Friday, December 4, 2009

What event, or chain of events will constitute a "win" in Iraq?

I keep hearing liberals say we can't win, and conservatives saying that we are winning and will win. Both sides use the word "win". My question is what defines winning? We obviously can't kill or capture every terrorist. And if winning means seeing a successful democracy working in Iraq, well that could take years. What say you?



What event, or chain of events will constitute a "win" in Iraq?chinese theater



there is no win...this has never been a war..there hasn't been a conventional army to defeat...it is like saying bringing law and order to the wild west was some kind of war...



there is a war against terror that extends to whatever battlefield Islamic terror takes it..and the real war...the battle the liberals have waged for renewed validation...and all they have done is use what media and internet outlets to coalesces..they haven't won a thing



What event, or chain of events will constitute a "win" in Iraq?opera mini opera theater



A full bank account for Cheney %26amp; Exxon = A win in Iraq
Winning is no longer an option, but Bush %26amp; Co. could, practically speaking, never admit that. Therefore, they constantly change the definition of 'winning'. "Escaping the morass" is a better goal and that means bringing the troops back in a quick but orderly manner with minimum loss of life to Iraqis.
I believe that the republicans have already declared victory. So this is what victory looks like. Peace looks different to me. But what do I know i only have a brain and will not be brain washed or drink the kool-aid. Yes I know neo-cons I am UN-American. Can the neo-cons out there please get new talking points, you are boring me
More than seven months ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), claimed that Iraq was ��lost.��



But that was hardly the case. In fact, Sunni insurgents were just beginning to turn on al-Qaeda and join us.



So now, despite their noisy antiwar base, most leading Democrats quietly are backing away from their talk about bringing American troops in Iraq home on rigid timetables.



Maybe they are learning that quitting Iraq now might be stupid politics since bad news �� in fact, all news �� from the front is making fewer and fewer headlines.



Democrats know that Republicans will use clips of more ��General Betray Us�� ads and defeatist assertions next summer when the election campaign heats up and there may be even more progress in Iraq.



Sober Democrats also suspect that their anti-war rhetoric is proving useful in other ways to the Bush administration. Their attacks on the elected al-Maliki government in Iraq often make them look like illiberal ��bad cops�� eager to pull the plug on the error-plagued but nevertheless constitutional government in Iraq just when it seems to be improving.



True, electric production still cannot provide Iraqis 24-hour service �� but now the problem is partly because Iraqi consumption has soared above prewar levels. And oil production, while not quite yet at pre-invasion levels, is climbing �� now nearly 2.5 million barrels a day, according to Iraq��s oil minister. Plus, Iraq is benefiting from today��s near-$100 per barrel oil prices.



More importantly, civilian casualties are down in Baghdad by 75 percent from June, according to the U.S. military. And Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently announced that terrorist attacks in Iraq have decreased by nearly 80 percent from last year.



In other words, for a variety of unforeseen reasons, the furor and partisan bad blood over Iraq are lessening here in the States. The debate over Iraq seems to be changing from ��we can��t win�� to whether victory is worth the aggregate costs.



Expect this new battle to be more retrospective, as each side tries to inflate or deflate how much blood and treasure have been spent on the Iraq war �� and whether the cost has led to greater American security both in and beyond Iraq.



As fear of defeat in Iraq recedes from the political landscape, look to a growing consensus elsewhere. ��Neocon�� �� the term often used to describe ��new�� conservatives who today support fostering democracy in the Middle East �� may still be a dirty word.



But if you take the anger about George Bush out of the equation, along with the Iraq war and the fear of any more invasions by the U.S., why not support democratic reform in the Middle East? We know the alternatives only play into the hands of terrorists.



That��s why presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.), recently said that America needed to support democracy and pressure Gen. Pervez Musharraf to restore elections in Pakistan.



Few Democrats or Republicans would disagree with his idealistic rhetoric. Although Obama wouldn��t express the same support for the struggling Iraqi democracy, he sort of sounded like a softer neocon �� more worried about the lack of freedom in Pakistan than the fact we might undermine a strongman with nukes and a restive population.



Take also Iran. Both parties worry about an Iran with a nuclear bomb; neither one has sure ideas how to stop it. The Republicans seem to want to talk tough without bombing the mullahs; the Democrats prefer just to talk with them.



Either way, they agree we don��t have much leverage to stop the theocracy other than stabilizing nearby democratic Iraq, encouraging dissidents, imposing sanctions, and surrounding Iran with a bloc of worried Arab states.



A year from now, neither George Bush nor a quieter Iraq will inflame Democrats. And without these familiar bogeymen, they will to have to state what they are for, rather than what they are against.



If Democrats keep Congress and win the presidency, they probably won��t do things much differently in Afghanistan. America��s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also won��t change much. And if the next president is a Republican, it��s a safe bet he won��t invade any new countries.



As the Democrats move closer to the controversial neoconservative position of actively supporting democratic reform in the Middle East, they will claim that their strong idealistic diplomacy is the proper corrective to the Bush administration��s unilateral misadventures.



The Republicans will counter that with Saddam gone and the Taliban out of power, constitutional governments in their places, and both countries slowly stabilizing, the necessary unpleasant work is mostly done. So using military force to topple terrorist-sponsoring autocrats, at least for now, no longer has to be a ready option.



But either way, both will sound awfully similar �� sort of like soft neocons.
Yes it will take years......... and years........ and more years ........... meanwhile the terrorists are breeding and training the little tykes to take their place........ more years
It may take years to build a stable government in Iraq. If we don't fight the war there, we will fight it here in our own streets. In addition, Iraq is an important strategic asset for dealing effectively with Iran. But a little "stratergy" is something liberals find impossible to grasp. Maybe with enough show of force we will not have to fight Iran, but time will tell.



Hey, if the liberals want to end the war in Iraq they could easily defund it. I suspect they want to whine but don't want to deal with the bloodbath that will result if we leave too early.
Nope.



In order to win, we now have to defeat Terrorists, Insurgents, and Democrats.



They are all working together to Defeat Us.
Define win, it depends greatly on who's definition, and what their goals are. in the classic sense I feel it too late to win. But in the convoluted world of oil politics , losing may be winning and god knows what, if the goal is to spend lots of money on weapons then we are winning and the longer we fight the more we win. Too much rhetoric and spin not enough dialog for us to know what the real goal is.
I remember vaguely a banner on a US Navel ship that read "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" in the backdrop while GW Bush was giving a speech. But does anyone really "win"? Whoever wins the Presidency and brings home our troops first "wins" in my opinion. We went into war under false pretenses, it's costing every taxpayer in the Union, not to mention thousands of lives. Old men make war, young men fight wars. Sound about right?
Who cares how long it takes to win? When is right and wrong determined by a measure of time? American history is based on accomplishing what couldn't be accomplished.



You don't need to kill or capture every terrorist. We didn't kill or capture every white supremacist and confederate sympathizer. You take away their power and political influence, and it won't matter if they're alive or not.

No comments:

Post a Comment

 
skin allergy