As the debate about the war in Iraq (and the larger "war on terror") continues, I hear often that the US "must win" the war. But I'm having difficulty determining what "win" actually means. And from whose perspective is "winning" being measured? Does winning relate only to the interests of the United States? Or does winning mean the interests of Iraq, or the region? Congress and the President seem to offer moving targets of what winning means.
This is a serious question I have. I'm hoping that Gather members can help me (and I suspect many others) to understand what criteria by which we will measure "victory." Thanks in advance for contributing your thoughts.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 42
The only honorable way out in my opinion, is to go the the UN and say we screwed up and are sorry about it (and really mean it). Then let the UN organize a Muslim task force to try to calm the situation and restore some sense of stability. If I am not mistaken, the Saudis, Indonesians, Malaysians, Jordanians et al have iterated that they would be willing to go to Iraq provided it was under the auspices of the UN.
Insofar as to who's interest it is, it was once for Iraq and the entire region, then it was our interest, now it seems its nobodys. Just a face saving measure.
The only way American citizens can "win" is for Cheney and his fellow criminals to be removed from office and imprisoned or executed.
Winning is a term used to make people feel good. How can a country win if it sends Men, Money, and all kinds of things over that never come back. Can we buy back what we have sent or the lives of those we have lost. Wars are fought over control. What Control will we win. Yes Lynlon were are terrorist to many in the world. We as a country are imposeing our will on other because we have the power to do it. That make us right?
Does 'Win' mean a better country for the people of Iraq? Don't see that ever happening or at least not in the near future.
Does 'Win ' mean total victory over the Islamic terrorists? That ain't gonna happen either.
No idea.
I think Iraq needs to take care of itself, it's been long enough!
We need to successfully bring our forces home.
reading the following on Consortium news this morning
Hillary's Nuclear 'Tough-Gal-ism'
http://www.consortiumnews.com/index.html
prompted me look on Gather to see if there was any feedback on it. So I noticed your invite and I came across your article. I haven't heard any candidates who have convinced me that they know what winning really is either.
In the Movie Crimson Tide, Denzel Washington's character says, "In a nuclear world, the enemy is war." That probably means we are winners every day that we don't blow the world up. It's kind of like preventing wildfires.
Today's climate is a breeding ground for forest fires. Just a spark can cause thousands of acres to burn out of control. Something as simple as the wind can make all the difference in whether the consuming flames spread or are extinguished. Though most realize the danger and take appropriate precautions, there are contributing factors that are beyond their control. Still, a spark no matter the source could be all it takes to burn down a whole forest.
In this "nuclear world", we've got: anti-American countries seeking nuclear weapons capabilities; terrorists who believe suicide martyrdom is a confirming act of their own religious devoutness; a president who uses 9/11 as a whip to turn our democracy into an ideology of "the only real patriots go to war" in which any outside nuclear detonation will further feed his "stay the course" prescription for a world that doesn't conform to his demands; and now more than ever before, in this world, we have the last oil reserves which cannot keep up with the worlds increasing oil needs and every nation needing oil has staked out its piece of the pie.
WORLD: Global Competition for Energy Heats Up
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12175&printsafe=1
Sounds like a kinder box to me. The hope that a more rational world will prevail regarding nuclear weapons is dwarfed by the reality that the walls of containment are weak and bulging, and the integrity of both the door and doormen is questionable. The outcome is inevitable and I fear the day it happens. Once those doors are opened again a new rationality borne of panic and fear will rage out of control. Winning will take on a whole new meaning then.
Who doesn't know that the U.S. has nuclear weapons? Does anyone doubt what the purpose of those weapons are? Does anyone have to say that they will use them? Should anyone say they will or won't? In 1945 we opened Pandora's Box? For what reason do we need to have another look at what's in it when we know that today others besides ourselves can open that box of horror? Any threat of the use of nuclear weapons is in itself, proliferation. As if the world needed to know that there are presidential candidates who will remind them that our nuclear bombs are bigger than anyone else's, that we have more of them than anyone else, and that we will use them for whatever reasons we feel serves a purpose. Who doesn't know that? Who doesn't fear it? Will someone actually sleep better knowing that we might? How believable would it be to any other people outside this country for any U.S. president or candidate to say that he/she would never use them?
It seems that we need to give some thought to what "better safe than sorry" really means if we have leaders who would consider the use of nuclear weapons as preemptive, if at all. On a moral scale, how do we justify the certain death of innocent women and children that would result from any nuclear detonation and expect that it be a balanced measure against the "fear" of any threat? Does what might happen carry any weight, even if the gamble of "intelligence" seems to indicate so? At what point does our estimated losses out way the certain death of the innocent? At some point our leaders make this decision for us all, so we are not without responsibility. What "might" happen can cover a very wide range of possibilities, but it is still supposition and not of tangible weight or subject to actual gravity. Winning is avoiding war and we already lost when Bush first put us in Iraq.
Nuclear weapons are for real. The reason for having them is unfortunate at best. In a world where more than one nation has them, the consequences of using them for any reason "might" be worse than the perceived danger of not. Having nuclear weapons is a dilemma. Nuclear weapons are mankind's ultimate trap on his own path to the future and he is the only prey that trap will snag.
Candidates talk about it with not much more concern than as if they were talking about bad weather. Just because it was said in a movie, ("In a nuclear world, the enemy is war."), doesn't mean it's fiction. We have not gotten any smarter, there have always been wars and as far as I can tell, especially in this nuclear world, "war" is something mankind will not be able to live with or without. Maybe there should be a contest for the candidates to see who can hit "the button" the quickest and then we'd have a winner for sure.
Wouldn't it be nice if that same genius of mankind that created nuclear capability could perform another miracle and create a solution that would turn every ounce of uranium in the whole world into harmless stone in an instant?
Winning in Iraq: 1st prize - oil for blood, 2nd prize - U.S. bases and guaranteed conflict in the future, 3rd prize - world recognition(if we want it, we'll take it), 4th prize - we can keep our comfortable lifestyle intact for a little while longer
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
Work to alleviate the cause of desperation and you'll minimize terror activity to a manageable level. After all, violence has been a human trait for millenia.
Can you define "just and moral basis"? I'm curious as to what that means. Perhaps an example to help me visualize it.
So I wonder if "moral basis" is a more flexible term than one might imagine?
No surprise.
This is only true for the right wingers. The media is owned basically by only five groups and they are right winged.
``why have the Democrats gone largely mute on Iraq?``
Not being a Dem myself, the most I can do is to venture a guess: as usual Dems seem more intent on fighting each other rather than fighting Republicans. Perhaps some anti war rhetoric will begin during the elections campaigns. But, in all frankness, I'm not too optimistic that they will do so.
``Petraeus report ... has taken the passion out of the anti-war left. ``
If you say that it is because you do not log on to liberal web sites. Post your ideas on lib sites such as the WaPo, Guardian, or SF Chron and the libs there will give you quite a mouthful.
What is interesting is how the anti war right wing such as Pat Buchanan, John Birch Society, and others have gone silent. Except for Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul, anti war conservatives don't want to speak out against Bush so much anymore. I wonder why ...
I quote ty phoon, above:
" Winning in Iraq is when the Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet without the assistance of 150,000 US troops. Winning is when the Iraqi government can take control of the security of its own country, resist foreign influence from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, keep the insurgency under control, uphold democratic institutions, control its own borders, and have a stable economy. This is winning."
Ty phoon is correct. Based on the neo-conservative vision for which this war was undertaken, these outcomes would indeed constitute winning. There is just one problem - it is not our country. It is the people of Iraq who are called upon to do what it takes for America to "win" the war that remains.
There is nothing we can do to make sure that Iraq has a government in Baghdad that is capable of maintaining national well being and integrity in the face of its neighbors. Iraq is a Muslim Arab country, by its nature resistant to occupation and domination by foreigners. The locals who fight us do so for no other reason than we are there.
Arabs are stubborn, independent, and contentious people, with traditional loyalties to the family, the town, the tribe, and to the brand of Islam preached at their local mosque, but not to the European concept of nation. The politicians in Baghdad all have European and American educations, and all believe in the concept of nation. The leaders of the tribes in the hinterlands are not so certain. They still face the threat of violence for placing their loyalty with Baghdad. General Petraeus wrote a doctrine for this kind of situation which works, but requires about 20 troops per 1,000 population. If Iraq were still a nation of 25 million, the occupation would require 500,000 troops, more than all we have. Any less and the "insurgency" will just move around, outside of our reach, until we go home.
So, staying the course is not an option. Ramping up to actually win using the Petraeus Doctrine is not possible. The longer we stay with inadequate force the worse it will get, our presence alone serving as the focus of and justification for ongoing violence.
In fact, the only way to "win" in the manner defined is to leave the Iraqis to their own devices, at least overtly, and to pull out our combat troops, destroy the forts we built, and even cut back the size of our embassy compound. We have too many Americans in Iraq against the wishes of the majority of Iraqis - either they change that or we have to leave, as soon as possible. They can win without us but not with us. We cannot win at all.
Thank you for your very insightful analysis. I think you've captured exactly the issue...and the problem. I'm discouraged that the rhetoric coming out of our government continues to talk of "winning", "victory", and "our best interests." Forgotten is that Iraq is not our country, and that they need to find a system that is in "their best interests." Unfortunately, since we inserted ourselves into their lives we have an oblication to not leave them a bigger mess than they had before. These two goals are not necessarily congruent.
One exception, or perhaps clarification, with your statements beginning "Iraq is a Muslim Arab country..." and continuing into the beginning of the following paragraph. While I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, I would suggest that Americans would also rebel against occupation and domination by foreigners...and that we are stubborn, independent and contentious people. It seems to me that most peoples would not take kindly to being invaded and occupied. Having said that, however, I agree that that region, and other regions of the world, is more "tribally-oriented" in the sense that tribe, family, clan, etc. are more important than some "national" orientation. Not suprising given that Iraq and many other areas were largely cobbled together artificially by western powers.
All of this leaves us in a position to choose between 1) ceding control of Iraq and letting the Iraqis, the Iranians, al Qaeda, and others to fight over the future, or 2) staying there "until the Iraqi government is stable and self sufficient."
Neither prospect seems to be particularly workable, and both prospects will likely lead to even greater discord in the short term (and perhaps long term), which is probably not a good thing for the US.
Iraq war? just ask yourself, who "owns" it?
You must be referring to this administration's manufactured skirmish in Iraq?
I've always heard the old timers here say, that in spite of it's devastation, horrific cost in human terms, and cavalier spending of tax dollars, a WAR, can be a good thing, as it stimulates and revitalizes the economy of a county in financial debt or slump.
The question is, in this case, where has all this alleged revitalizing revenue flowed to? I'll take the liberty, (we still have a tad of that left here) of exploring for a bit in the abstract.
When you answer that question of theoretical ownership, then "the war" appears more to be an instrument or tool that belongs to, in a manner of speaking as a possession of, someone or some special interest group. To concur in part with the sage wisdom of the elders of my community, I would say that such a tool might look much like a monstrous rake operated by someone behind a curtain who unleashes the dogs when someone tries to take a look.
Ask yourself quite simply, what has been realized for the tax paying people in this era of whining politicians, ever rising taxes and budget cuts PUBLICLY and PRIVATELY the record rupturing profits for defense contractors and oil companies? Sounds a bit out of balance to the tune of trillions actually, don't you think?
So I believe that "their war", on behalf of those unseen privileged few, is already being won; and will more likely than not continue to be won in perpetuity ...
That is ... a win for the defense contractors and their political "kick back" cronies that unblushingly soak up our tax dollars without any oversight. A win, as a DIRECT result of the politicians that they're in bed with who sit in our highest levels of government looking the other way no mater how loudly and angrily we the people cry out!
Clearly, the Iraqi's and the American people ARE THE LOSERS HERE.
It's all simply a big business free for all, that from an international perspective, if permitted to continue, will shift and skew the flow of economic resources to such a degree that irreparable harm will not only be done to our way of life in the United States but also in many other parts of the world.
The question is: when will the American people start to pay attention and motivate congress to proceed with an aggressive investigation that should have already lead by now to instituting the Articles of Impeachment?
Take heed my fellow Americans, IF THIS ADMINISTRATION IS ALLOWED TO SIMPLY LEAVE OFFICE UNSCATHED BY LEGITIMATE INQUIRY BY 2008, THEN NO MESSAGE WILL BE SENT TO THEIR SUCCESSORS, (whether democrat, republican, unaffiliated or otherwise). SLEEP ASSURED THAT ABSENT THE MESSAGE, THAT PRESIDENTS CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THE "good ole' boy" MENTALITY OF FAVORING BUG BUSINESS INTERESTS OVER THE WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NEGATIVE MOMENTUM WILL SURELY GAIN.
It'll be just "more of the same" in different clothing, no matter to what degree, pre-election candidates platitudinize of how awfully this president has conducted himself. Read George Orwell's Animal Farm all over again - were there folks!
Under the impudent control of that next administration, the gap will only continue to widen as far as the very wealthy and the common persons interests. On our very own shores, a new war of sorts may emerge; one where hungry "defense contractors" will surface as "security contractors" taking up service in the name of a "war on terror" and "war on drugs".
Surveillance cameras will continue bud and blossom from nearly every utility pole and our constitutional rights will slowly continue to wither. The prices of everything will continue to rise steeply, eventually out of reach of so many.
It is then that perhaps people will take to the streets and Kent State of the bygone days and the contemporary Blackwater USA incident will look as though each had been a walk in the park.
Common place will be the apprehensions with insufficient probable cause as both law enforcement and contractors jointly interrogate and confine "suspects" for any myriad of reasons without access to counsel, judicial oversight or the safety of a competent fair court.
An "affidavit of probable cause" and "executed search warrant" will become relics of the past. Signatureless, warrants bearing language that will include terms such as "search seizure" "wiretap", "intrusion / intercept", "ISP and communications carrier compliance to official inquiry" "interests of national security applicably supersede any right to privacy"; all may be executed at the sole unilateral discretion of a one sided authority. We will see, "smash and grab" security / law enforcement tactics with substantially lower standards of proof for inquest, prosecution and conviction.
You say that as a law abiding citizen you've nothing to fear? Nothing at all, if you expect and truly believe that those charged with ever increasing power will not abuse that power as has been so aptly demonstrated with this administration in office who live and breathe by a continuous shell game of fraud. Can the likes of such be entrusted with this kind of power when their interests are exclusively served already as a wealthy and powerful minority?
Speaking out as this, may one day be forbidden and those that attempt to do so in the name of the First Amendment will be branded as treasonous, wielding a threat to national security and dealt with accordingly in a Brave New World.
In the meantime any more "wars" waged will continue to involve the spilling of the blood of the common man and never that of those who sit on thrones of gold who solely reap the benefits of these conquests disguised in the name of what they call "democracy".
No! this is not possible here in the United States of America! Among the rolling lawns of Montecello, the high peaks and rushing streams of the Colorado Rockies, in the eyes and minds of those who live by and love our constitution ... or ... the land of puckering McDonald's, the fuel drinking smog spewing SUV, finger pointing politicians who always seem to avert prosecution or find official pardon from one and other, singing corporate chain stores at Christmas time and those that rush to and from in self absorbed oblivion. Not here!
"The Buffalo roam and the deer and antelope play?" They're long gone my friend .... as will be many other things soon if we choose to stay lulled to sleep.
Why is it that so many assume, in fact almost expect and quietly accept that politicians and those operating for and around them are automatically corrupt? Many people say that to ascend to any high office, such an official must have had to have stepped on toes, has some skeletons or greased some palms.
Didn't being a leader, at least at one time in the past, be considered to be an honorable pursuit for those held in the highest of esteem and trust by the majority and not a privileged minority? Could that last time be in 1776? Is there anyone else out there that finds such complacency outrageous too?
For everyone's sake, WAKE UP AMERICA!! ... Unite and wake up congress to act now!!
There are far far greater numbers of those that do not see the revenues realized from this war than do. THE PROFITEERS OF BILLIONS OR TRILLIONS ARE IN THE MINORITY.
If you are inspired so, then stand with me and Keep up the Watch on behalf of the authors of the Bill of Rights who are not presently here to do so for everyone's free interest any more. It's up to you and I now.
Alexander