a functioning Democratic government.
2.) we leave Iraq with a security force in place which is fully capable of defending itself against subversive elements that seek to undermine the Democratically elected government.
3.) We leave Iraq in a position of strength, not weakness so it isn't at the mercy of it's neighbors and so Iran isn't left as the regional superpower.
4.) We do not leave until the incidence of terrorist attacks is manageable for the Iraqi Security Forces.

[Jed Dilligan]

33. All this is contingent on there being an "Iraq"

in anyone's mind but ours. The people there won't fight for a country they don't believe in.

[MGD]

39. How can you ask them to believe in a cause that you yourself do not believe in?

"The people there won't fight for a country they don't believe in."

There came a point in Vietnam where the indigenous population would tell either side whatever they wanted to hear just to avoid being killed or worse. Any guerrilla movement requires popular support of the indigenous population to be successful. This unconventional warfare 101 stuff. That support can be obtained through humanitarian aid and assistance or through outright terror. The terrorists, unsurprisingly, are utilizing the latter form to obtain their popular support as did the NVA and VC. As a result, the Iraqis are 100% terrorized and they're just trying to stay alive from one day to the next. What would you do in their position? How would you think? What would you say when questioned by the opposing forces? My guess is, you wouldn't fight either. You would do or say whatever you needed to do or say to live another day. You would take the side of whichever force had the best chance of winning. If we don't believe in victory, they most assuredly will not believe in victory and will without a doubt side with our enemies.

[Jed Dilligan]

42. You're completely wrong

They will side with their traditional allies and against their traditional enemies. Vietnam is a totally different story; it is actually a nation state. Iraq is a state of many nations and most "Iraqis" resent its existence.

[MGD]

48. "Completely" wrong?

I don't think so. History shows that the Iraqi's sectarian hatred is trumped by fear. Either way, I see no way that a hasty US withdrawal would be beneficcial to the average Iraqi who is just trying to stay out of the crossfire. The power vacuum will lead to sectarian violence far greater than anything we have yet seen and the Democratic party will be blamed for it.

[Jed Dilligan]

51. What historical evidence are you using?

I laugh hard when Americans project their obsession with self-preservation onto poor, desperate, and religiously fanatical peoples. Live poor on a global scale for a while and you'll learn what it's like to be ready to give your life.

Iraq has two options: dictatorship or partition. They aren't nice options, but that's it. I find it hard to believe anyone on DU is still chasing the mirage of "democracy in Iraq."

[Ganja Ninja]

22. Democrats don't have a plan to save W's legacy.

:eyes:

[sendero]

23. We need ...

... peace and love and 2 chickens in every pot around the world, but we are not going to get it.

[Toots]

27. We did win now bring home the troops and have a parade

Every reason given for attacking Iraq has been accomplished. WMDs no longer a threat, Saddam no longer in Power, Liberty and Freedom for Iraqis, check. Democracy established check. Bring the troops ho,me and celibrate a big victory and let Iraq's freedoms reign.....

[MGD]

28. "and let Iraq's freedoms reign"

The Iraqis will be slaughtered wholesale if we leave them at this point. The Iraqis know it, we know it, and you know it. if you doubt it, please look to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia for a historical perspective of the ramifications of abandoning an ally when that ally is too weak to defend itself from a ruthless regime seeking to cement its position of power in the vacuum created by our premature withdrawal. Leaving them like this is about as dishonorable and immoral as you can get. It makes the initial invasion pale in comparison and the Democratic party will be held responsible. As bad as Iraq is now, I can not help but believe that, for now, it will be made worse by our absence.

[LynnTheDem]

30. And yet, the Iraqis want us the hell OUT of their country. NOW.

Seems they don't want us babysitting them.

Seems we're not stopping any deaths.

Seems our presence is in fact making things worse.

Seems maybe for once we should do the right thing; do what the IRAQIS WANT us to do.

LEAVE them alone.

[MGD]

36. Actually, that depends on who you ask.

"Seems they don't want us babysitting them."
depends on who you ask.

"Seems we're not stopping any deaths."
Actually, we're not stopping "all" deaths. You can not say that wearen't stopping "any" deaths. In my opinion, in our absence, the death toll will quickly become catastrophic.

"Seems our presence is in fact making things worse."
You can not validate that. The violence in Iraq may be attributed to a multitude of factors. There is strong evidence suggesting that our presence is the only thing holding the country together.

"Seems maybe for once we should do the right thing; do what the IRAQIS WANT us to do."
Not all Iraqis want the same thing. If you ask 10 Iraqis what they want, you may get 10 different answers. This is why they're in the preliminary stages ofa civil war.

[dkofos]

32. You certainly seem to be quite the war monger mgd

I guess sacrificing a few thousand more Americans in this pointless occupation is fine with you and bush.

The outcome of this boondoggle will be the same if we were to stay 10 or 20 years.

Daddy bush knew it in 91. Junior just doesn't get it. And neither do you.

We just need to get out, and the sooner the better.

If the Iraqi people need help with their new Theocracy they can get it from the UN.

[MGD]

37. I spent 8 years in the infantry. I can't help but see things a little differently I guess.

I wouldn't call myself a war monger though; however, my experience, training, and instincts lead me to different conclusions than those which you have drawn.

"I guess sacrificing a few thousand more Americans in this pointless occupation is fine with you and bush. The outcome of this boondoggle will be the same if we were to stay 10 or 20 years. We just need to get out, and the sooner the better."

The problem with forming a platform out of bullshit is that you eventually have to stand on it. If we stand on this platform, we'll regret it. We can salvage this mission and it's worth salvaging and, as God is my witness, I would not advocate this position if I didn't honestly believe that it serves the greatest overall good. Whatever will be will be however.

[dkofos]

43. Not convinced yet ?

Iraq is a clusterfuck (this term should be familiar) it will
always be a clusterfuck. It would appear that is the way
your pResident wants it. This occupation is only enriching
halliburton, bectel and other mega corps. Sixty + % of Iraqi's
say it is their duty to kill the occupiers. More than 75% want
the US out. They have their theocracy (which will never be a democracy)
and they have 300,000 + boots on the ground to police themselves.
It's time to get out.

If it means so much to declare victory in this CLUSTERFUCK
just do it. bUSH lied to start the war. It's not beneath him
to lie to get us out, (unless he is not done handing out
our tax dollars to his filthy rich buddies).

I'm sure if the Iraqi Govt. cant handle their problems the UN
would send help.

[MGD]

50. No, I'm not

"Iraq is a clusterfuck"n
No argument here. It will be worse if we are routed though.


"it will always be a clusterfuck."
Leaving Iraq will not solve our problems, it will create new ones though and it will result in Iraq going from clusterfuck to FUBAR.

"I'm sure if the Iraqi Govt. cant handle their problems the UN would send help."
LOL. Sure they will.

We vehemently denied that we were the "Defeatocrats" or the "cut and run" party prior to the election. We lied.

[Bandit]

44. The total arrogance of Americans is overwhelming

This is the cradle of civilization. These people have been around for over five thousand years and the USA a little over two hundred and yet we have the audacity to tell them how to live and get along with each other. How in the world did they remain a country for such a long time. You feel so superior that you think only Americans know how to live and that no other country can possibly figure out how to make their country work. I feel sorry for you and your total superiority complex..

[MGD]

47. You feel sorry for me and my "superiority complex" yet you are the one being rude and insulting

when your groupthink world view is challenged. I feel no need to insult others when I disagree with them. I think you have the complex. I think you're completely wrong on this issue. I'm sure the devil will be served either way however.

[LynnTheDem]

54. "white man's burden"

It's an American thang.

Sadly.

[Zhade]

57. Remember: WMDs WERE NEVER A THREAT.

They didn't exist.

He lied about that, too.

[devilgrrl]

31. Win what?

Victory over what?

What a waste of time.

[LibDemAlways]

35. Iraq was lost even as "shock and awe" was

reigning down. There is no "win" possible for invaders who illegally invade and occupy a sovereign nation. There will be no "winner" in Iraq. We "lost" a war we had no business starting. The Iraqi people lost hundreds of thousands of their citizens, along with their infrastructure and their stability as a nation. This is a huge human tragedy all the way around.

Our obligation at this point is to get the hell out while figuring out a way to make reparations so the Iraqis can rebuild their lives.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. The "World's Mightiest Military" got it's ass kicked again.

Now, it's just a matter of the politicians and generals finding a way to save face and blame "the left" for their blunders and crimes.

[DemonFighterLives]

40. No "win" possible in the old definition

The country was better off before we got there and took out all of it's infrastructure.
The best outcome would be for an official apology and put dubby and the boys in the Hague and some serious reparations to be done by Iraqi's or their friends. No Haliburton Golden Cow!

Sad fact is that the neocons are not going to give up their forward bases to be used for whatever hell they wish to unleash. The bases need to be given to the Iraqi's though they will probably tear down all memory of us, when and if we leave. You can't shock and awe a nation to make them succumb.
:dem:

[DemoDemoCratCrat]

41. Reasons to win

You are right to say that winning or losing a war is not a trivial matter. There is much at stake. I believe that we are not at a point where leaving is the wise thing to do. In fact, I think the argument for increasing troop strength should be considered if it can be shown that victory would result.

Iraq: Our presence is the main deterrent to all-out sectarian civil war, which would result in the torture and death of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We can't let this happen.

Iran: Iran is acting like it wants war. They would not be so inclined if they believed that the U.S. was right next door and able to do whatever. Any weakness we project in Iraq is positively correlated to belligerence by Iran. Furthermore, if Iran does initiate overt hostilities, we will probably have to engage them. Having an established base of operations in Iraq puts us in a much better position to do so.

World: Strength good; weakness bad. Much of the world aligns itself not on the basis of right and wrong, but on the basis of strength and weakness. Our ability to have desirable alliances would be hurt by a defeat anywhere, but especially now in Iraq. Our casualties in Iraq, while significant to us, don't impress most of the spectators; they won't want to side up with a quitter in the future.

BTW, expressions of a will to win by the troops and their families is not irrelevant. If they want to stay and win, that should tell us that they think it is possible to stay and win. I can't prove it, but I believe that the typical volunteer is more objective than the typical draftee, so recollections of Viet Nam attitudes should be dismissed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. LOL

:eyes:

[MGD]

49. Welcome to the groupthink tank Demo

I pretty much agree with you. We ran on a bullshit platform though. I guess we're gonna have to stand on that bullshit now. This isn't about the Iraqis and their problems, it's about US politics. It has been for some time.

[DemoDemoCratCrat]

53. Thanks

I realize my view is in the minority; that never made me wrong before.
LOL and waving me off doesn't make me wrong, either.

Winning is critical to our future political and military postures. It's not necessarily about self-esteem, as the "schoolyard bully" remark implies, and it's not about forcing our will on others. It's about being able to recruit allies in a variety of situations both peaceful and not. Who would want to side up with a country that gave up the last time things got tough?

Consider if the Democratic Party forces Bush to withdraw from Iraq and a Democrat then wins the White House in 2008. What fool would listen to that administration's promises of aid and protection? That's the fast track to irrelevance.

[Bridget Burke]

59. What "promise of aid & protection" are you talking about?

The one that Bush gave the Iraqis? No, we invaded to get those WMD's. Then--"Mission Accomplished!" Oops, perhaps Iraq wasn't ready for Democracy yet; but Bush promised to "Stay the Course." No, he really didn't mean that. James Baker & his Dad's other pals are trying to find a more macho way of saying "cut & run."

Talk about the fast track to irrelevance!

Let's recruit some allies NOW to help us extricate ourselves from Iraq. Screw hollow celebrations of "Victory."

If forcing Bush out of Iraq will lead to a Demcrat in the White House--what's the downside? (For Democrats, that is.)

[Jed Dilligan]

52. Not even worth responding to

Where do you people get your ideas? Football? Rap music? This "projecting strength" bollocks stinks of the schoolyard.

[LynnTheDem]

55. LOL!

Sigh.

[Ms. Clio]

60. "I believe that the typical volunteer is more objective than the typical draftee. . . .

so recollections of Viet Nam attitudes should be dismissed."

Wow, I'm reading the most amazing crap here today. All the sudden. For some reason. Go figure.

[Kerrytravelers]

61. Run a search on poster names.

(Or name... hint hint.)

The results shouldn't be too surprising. I"m not ready to call it on 100% accuracy yet, but I am picking up my phone to order a pizza.

What would you like on your tombstone?

[Ms. Clio]

62. yes, I had the same thought about the name

I've become so jaded, I guess.

I'm not fussy about the toppings -- just so long as it arrives promptly.

[Kerrytravelers]

63. Yes, maybe I should place a call...

[spanone]

46. Define 'winning' mr. pretzelnuts.

[Imagevision]

56. Win What? --. Win control of the flow of oil from Iraq, did you think this was about, Democracy??

oh poleeze!!

[tabasco]

58. More insane republican propaganda.

Iraq is the goose that lays golden eggs for the robber barons and they will not give it up easily!

They will line up their generals and their think tanks and their goddamn liars to say we need to stay in Iraq for-fucking-ever.

Same shit different day.