In the days since the Democrats took control of Congress there has been increased criticism of the war in Iraq from prominent members of both parties. Sen. John McCain has called our current efforts “immoral”, saying we either must step up our commitment or pull out, and the legendarily calculating Henry Kissinger has suggested that the war is no longer winnable.
Of course the war still has its supporters inside and outside the Bush administration, and you still can hear daily attacks from the right accusing Democrats of undermining our efforts to win the war. Which got me thinking. Assuming we did decide to recommit our ourselves towards winning the war in Iraq, exactly what would that victory look like? Surely it wouldn’t look like this:
The United Nations said today that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq’s sectarian bloodbath.
The U.N. tally was more than three times higher than the total The Associated Press had tabulated for the month, and far more than the 2,866 U.S. service members who have died during all of the war.
The report on civilian casualties, handed out at a U.N. news conference in Baghdad, said the influence of militias was growing, and torture continued to be rampant, despite the government’s vow to address human rights abuses.
“Hundreds of bodies continued to appear in different areas of Baghdad handcuffed, blindfolded and bearing signs of torture and execution-style killing,” the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq report said. “Many witnesses reported that perpetrators wear militia attire and even police or army uniforms.”
Perhaps there was a path to victory way back in 2003, where we could have left a relatively pacified Iraq a better place than we found it, both for its own citizens and its neighbors in the region. Perhaps not.
But with violence growing by the day despite (or because of) our continued military presence, it’s hard to see us imposing a stable, democratic government by force. Assuming that’s what we’re shooting for.
So I’m just wondering… for those of you who think we should stay in Iraq until we win the war, could you please share your concept of what winning might look like? After all, how can we ask our military to devise and execute a strategy for achieving a victory we’ve failed to define?
This is an EXCELLENT question, and I hope after a weekend of “thanks” someone on the right can enlighten us without a defensive or threatened stance. I think America deserves to know what “success” looks like in Iraq (in 6 months, 1 year, in 2 years, etc.) since we made our concern clear with the election.
Success looks like a parking lot with oil rigs sportin’ ‘Murkan flags, ya’ pinko pansy.
All that Bush has offered with regard to what constitutes “victory” in Iraq is a tautological definition. He suggests that “victory” is “getting the job done” or “not quitting.” He owes the American people more than that, but we cannot expect to get anything more from him.
proud leftist is exactly right. other than pandering to some vague patriotic notion of “not giving up,” true victory is a concept that has escaped and always will escape this war. we did this to overthrow Saddam, for various reasons, and what’s followed that was never a huge blip on Bush’s radar. it’s still not, two weeks after getting his ass handed to him.
he was warned about dragging us into an unwinnable war. he did nothing to avoid it and everything to drive us head first straight into it. victory in this war is impossible. the closest we’re ever going to get is what we did this year on election day.
hopefully we repeat it two years from now.
Victory is a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, allowing a regional cooperative arrangement that includes Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Iran. Plus Israel.
Nothing else will provide “stability” or anything close. The war started with Palestine and it will end with Palestine.
-The United Nations said today that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq’s sectarian bloodbath.-
I think the compassionate conservative christian warmongers around Cheney and Bush are trying to compete with Saddam to see how many Iraqi civilians can die under their “leadership.”
My perverse “winning” snapshot includes Smirky McFlightsuit on trial at the Hague. Along with Cheney, Condosleezza, Gonzales, Rummy, Wolfie, Perle, and the rest.
Regular ol’ War Crimes Trials, just like at the conclusion of WWII.
These people have caused so much harm and it will take so long to undo said harm that war crimes tribunals are only a small but necessary part.
At this rate, “peace” will probably be us leaving with minimal damage to us when the time comes to go, by force or implied force, then a massive civil war between the Shia and Sunnis, with the Turks intevening on behalf of the ethnic Turkmen in the north until the Shia turn their attention northward. The Turks and Shia will cut a deal, the Shia will take over most of what was an independent Kurdish homeland, and a rough stability will take place.
The alternative, as I see it, is a second Chosin Resevoir for us, getting just by with our skins and and endless path of dead Iraqis along the way, and an endless civil war in Iraq which becomes the Middle East’s version of the Congolese Civil War – lots of actors, lots of carnage, less of an end in sight than now, but maybe fewer dead bodies than now.
My two bits…
David B., a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and we think a solution in Iraq is difficult?) would be wonderful, but it would not do a thing about the strife wracking Iraq. Our invasion had nothing to do with the Palestinians. Arab leaders use the Palestinians’ plight as a foil to call attention away from their own lousy regimes; but it isn’t a cause of or remotely connected to Iraq’s spiraling sectarian violence. (If you can show the two are linked, I’d like to see your logic.)
Anyway, you didn’t really answer Goldy’s question. Assume the Palestinians and Israelis suddenly did get along and magically solved all their issues in a heartbeat; what would “Victory in Iraq” look like then?
Victory in Iraq will look like America’s victory in Vietnam.
The closest thing to “victory” in this whole sorry mess would be getting Saddam out of power, and that happened long ago. Everything since then has been a charade, with the administration essentially using our own troops as hostages to keep itself in power and pursue the agenda of the Project for a New American Clusterfuck.
This is a really important point, and one that we in the left need to seriously address if we plan to offer leadership on fixing the Iraq war. Sure, we can say we support pulling troops out immediately because we opposed this stupid war from the outset. But if Iraq devolves into a brutal civil war, I think those of us in the U.S. (both the right and left) bear responsibility for the carnage. We in the left can’t dodge this issue by saying “it’s Bush’s mess, it’s not my problem.” Americans bear responsibility for the outcomes in Iraq. I don’t like it any better than my other fellow lefties, but we have to start sweeping up the china shop the bull just danced around in.
So other than an ugly war between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, what would the alternative, a “victory,” be? Pressuring Maliki to crack down on Shiite militias rather than turning a blind eye? Convincing the UN that preventing civil war there is a goal worthy of providing well-armed peacekeepers (not likely, that’s for sure)? Conducting real diplomacy with Iran and Syria to stop support for Sadr’s militias? Offering a blanket amnesty to Sunni Bathists to bring them back into government and defuse the Sunni insurgency? “Victory” would be any outcome in which the Iraqis don’t slaughter each other once we’re gone.
Can all this happen with the US present in Iraq? I don’t know, probably not. So then we pull out, and even more than 3,000 Iraqis die per day in a civil war the US helped unleash. Yes, Cheney Bush and Rumsfeld are all culpable, but in a way so are we. Maybe the lauded commission will have some answers, but I doubt it.
Goldy seems to have found some troll-bane with this post. Where are MTR, janet s, the unqualified lawyer?
I appreciate that we as a nation bear responsibility for this mess. The US Catholic Bishops recently issued a second, and more emphatic, statement that we should get out as soon as practical, but make a good-faith effort to clean up after ourselves. Unfortunately, such a “good-faith” effort is unlikely to be the case under a commander-in-chief whose motivations are based on a delusion that this is yet to magically become his own glorious, heroic legacy, a crass determination that his and his cronies’ selfish interests are best served by continuing the status quo, or (most likely) a combination of both. If “repairing the damage” means more billions poured down the Halliburton shithole while Baghdad remains with no potable water and two hours of electricity a day, or if “restoring order” means more and more senseless bloodshed, then forget it. Let’s pull the plug.
freek @13,
Perhaps the trolls don’t have an answer. Or perhaps they’re trying another one of their pathetic boycotts. Or maybe, they’re just taking time off to be with their family for the holiday.
Victory is achieved when the new Iraqi gov’t is able to stand up and take care of the needs of it’s people. The Govt is in place, the new army and security forces are being trained. As the new army stands up and can take over it’s own homeland security duties, we pull back US forces. Police forces are taking over where US military forces have been providing security, and private enterprise is taking over re-construction/new construction efforts. Bottom line, victory is leaving Iraq better than we found it. Have we all forgotten what occured in Germany, Italy, Japan after WW2? and by the way, yes we still have forces there as well.
What, Goldy, you don’t like McGavick’s “plan” from the 2006 campaign?
“Go in there, win the war, partition the country if necessary, and bring home our troops in VICTORY!”
What an idiot.
I’ve said many times before that a viable military solution in Iraq expired right after the fall of Baghdad.
This is where phase three of military operations come into play and clearly, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld failed to consider other options if we were not “greeted as liberators.” They wrongly believed the Iraqis, yearing for freedom from an oppressive and brutal dictator, would begin a self-fulfilling peace process as democracy was introduced to them.
What the Three Amigos failed to understand is that the average Iraqi does not identify themselves as Iraqis first! Their first loyalty is to the tribe for which they are from, then, their faith (Sunni or Shia), then if they are Arab, Persian, or Kurdish — there is a difference, then they consider their nationality.
The goal of a stable Iraqi government capable of defending itself from other nations, maintaining law and order within its borders and rebuilding its infrastructure and economy is decades off into the future.
The unfortuante truth is that George W. Bush and the Republican leadership in congress led our nation to a military defeat in Iraq identical to that of the Vietnam era. Sure our troops won every battle on the ground and performed flawlessly, however, the war was lost in Washington D.C. Iraq is, as Teddy Kennedy said, “George Bush’s Vietnam.”
Bush and the Republicans have left America with two choices in Iraq: bad and worse.
They’ve broken our military. The military they supposedly support is tens of billions of dollars underfunded. Much of the equipment is in serious state of disrepair.
What we need to do NOW, is get our troops out of Harm’s way. In 4-6 months they need to redeploy to unpopulated areas within Iraq to act as a quick reactionary strike force. As the draw down of troops form Iraq’s cities begins, the Iraqi’s must step into the breech and begin partolling their own cities.
This will prove one of two scenarios; either the Iraqi’s can step up and provide for their own basic protection and we can continue to support them from a distance.
Or, they will never be able to maintain stability in a reasonable period of time so we might as well leave rapidly as possible. Because “How do you ask a man to be the last on to die in Iraq?”
I don’t see how Bush can achieve “victory” when he doesn’t even know what “victory” is.
Happy Holdays
“Their first loyalty is to the tribe for which they are from, then, their faith (Sunni or Shia), then if they are Arab, Persian, or Kurdish — there is a difference, then they consider their nationality.”
Close, but not quite. Kurds are mostly Sunni, but have absolutely no allegiance to the Sunni Arabs.
The only victory left is the preservation of an independent Kurdistan. As Peter Galbraith (son of the economist) says in End of Iraq, withdraw from the southern two thirds of Iraq. They don’t want us, and we’re not succeeding. What we can do from our position in the north is a) prevent the civil war from spreading north, b) prevent an Iranian or Syrian invasion, and c) prevent the success of any Taliban-style regime that may arise in Arab Iraq.
Galbraith’s book is brilliant, and you all should read it.
21 Travis Thomas
Boy, I can’t see the Kurds going for a plan like that. They’re after maximum autonomy, not a 100K-strong US military presence and the inevitable American meddling that would invite. And if Turkey saw us cast our lot with the Kurds there wouod be hell to pay with them also, as they detest any actions that would persuade their ethnic Kurds to get even more restive under Turkish rule.
I think Jack Murtha’s idea to withdraw in as orderly a fashion as possible to nearby friendly nations with the option of intervening if things really blow up (I’m talking genocide) or spill over into neighboring countries, but letting Iraqis decide the fate of Iraq. And even in that plan we should intervene only under UN auspices.
Richard Clarke on Iraq:
Fuckin’ A.
Draft the Bush Twins says: Victory in Iraq will look like America’s victory in Vietnam. 11/22/2006 at 12:23 pm
Exactly what Kissinger did. He knew nothign else and still knows nothing else.
Not answering your Question Goldie. Anything blogged will be Moonbat!iculed.
Your lord and master Jack I’m Not Interested YET Murtha, suggested Okinawa remember libtard?
Here is some agaony of victory for the Moonbat!s on Libtard Turkey day!
http://www.time.com/time/natio.....93,00.html
Here Come Da IMPEACHED Judge!
Here Come Da IMPEACHED Judge!
Here Come Da IMPEACHED Judge!
Y’all don’t worry bout all this stuff no mo’.
I be in charge of INTELLIGENCE now foks.
First I gotta figure out what INTELLIGENCE means….
but after that, everything will be aw right, I’m shore.
I do need Roger Rabbit’s help however—-
Roger Rabbit…call ‘em bigots whenever they disagrees wit ya. And be sure to call ‘em bigots when they point out my impeachmentment and many cases of bribery and perjury.. Anybody questions ol’ Alcee, I can count on Roger Rabbit to call ‘em bigots.. Thanks Roger….you stupid honky!
Clueless Yos Lib Bro – I realize Time Magazine may not be Moonbat! SMS enough for you but enjoy anyway!
From Today’s Seattle Times–
“By seniority, California Rep. Jane Harman should lead the Intelligence Committee, but House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has told Harman she won’t be reappointed to the committee.
Alcee Hastings, a black Florida congressman, is the next senior Democrat. He would be a controversial choice, however. A former federal judge, he was charged in an FBI bribery sting and was acquitted by a federal jury. He was later impeached by the House and removed from the bench in 1989 by the Senate.
In a letter to House colleagues released Wednesday, Hastings maintains he did nothing wrong and asked fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives to review what he denounced as the unfounded case against him. “I will make you proud if I am selected to chair the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,” he wrote, adding that it’s a position he’s “completely competent” to hold.”
I ain’t gonna be easy to tell wit.
I been framed I tells you…FRAMED!
25 MWS
Are you saying that you don’t think that the United States can effectively project force worlwide?
Well, Murtha knows and is talking to senior military officers. Who are YOU talking to?
27 29 Alcee Hastings
First, if “Anybody questions ol’ Alcee,” it will be the conservatives who call the Democrats “bigots.” We’ve all seen it many times now. But it should be pointed out that MANY Democrats are questioning the wisdom of making Alcee Hastings the Intel Committee chair.
But “Alcee” the poster, YOU are a bigot, or appear to be, from your clumsy and condescending parody of what you believe to be a “black” manner of speaking.
Daddy Love-
Seems like you support Alcee.
Good for you!
Winning is when I can go to Baghdad U on a comparative religion scholarship and not get my head chopped off on the way to McDonald’s. I time frame it as about 100 years of battle to achieve it.