• NobodySpecial said on Jan 08, 2007....

  Technically we won by taking out Saddam. Now though, I think to consider this war a victory we have to leave the country in stability.

• SeeingRed said on Jan 08, 2007....

  Well block it depends which side of the fence one is on. Does winning mean we get their oil? Or does winning mean that the Iraqi people are guaranteed the right to determine thier own future without outside interference? Which is worth surging for? Or is nothing or nobody worth fighting and dying for? Sorry about all these damn questions! SR

• Muckraker said on Jan 08, 2007....

  bloc:  In my mind winning is training the Iraqi Army where they assume the responsibility for defending Iraq from outside and internal enemies of the Malaki government.   I believe we can train these soldiers within a year.  Then we best get out of dodge.  I wouldn't take any bets on how long the Iraqi Army remains intact or the government of Iraq for that matter., after we leave.  But we will have done our job,  we should have never invaded to begin with.  I don't think the Iraqi people appreciate the sacrafice we will have made in blood.   Our real enemy in the world is Iran, if we allow them to acquire nuclear weapons we're dumber than I thought we were.

• bloc said on Jan 08, 2007....

  those are good questions and exactly what we need to answer before we can determine if we should surge/escalate or not. How will the extra troops achieve whatever objective we determine is "winning". How long will it take? Is it worth it?
  
  "Or is nothing or nobody worth fighting and dying for?"
  
  Of course things are. Here's a question for you. If your outside a bar and two people are fighting and determined to kill one another would you put yourself in the middle if there is a real chance you will die or get seriously injured?
  

• bloc said on Jan 08, 2007....

  "In my mind winning is training the Iraqi Army where they assume the responsibility for defending Iraq from outside and internal enemies of the Malaki government."
  
  One problem I see with this is that the Iraqi army is made up of a lot of militia groups with competing interests. The maliki government seems to be corrupted by one side of the civil war. I don't think picking a side is good foreign policy.
  
  Also, as I alluded to, the Iraqi army isn't a unified army. Saying that we should train the Iraqi army is ignoring the fact that they are in or on the verge of a civil war.
  

• SeeingRed said on Jan 08, 2007....

  Let  me ask you block, if you step outside a bar and you see a women being raped (as in Iraq) would you put yourself in harms way to help her?

• bloc said on Jan 08, 2007....

  Of course, but are you proposing that we send massive amounts of US troops to any place that has large scale unrest?
  
  Also, if Iraq were as simple as stopping women from being raped then it would be very different. You have to tell me how you propose we deal with two factions that hate each other and want to kill each other. I have yet to hear a real answer to this other than the few that say we need to send 50k - 100k more troops for 10 years or more. That isn't something the american people want and I feel the same way.
  

• curmudgeon said on Jan 08, 2007....

  "...are you proposing that we send massive amounts of US troops to any place that has large scale unrest?"
   
  Gee, I thought we were talking about Iraq here. Your question was about Iraq, and now you're expanding it out to the whole world. Foreign policy is not a mathematical equation in which one solution either applies to all, or applies to nothing. We have to address each relationship on a case by case basis. Sometimes it makes sense to use the military, other times diplomacy, still others a combination of both.
   
  "I don't think picking a side is good foreign policy."
  
  This is naive. We pick sides all the time - Japan and South Korea and China over North Korea. A host of South American countries rather than Cuba. Western European countries over the former Soviet Union. Israel over much of the Islamist world. We hold Taiwan in tension with China.
  We side with those who we believe are aligned with our present interests. In the case of Iraq I agree that this is dicey, but I don't see any sense in treating the current administration and say the Sadr militia equally.
   
  I think we need to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to provide a stable, representative government. That takes training of troops, aiding in operations and improving infrastructure. Maybe it will take ten years or more.
   
  But the fact of the matter is we helped Saddam take power, we turned away as he committed atrocities, and we ignored suffering and genocide against the Iraqi People for 30 YEARS! It was our foreign policy that has led to their long term suffering. To turn away from this task now will not gain us one iota of moral authority and will not win us any friends anywhere in the world. To the contrary, it will tell the world that we are willing to abandon our committments and reverse course out of sheer selfishness. 
   
  But the People have spoken. If they want out now, then that's what they want.
   
  If Iraq then descends into a real civil war, the shame and the blood will be on American hands. And if this war has indeed created more terrorists, what will they think if we retreat?
   
  Defeat. Shame. Terrorists who believe they can win.
   
  What they hell kind of foreign policy is that???

• bloc said on Jan 08, 2007....

  "But the fact of the matter is we helped Saddam take power, we turned away as he committed atrocities, and we ignored suffering and genocide against the Iraqi People for 30 YEARS! It was our foreign policy that has led to their long term suffering. To turn away from this task now will not gain us one iota of moral authority and will not win us any friends anywhere in the world."
  
  This is one of the most honest things I've read on Iraq and a compelling argument.
  
  You also said that not picking sides is naive on my part. Well, I worded my sentence poorly. What I meant is that picking sides in Iraq doesn't sound like good policy to me. You say that we need to stay and create a stable Iraq, but I don't see how we can do that if we choose shia over sunni or vice versa.
  
  "And if this war has indeed created more terrorists, what will they think if we retreat?"
  
  This sounds naive to me. Here is what I would think. We took out saddam, the various factions in iraq hate and want to kill each other, therefore we decided that it wasn't worth the money or american lives that it would cost to stop these people from killing each other but we still have the power to take out anyone in the world if we want to.
  
  Not being able to create a stable democracy in Iraq does not in anyway mean that our military can't blow things up. There is no doubt in anyones mind that we could level Iraq if we wanted to but we don't because that would be barbaric. However, this does not mean that our military is weak or was defeated or that we can't destroy anyone anywhere.
  
  This also illustrates a very important point. Iraq at this point is not a military issue. It's a political issue. The only way Iraq will be stable is if the various groups reach a political compromise. If this does not or can not happen does NOT mean that our military was defeated.
  

• NobodySpecial said on Jan 08, 2007....

  Bloc- To us it does not mean that our military was defeated. From the perspective of the terrorist it means we were. Although most of the fighting in Iraq right now is between rival sects and militia's, there still is the underlying insurgents who came from outside Iraq to fight us. If they see us leave they will see it as a win for them, much like Hezbollah did in their most recent violent conflict with Israel.

• GrapeKoolaid said on Jan 08, 2007....

  To put it lightly, victory in Iraq will be achieved when every Iraqi has a pair of Nikes on his feet and a can of Pepsi in his hand.  When their citizens can partake in a free market economy in a limited capacity. 
  
  Seriously, we deposed one of the last remaining Pan-Arab Nationalist in the region(which we set up, as many of you have acutely pointed out), only to have the country fall into the hands of Shi a Islam(Sorry.  For some reason, my apostrophe button does not work right now).  I dont know which is worse. 
  
  For US to succeed ultimately, we have to bring stability to the region, not just Iraq.  In order for the US to do that, US-Israeli relation has to be re-addressed.  It is something that few want to hear, probably, but I really think that the stability and the future of the region hinges on that. 
  

• SeeingRed said on Jan 08, 2007....

  Block I just used the rape analogy to counter your bar scene hypoyhesis.

  I agree with you, it is a very sticky situation over there and may remain as such for many years to come.  What the ultimate answer is unknown to all. But there seems to be only two options on the table-  stay or get out.  They are not just warring tribes with no means of getting to us. If they were just hell bent on wanting to kill each other as you stated eariler, then I am with you, lets get the hell out.  However that is not the case unfortunately.

• bloc said on Jan 08, 2007....

  How would you describe the situation if not as two factions that hate each other?

• husbandhater said on Jan 09, 2007....

  NoBS: I don't agree with the "leaving the country in stability"! We didn't tell Iraqis to build bombs and tourture chambers instead of clean water lines and lights for their homes. Share info so that they could rebuild themselves, yes. Rebuilding in an atmosphere of hate NO!
  BLOC: I think whats sad is people thinking  of this situation interms of "Winning and Losing"! These are People's lives not a game or chest board. Our elustrious (That's an oxymoron just like him people)President thinks of it in those terms b/c he's thinking about his bullshit "LEGACY"! What is going to appear in the George W. libarary in Texas and many history books, not the many lives that are being given in order for him to claim "VICTORY" and to establish "OIL PIPE LINES.
  U know what when Ford was building the car he had an option of using an alternative fuel sorce other than oil and he instead decided to jump into bed with Rockerfella and the other Tycoons of the time (Big Buisness).We are now paying the price 4 it b/c we are one of the most dependent countries when it comes to oil. 

• Muckraker said on Jan 09, 2007....

  Winning in Iraq means to keep the government of Malaki held together until the Iraqi Army can be trained and equipped to do that job.  It will then be up to the Iraqi people what's next.  If the Iraqi Army disintegrates after we leave and aligns with their respective ethnic groups so be it.  We have lost 3,000 American lives and spent around 300 billion in Iraq.  In my mind that is enough, in fact too much, History will judge Bush harshly for this mistake.
  We need to get over the guilt trip, its the Iraqi people killing each other, what we are doing now is acting as a referee.

• bloc said on Jan 09, 2007....

  "Winning in Iraq means to keep the government of Malaki held together until the Iraqi Army can be trained and equipped to do that job. "
  
  But can we ever reach that point if they are already aligned with their respective ethnic groups?
  

• bloc said on Jan 09, 2007....

  Are these Iraqi's the ones that are supposed to get along and form a unified Iraq? I don't care how many more troops we send, I don't for see these people getting along. This is from a televised interview.
  
  "
  

  Mish'an Al-Jabouri: You should have some self-respect, and choose your words carefully, or else, I will do to you things you cannot even imagine, you Persian liar... Behave yourself, you liar...

  Sadeq Al-Musawi: You are a thief... You are a thief. You've been convicted for theft..

  Mish'an Al-Jabouri : Get out. Saddam Hussein is your master and the master of your parents...

  Mish'an Al-Jabouri: These are your documents. You are an Iranian citizen. You are Persian... You are an Iranian citizen... Saddam Hussein is your master and the master of people like you... (throwing the pages at Al-Musawi) These are your documents...

  Sadeq Al-Musawi: Your father killed Kurds...

  Mish'an Al-Jabouri: These are your Iranian documents... You are Iranian. These documents show that he applied for Iraqi citizenship in May 2004.

  Sadeq Al-Musawi: We will settle accounts with all of you...

  Mish'an Al-Jabouri: To hell with you and your accounts...

  Host: Sir, I beg you to sit down..."

  
  source
  

• husbandhater said on Jan 09, 2007....

  Bloc: U already see the writing on the wall. These people are headed 4 civil war. As soon as we take the training wheels off this bike, its going to go straight into the wall. We have different groups of people who feel more superior to each other due to miniscule reasons, living amongst each other.
  Daddy(Dictator Saddeim Hussian) has died and the children are running lose like chickhens with their heads cut off! I think Georgie boy should call it a draw and get our people home and out of harms way before we get swept up in their petty scabbles(Civil war) over money,power,land,and the biggest of all blockbusters: "RELIGON"!
   
  SAVE OUR CHILDREN! TELL BUSH 2 TAKE HIS WAR AND SHOVE IT!

• bloc said on Jan 09, 2007....

  Here is a thought provoking look at the current situation from andrew sullivan.
  
  "
  

  I fear the debate over the surge is beginning to resemble the debate over whether to go to war in the first place. One assumption in particular has been set in stone - just as the WMD assumption was taken for granted in 2002 and early 2003. Here's the new orthodoxy: If we were to withdraw now, it would mean a huge victory for the Jihadists who would use their new bases in Anbar to directly threaten us. I certainly don't think this is an idle worry. It may be the best argument for starting over, as the president seems to want. But it's worth airing again a counter-factual on this. If we withdraw from Iraq cleanly, it seems to me that the narrative of the war on terror also changes - in ways potentially beneficial for the West. Until very recently, the narrative of this war followed Osama's script: the world of faithful Islam versus the corrupt West. But the unleashing of sectarian warfare in Iraq makes the story something else: not Islam against the West, but Islam against itself. If we can change the narrative of this war to one of a battle within Islam, which in essence it is already, we will have pulled off a major victory in the world of ideas. And ideas matter in long wars.

  Or look at this another way: what is the greatest weakness of our enemy? The answer is fanaticism. It was fanaticism that prompted bin Laden to attack on 9/11/2001 before he had access to WMDs. He struck too soon, because he couldn't help himself. His rage forces him to make mistakes. Same with Zarqawi, who alienated all of Jordan with bombing a wedding, and who even promoted bin Laden to worry about killing too many Muslims in Iraq. Al Qaeda hates the West, but their main beef is with fellow Muslims who will not bend to their extremism or persist in what they see as Shiite blasphemy. So let them hang themselves by this rope. By leaving Iraq, we create a dangerous civil war that nonetheless has huge propaganda potential for changing the entire game of this war. It takes the West much further out of the picture, and focuses the mind where it truly belongs: on current Muslim pathologies, paranoia and self-hatred. We can still prove our pro-reform bona fides, by concentrating on Afghanistan, where we still have a chance to turn things around. And we also give Iran a huge headache in grappling with the chaos on its border."

• philip_maylam said on Jan 09, 2007....

  we win, if we leave behind a stable democratic government in the next few years, we loose if we decide that the cost is to high and just leave the country to anarchy.  In the UK we never went in to get sadaam.... instead it was to better the world, weapons of mass destruction etc... i do think sadaam is a side issue, or else we would be invading Zimbabwee by now

• SeeingRed said on Jan 09, 2007....

  This is, in ideology, identical to the debates that took place in the late 30's and early 40's, those who wanted isolationism were wrong then. Those who new we had to fight nazism and fascism were right, and have been vindicated by history. I believe this argument to day against the war in Iraq would have been better served in the early 60's but not now. History will show and it will not take long, that the U.S. must defeat the insurgency and not get sidetracked by religious unrest is/was the correct path. Bloc when you used the bar scenario, my analogy would have been better served, by telling you - no I would not interfere with two men trying to kill them selves upon leaving the bar. However, If these same two men were inside the bar and their hate for each other was threatening my safety and those around me known or unkown. I would have two choices, run out the door or stay and intervene hoping my example bring others to my aid. I hope to think that my instincts would not be to run.

• bloc said on Jan 09, 2007....

  @seeingred
  good points. The one issue that makes me question whether we should leave or not is that it could destabilize the whole region which could be bad for us.
  
  But, can we actually stop that from happening and at what cost? Is it worth it if it bankrupts our nation? Let's also remember some other history. Historians often say that the soviet downfall was in part due to their fighting in afghanistan. Let's not repeat that history either.
  
  One last point, I don't think the shia vs sunni hatred is anything like facism. They aren't trying to take over the world, they just want to kill each other.
  
  
  

• SeeingRed said on Jan 09, 2007....

  Block - What I think is the unthinkable and goes against my nature, but I fear it to be the truth.  A highly educated Pakistani friend of mine communicated to me that the U.S will not win this war or any future wars. On asking him how he deduced that, he said: Your country is drowning in your own political correctness. You fear killing civilians and that is where the enemy resides, in body and soul. Damn it I knew he was right!  But God I hope he is wrong!

• bloc said on Jan 09, 2007....

  I think he's wrong. terrorism isn't a fight against a nation state. You can stop nazi germany by breaking the will of the german people, but you can't do the same with terrorist cells. Kill civilians plays into the hands of terrorists. 

Comment on "What does it mean to win or lose in Iraq?"

Currently tagged	politics iraq winning political (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment