Victory? Please define
 

I don't see how you can define victory. You can maybe define some of its qualities, but it is a nebulous concept in the current context.

I seem to remember Bush making a public statement about how the war was won so what is is thread about???

Originally posted by BlackCat
http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...smilies/hm.gif What about a Iraq with democratic government ? Looks like we're done then. They already have one.

- A democratic government which can boast of long-term political stability and the inclusion of all major ethnic factions in the political process.

- An end to violence caused by terrorists, insurgents, and the Coalition.

the last point is often overlooked:

- Economic stability, recovery of infrastructure loss and the ability of the country to finance its own long-term growth.


As you can see, "victory" in Iraq will not be a military one, it will be much more complex than that. As it stands, and contrary to the "good news" that the right wingers like to make everybody think, militarily it is far from being won. Just the casualty statistics speak for themselves: the Insurgency has a virtual 1:1 kill ratio with the Coalition (including Iraqi military and police forces) and monthly civilian casualties are nothing to gloat about.

And the latest frictions with the Sunni bloc are of course, not exactly the best news one could hope for regarding political unity.

Originally posted by Hueij
I seem to remember Bush making a public statement about how the war was won so what is is thread about??? "Victory is not no violence" ... George W. Bush

Victory is when your enemies are laying in the dust in front of you, begging for mercy, kissing your feet.

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.

Can any of you define victory, and how you would be able to show that victory was achieved. Opposition = Saddam
Saddam = dead
death of Saddam = Victory.

Has the victory made the situation any better ?
Well that's a different question which hasn't been answered yet.

I wonder what the position would seem like now had the suspicion that Saddam Hussein held stockpiles of missiles together with nuclear or chemical warheads proved well founded?

Maybe not very different.

Wow...I'm suprised that so many people don't actually listen to what's going on around them. Perhaps reading too many liberal blogs all the time? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

Victory, as has been repeatedly stated, is when a viable Iraqi force can sustain the democratically elected government without active combat help from the coalition.

That's when the majority of our folks get to come home. That's when the "regime change" will be complete. That is what the Government has been consistently saying for years now.

It is just so much easier to be able to whine about not knowing what victory is because you chose to listen to those who wish to confuse the issue with far left wing agendas than to actually acknowledge that their is a clear point to what we will call victory.

The major stumbling block is not the insurgency...not the relationship with the Sunni...not the fact that the Iraqis elected themselves a real crappy government. It is simply the difficulty of being able to create a force that can accomplish the objective. Until that time, it is the US job to keep the country stable enough for the elected government to survive.

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I was maybe the last person in the world to be convinced that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. --But I was against this war from the beginning.

If you remember, this war had a double premise. First, Saddam had WMD. Second, he was about to give the WMD to his good friends al Qaeda, who would use them on us. These two assumptions appeared placed America in immenent risk of attack, thus "justifying" our pre-emptive war.

But it was a well known fact that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda hated each other. So, from the get-go, this war has not made any sense.

Victory in Iraq = Never having invaded in the first place. The WMD was never the real issue. It was the only issue under which the US could obtain any kind of international umbrela. UNSC 1441 provided the legal cover the US needed. As far as the premise that Saddam wouyld give WMD to al Qaeda, this was never stated anywhere from the government. The possibility that he would supply wmd to terrorist was mentioned, but AQ was not specifically named anywhere. The inference, however, given 9/11 was clear. This administration has walked a very tightrope in what they have said versus the impression they give. They have tried to do this internationally as well. Both to their detriment I must say.

I would have been much happier if we had just said the truth..."We are going to try and change the face of the ME and we are starting here. Any questions?"

Originally posted by Sandman


That's unlikely to happen. Why not settle for a semi-dictatorship like in the rest of the Muslim world? It is certainly not likely given the type of timetables the liberals are pushing. An early withdrawal from Iraq is a certain recipe for disaster.

If the result is a viable, stable Iraq, then what is the problem of taking the 5 years or so that it will take to get things right? We have already been there for nearly 5 already.

This is another case of people really not listening. The government has been telling us that it will be a long haul since the beginning...albiet they certainly didn't forsee the military complications (which imho were mainly their very poor post invasion planning).

The whole point of Iraq was to get away from the dictatorial type regimes and begin to establish true democracy in the region. Certainly the democratic form of government has led to less conflict in the long run and is a well worthwhile goal.

The point of the surge is to establish security from which all else will follow, which is exactly what PLATO said.

We didn't have parliamentary lockins and hope security would follow.

No, he claimed that the major stumbling block was to create a viable army. The lack of a viable army follows from the lack of political compromise. In other words, we're not going to get a viable army before the Iraqi political factions work out a compromise.

Originally posted by PLATO
If the result is a viable, stable Iraq, then what is the problem of taking the 5 years or so that it will take to get things right? We have already been there for nearly 5 already. There's no reason to assume that the US has the ability to get things right. Probably a fresh batch of mistakes will be made.

I am really amazed at your lack of understanding. The inability of the US forces to raise a force capable of providing enough stability for the goverment to function is the reason for the surge.

I'm amazed by your lack of reading comprehension. That's exactly the point that you missed. Iraq is not going to get a viable army until the pols work out their disagreements. That's what the Bush Admin finally realized back in January. That's why Petraeus switched our role from training Iraqi forces to "step up so we can step down" to protecting civilian populations.

The real problem in Iraq is the artificial timeline that the libs keep insisting on.

And the April deadline is not artificial. Our army simply can't sustain the surge past then.

Originally posted by Patroklos
The point of the surge is to establish security from which all else will follow, which is exactly what PLATO said.

We didn't have parliamentary lockins and hope security would follow. And considering security is politically motivated it might very well help to make the necessary compromises and concessions before expecting the attacks to decrease. You've had 4 years and a carte blanche to bring security to the country and you've failed: maybe it's time to bite your tongue and start considering the fact that until there's no political solution (both between the Iraqis themselves as well as with their neighbors, mainly Iran) then solving the security issue will be much much harder.

(Of course you can always bring more air power... yeehaw!)

No, what he said was that a creating a viable army was due to the inability to craft a political compromise due to the instability.

What you said is this:
"The major stumbling block is not the insurgency...not the relationship with the Sunni...not the fact that the Iraqis elected themselves a real crappy government. It is simply the difficulty of being able to create a force that can accomplish the objective."

This is completely and utterly wrong. I understand why you're trying to backtrack from that, because it's such a ridiculous statement.

I should add that violence was markedly lower for the first three years of the occupation (i.e. before the al-Askariya mosque bombing) than it is right now. Things didn't get any better. The major stumbling block is and always has been that the pols need to work out a compromise.

Originally posted by Ramo
No, what he said was that a creating a viable army was due to the inability to craft a political compromise due to the instability.

What you said is this:
"The major stumbling block is not the insurgency...not the relationship with the Sunni...not the fact that the Iraqis elected themselves a real crappy government. It is simply the difficulty of being able to create a force that can accomplish the objective."

This is completely and utterly wrong. I understand why you're trying to backtrack from that, because it's such a ridiculous statement.

I should add that violence was markedly lower for the first three years of the occupation (i.e. before the al-Askariya mosque bombing) than it is right now. Things didn't get any better. The major stumbling block is and always has been that the pols need to work out a compromise. My statement is absolutely true and correct. I back track from it not in the least. What is ridiculous and why I have tried to expand the single sentence is that you obviously chose not to read the context of what I have been saying.

Certainly violence accelerated after foriegn influences begin to try and cause sectarian strife. However, it can hardly be said that the security environment existed for the free and unfettered working of the government.