Well, although the “no fly zone” was before the Invasion, a little bit before that was the gassing of the Kurds. Thus, the nerve gas attacks on the Kurds also were “before the US started the Iraqle.” Whatever the fuck a “Iraqle” is.
Subsequent posts lead me to believe that perhaps you don’t know what’ confrontational’ means. 
:dubious:
I’d say it will be safe to say we’ve ‘lost’ when, in fact, we actually HAVE ‘lost’. Depending of course on how exactly you define ‘lost’ and all…which you didn’t in your OP. Do you mean when we’ve been kicked out of Iraq? Well, we haven’t ‘lost’ by that definition…yet. So, its not safe to say it yet, right? Do you mean when American’ soldiers have died? Well, its safe to say we’ve ‘lost’ if thats the definition. Do you mean we’ve ‘lost’ when you use the undefined term ‘its crappy’? Well…then I guess everyone is going to have a different definition of ‘lost’, ehe?
Seriously…if you REALLY want an ‘honest’ answer, you should go that extra mile and actually define what ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ MEANS, at least to YOU, wrt Iraq. That might get some actually meaningful answers…instead of what looks like the standard Usual Suspects™ knitting circle.
Thats just silly. How could anyone possibly give you an answer based solely on the number of years the conflict has gone on? Especially since you’ve failed to even define what ‘lost’ means! Do you just want a random number of years? How about…if we are still fighting in Iraq in 100 years, we will definitely have ‘lost’…er, or something.
IMHO, we will have ‘lost’ in Iraq when/if the popularly elected government is overthrown and replaced by an Iranian style theocracy…and one that is militantly Islamic AND anti-America/anti-West. One that supports, openly or covertly terrorists and terrorist organizations. In short, we will have ‘lost’ when/if Iraq becomes Iran.
If you have a better definition of what ‘lost’ means, by all means trot that puppy out…
-XT
We won the war, but lost the peace?
I appreciate your attempt to address that question seriously.
I don’t get this. I can see how it’s a loss from an intelligence and/or PR standpoint, but how is it a military loss? Unless you’re saying there actually are WMDs in Iraq and we haven’t found them yet…
Why is it not democratic or pro-Western? “Pro-Western” is a relative term, and it’s certainly a lot more pro-Western than SH’s regime. Yeah, it isn’t stable, but that takes time. The US didn’t have a “stable” government for many years after the War of Independence. One might argue that it wasn’t until after the Civil War that we had a “stable” government. So, no, I wouldn’t say that is lost, yet.
Iran, yes. Can you explain how Syria has more influence (other than as a proxy for Iran)?
I don’t see that this was a goal of the war, especially the “increasing” part. Can you clarify how you got that?
By any measure? How about the measure of regime change? That was the number one goal, and it’s been accomplished.
Here’s how I see it. The goals of this war were:
-
Regime change. Done.
-
Elimination of WMDs. Moot.
-
Ensuring that Iraq does not become an exporter of terrorism. Here’s where we are bumping up against failure. Al Qaeda has gotten a foothold in Iraq, but so far it has mainly been operating inside Iraq, and has not been used a base to launch attacks against the US homeland (for lack of a better term). In this sense, we really are “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here”. Of course the particular “them” we are fighting might not have existed as a “them” had we not invaded Iraq in the first place, but that’s a separate matter.
If, as some here have advocated, Iraq were to be partitioned, then a disaffected “Sunni Arab Iraq” would almost certainly be a breeding ground for al Qaeda as that area would be economically depressed (much more so than now, having been cut off from all oil revenue). That area would be similar to the West Bank and Gaza, only they would see the US as direct enemies along with the other parts of Iraq that they think should be theirs. Most of the Democrats in the Senate seem to realize that the US still has a legitimate interest in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, per the latest attempt to redefine the AUMF along those lines. There certainly is the potential of failure on this point, especially if we were to exit Iraq precip
I dunno. If, as others have pointed out, Turkey is suddenly hit with terrorist attacks that they can pin on the Kurds, the game will be, as the kids say, on. Hell, Chechnya was a hornets nest, Iraqle certainly became a hornets nest, the hideously badly done Afghanistan II that will very likely be the next thing to bite the US on the ass has proven to be a hornets nest, if we go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan (which I think is unlikely, but would dearly love to be proven wrong), I imagine that it’ll be a hornets nest, Iran will most assuredly be a hornets nest.
Precedent has been set.
Pretty much. Although I imagine that the no-fly zone would have existed for the foreseeable future. After all, it was working. As opposed to the mess that the US has made in the rest of the country.
Sure. But I didn’t bring the gassing into it. I was looking back half a generation or so. And “Iraqle” is simply shorthand for the name of the country and what the US has wrought there. Makes my life easier.
Don’t recall hearing this mentioned until after it was foregone that it would happen. And said regime seems to be cozying up to Iran. Maybe that was a goal, but I kinda doubt it.
Except that this is what I heard so damned much of during the buildup to to Iraqle. “Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.” “We know exactly where they (said WMDs) are. . .” and suchlike. So I don’t think it’s quite as moot as you claim.
You win understatement of the year, and here it is, not even March.
With damned good reason, too. Because life under Saddam certainly sucked, but there was no civil war, people could get to the airport, electricity existed, there were fewer armed militias, less chance of being blown up, beheaded or having your family members disappear. The area would be the West Bank and Gaza cubed.
Your recollection on this point isn’t a good debate argument. Regime change had been the official policy of the US Government since before Bush was president. It was explicitly referenced in the AUMF:
Does Iraq have WMDs? If not, then it’s moot wrt judging whether the war was won or lost-- which is the subject of htis thread.
If you want to debate, I’m all ears. If you want to throw out snide comments, I’m not interested.
So, you are agreeing with me on that point…?
Regime change, yes. As I said, though, I don’t think that the regime in question was supposed to be quite so dependent, reliant and in bed with Iran. If I’m mistaken about that, then the current government is a colossal failure. So while it may very well adhere strictly to the letter of the goal, in intent it seems to be light years away from where anyone wants it to be.
Certainly doesn’t appear that they do. But when the cheerleaders for Bush fils not only said that they did, but that those selfsame cheerleaders knew where they were, only to be demonstrably proven wrong, then it appears that the much publicized and touted reason for Iraqle was a cock up from the go, and it was never won. YM, it appears, VsC.
Damned shame, that. But since you seem to be such a stickler:
We’re not “bumping up against failure”. We screwed the pooch so hard and so repeatedly in this regard that seeing this goal as anything other than a failure is to be willfully obtuse. Al Qaeda didn’t exist as a force in Iraqle until the US went in. The “fighting them there. . .” meme is complete crap. And to say that they, “. . .might not have existed. . .” without our presence is laughable. Iraq was a secular nation. 'Twas run by a right bastard, but it was also a place where the society allowed women to be teachers, motorists and citizens of the first rank. Was it tough? My goodness gracious yes. Have we improved things for the average Iraqi? Heavens to Betsy, no! Are we, “. . .bumping up against failure. . .” inre increased insecurity within Iraq? No. We have failed miserably. Is Al Qaeda, “. . .mainly been operating inside Iraq. . .”? Hell no. Where on earth did you pull that from? Iraq used as a base to launch attacks against the US? Shit the bed, boychik, Iraq didn’t have the capability to do anything of the sort before the most recent war. How in hell would anyone be able to do so after the infrastructure has been reduced to rubble?
I dunno, but that sounds almost snide. . .
Technically, I suppose, I agree. But you aren’t giving them half the credit they’re due. After all, the West Bank and Gaza are decidedly unhappy with the US, but it’s not as if the US government has personally been responsible for their misery. Which is precisely the case in any sort of Sunni partition that might (and very well probably will) exist.
I don’t see how you can champion democracy, and then say it’s a failure when the government does what the majority of the people want. Iraq is going to have close ties to Iran-- they’re neighbors, after all. It’s not clear to me that Iraq is “in bed with Iran” any more than the US is “in bed with” Mexico. You need to flesh that argument out if you want to claim that as a sign of failure.
Like I said, that’s a failure of intelligence. It’s not relevant to a win/lose analysis wrt the war.
But you’re losing sight of the actual goal. Bush claimed, incorrectly, that SH was in cahoots with al Qaeda and would likely assist them in launching attacks against the US, in particular by supplying them with “WMDs”. That was the main reason he got us into that war. So, to the extent that al Qaeda is not getting material assistance from Iraq to launch attacks against the US, then we haven’t “lost”, as measured by the primary objective of the war. Now, we may very well “lose” on that point in the future, but we haven’t yet.
And to clarify what I meant by al Qaead operating mainly in Iraq, I should have said the al Qaeda operatives in Iraq-- I didn’t mean to imply that all of al Qaeda, world-wide, was focused solely on Iraq.
Not at all. Your words seemed like agreement, but the tone sounded like disagreement. I couldn’t tell which was the correct interpretation.
Well, yeah, that’s exactly my point. The Palestinians are content to focus their attacks on Israel, but the Sunni Arabs in Iraq (teamed up with al Qaeda) might very well aim their attacks at the US in addition to the other partitioned parts of Iraq (especially if Kirkuk ended up as part of Kurdish Iraq, which is quite likely). If that happens, we will have failed as measured against the primary objective of the war.
Translation;
‘Turkey starts posturing in Iraq with threat of military action, in hope of not having to use it’
So what’s your point here?
Not to mention ‘cross border attack’ which stipulates nice wording, I never denied they’d do cross border raids, but for Turkey to initiate some sort of military invasion and occupation of Iraqi Kurdistan is beyond their capability, not to mention it would just provide a valuable recruiting tool for Kurds within Turkey to justify their terrorist attacks.
Rubbish, the geo-political fallout would probably destroy the Turkish position in Europe and the Middle East, and most likely bring about the fall of their government. If you think anyone in power in Turkey (especially the military establishment) is dumb enough to bring about this action, you’re sorely mistaken. (Also, consider that a previous Turkish PM was ethnically Kurdish, makes it an even more remote possibility, I’m not too sure this is accurate, but lends credidence to what I’m saying)
I’m not saying that it’s a failure, but if you actually believe that those democratically elected Iraqi leaders openly negotiating with Iran on security issues was something that was anticipated and welcomed, then you’re living in a fool’s paradise. And if you decide to allow the people to determine their fate, I believe that the number of Iraqis who want to see the ass end of the US occupation is somewhere northerly of 50%. If you decide to claim the primacy of the people, then I don’t see how that ties in with their desires.
Absolute crap. Israel is (are? dunno) neighbors with Syria and Jordan. Chechnya is a neighbor of Russia. So, for that matter, was Germany in the mid-Twentieth century. Neighbors don’t have close ties simply because they are neighbors. They have close ties because they either have or desire shared interests.
My mistake. Negotiating with Iran over security and energy, and having al Sistani over for tea made me think that they were involved at present and working toward more closeness. A thousand pardons, please.
Okay, “failure of intelligence.” Whatever you say. When the reasons that were touted endlessly (most assuredly including that Iraq was working on nuclear programs) were being refuted even as they were being mindlessly spouted, then the fucking thing was lost from the beginning. Riding roughshod over a decimated and depleted military force was the only thing about Iraqle that could be considered a “win” using any conventional sense of the word. And doing so was a given.
Nor will they get materiel assistance anytime soon. Iraqle is broken. Due entirely to the actions of the Bush fils administration. Again, there can be no victory because the country has dissolved. Not only did al Qaeda never get assistance from Iraq, they’re not going to get any soon. If a “win” is impossible, then what term would you use to describe what’s happening now?
Once more, we have already failed. Al Qaeda didn’t exist as a force in Iraqle before the invasion. There were people saying as much at the time. Now, after destroying the country, Qaeda does. How is that defined as anything other than a failure?
That your point “Turkey won’t touch Iraqi Kurdistan with a ten foot bargepole”, was horseshit.
If you dig around in the internets a little, you’ll find that Turkey has sent troops over the border into Iraqi Kurdistan on several occasions since the US invasion.
Here’s one from July 2003: VOANews.com - Turkish Troops in Iraq Freed by US
Of course, we could invade Paraguay to prevent vampire geese from hacksawing off the tops of our skulls and mixing our brains with lime Jell-O, too. That would be un-lose-able!
Wow, a cross border raid. Did any of the Turkish troops occupy major Kurdish towns or cities? No? Then it’s a cross border raid/military buffer to attack PKK militias. Still falls short of the proposed ‘massacre Armenian style’ of the Kurdish people in Iraq.
2,000 Turkish troops remain ‘within Northern Iraq’ which is most likely on the cross border section, in order to provide a buffer against the PKK launching attacks into Turkey proper. Doesn’t sound like a full scale military invasion.
So there, there’s the horseshit, if you’re gonna propose Turkey is planning to invade Northern Iraq, try not to spin it.
Where is your ten foot pole now?
Well, that’s actually a good analogy. I was thinking of another one: I’m convinced that my neighbor’s house has termites, and that my house is going to get an infestation. I convince my neighbor to get his house inspected, but the inspectors give it a clean bill of health. Undaunted, I hire a fumigation company to secretly tent his house while he’s on vacation. Unfortunately, the fumigators are inept and while they do fumigate the house, they also ruin all his furniture, which I have to pay for.
Did I lose the battle against termites? No. I made a fool of myself and recklessly spent money that didn’t need to be spent. I also created a lot of ill will between my neighbor and me. But I don’t have termites.
You don’t have a lot of things (mice, rats, fleas, bedbugs, cockroaches) but that lack is not relevant to what you did to your neighbor’s house, nor is you lack of termites.
Actually Israel has a fairly good relationship (relatively speaking) with Jordan. Syria is of course another kettle of fish.
Neighbors have close ties when they have common interests…as do Iran and Iraq. I don’t think the point is ‘Absolute crap’ at all…I think you are using poor examples and not seeing John’s point.
No worries…at least you can admit you were wrong. Or to put it another way…the US has negotiated energy deals with Mexico (and probably security as well)…and we’ve had several of their presidents and various other officials over for tea. Does that make us “in bed with” Mexico…or vice versa?
Then whats your point? No matter how you parse this, how does it equate, either way, to winning or losing? Instead of rhetoric and steam maybe you could explain yourself and why you feel its relevent to the thread…and not just venting.
Expand. HOW have we failed? By what measures? Define what failure means to you…don’t assume we all know what it means to you as an indivitual. Try and understand that that term means something different to everyone here.
Well, thats debatable, to be sure. But its interesting that you tie the conflict in Iraq directly to the WoT. I thought that was a CONSERVATIVE position.
Maybe because the ‘fact’ you tie this logical conclusion too is debatable in itself…as is the conclusion you are drawing? Just a thought.
-XT
The US told Israel a few days ago that Syria is in fact a bulging can of tuna:
None of which has anything to do with winning or losing. You seem to think that we only win if Iraq is a puppet state of the US. They are going to have interests that diverge from us, and that’s just a fact. But it doesn’t mean we’ve “lost”.
Look, most neighboring states have reasonably good relations. The instances where that isn’t true are exceptions, so there is no reason to expect that Iran will not have overall friendly relations with Iraq. And just FYI, Chechnya is part of Russia, not Russia’s neighbor.
Eh. You make some vague assertion that Iraq and Iran are “in bed” together as if that proves anything. It doesn’t.
It’s pretty clear that you’re not interested in an honest debate and simply want to ridicule those who disagree with you. I think we’re done.
The WMD’s were important from the POV of credibility and justifying the war. When they weren’t found, the entire foundation of the war crumbled, and that started the slide, really started it.
I, for instance, was very angry at the start of the war, but I resigned myself, and figured they’d have their little war, find the WMD’s, say “See, we were right all along!” and then we could get back to the real work of getting Osama. Instead, at the point where it became obvious that there weren’t going to be any WMD’s, which was within months of the invasion, I thought to myself, “Holy fuckin’ shit! Scott Ritter was right!” That was not a good moment.
That leads directly into…
Having lost all credibility, we now were stuck with having to justify invasion on the grounds of improving Iraq. Except the Brits tried this before, under their mandate under the League of Nations, and had already given it up. There was, and there is, especially after the monumental screw-up of the CPA, no reason to think that we did, or ever will do, any better.
Precisely as a proxy for Iran, which country is now far more influential than they were before the war. Kind of magnifies the loss.
This was in regards to oil. If you remember, Iraq’s oil revenues were supposed to pay for its reconstruction. That’s a long-forgotten fantasy by now. Also, Iraq was supposed to start producing again at pre-1990 war levels, and it still has large areas that have gone unexplored because of the combination of Saddam’s mismanagement and then the post-1990 sanctions. All of this combined meant that there were visions dancing around of Iraq turning into a huge producer of cheap oil after the war.
All gone now.
Obama was predictably attacked for saying it, but those 3,000 soldiers we’ve lost so far, and all the maimed people we have now, were wasted for nothing.
Besides which, he didn’t go nearly far enough. Not only were their lives wasted, the loss was counterproductive. It drained resources from Afghanistan and Pakistan, killed our credibility, destroyed a strategic counterweight to Iranian influence, alienated us from our allies, and drained our Treasury. It may yet succeed in completely destabilizing the Mideast.
It would be tough to figure out a way to screw this up worse than it already has been, but I’m sure Cheney is hard at work on that project.