Senator Harry Reid says Iraq War is already lost

[BrainGlutton]

Story here. Is he right?

[Merijeek]

Umm…you can’t “win” if you don’t know what victory is.

Losing was pretty much a given. Or, lack of winning, anyway.

-Joe

[Squink]

We’ve lost in Iraq, haven’t we?

Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home

We’ve failed to prevent our needing to fight a civil war in order to allow us to continue searching for ponies.

[LilShieste]

@BrainGlutton

Story here. Is he right?

I think we first need to establish what it means for us to “win”, in this situation. Below, is the best I could come up with.

Victory in Iraq, as defined by the Bush White House:

*As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy’s surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event – there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

* In the short term:
      - An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
* In the medium term:
      - An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* In the longer term:
      - An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
      - An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
      - An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.*

I think, for the purpose of this debate, we should focus on the “short term” goal(s). What do you think, BrainGlutton?

It’s crucial that we have some kind of metrics with which we can measure the goals put forth in the short term strategy, from above. Otherwise, we’re right back to where we started, as Merijeek has stated.
LilShieste

[LilShieste]

@Squink

We’ve lost in Iraq, haven’t we?

Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home

We’ve failed to prevent our needing to fight a civil war in order to allow us to continue searching for ponies.

Thanks for the links, Squink. You’ve totally invalidated my entire post.
LilShieste

[BrainGlutton]

@LilShieste

I think, for the purpose of this debate, we should focus on the “short term” goal(s). What do you think, BrainGlutton?

Latest news (no cite) is that violent deaths of Iraqis for the past month show a decline, but violent deaths of U.S. GIs are on the uptick. So the insurgency hasn’t quieted down, it has merely (and quite rationally) shifted its focus from Iraqi rivals to the foreign occupiers. So, no, I don’t think we’re any nearer to meeting the short-term goals.

[LilShieste]

@BrainGlutton

Latest news (no cite) is that violent deaths of Iraqis for the past month show a decline, but violent deaths of U.S. GIs are on the uptick. So the insurgency hasn’t quieted down, it has merely (and quite rationally) shifted its focus from Iraqi rivals to the foreign occupiers. So, no, I don’t think we’re any nearer to meeting the short-term goals.

I agree. Here’s a breakdown of those goals, in light of this information:

• An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency… No luck with this one.
• Meeting political milestones… I think we’ve met those. Not sure if they accomplished much, though.
• Building democratic institutions… What does this mean?
• Standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security… Looks like this is no longer a goal?
• Tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy… What does this mean?
  LilShieste

[BrainGlutton]

@LilShieste

• Tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy… What does this mean?

In neocon terms, that was done, by the Coalition Provisional Authority, shortly after the invasion. See the OP in this thread.

Hasn’t worked out too well.

[The_Hamster_King]

@BrainGlutton

Is he right?

Yes. The insurgency continues to grow more powerful while we have no more extra troops to send. We can’t get any tougher and we can’t wait them out. We’ve already lost.

[LilShieste]

From the OP’s link:

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky said:
I can’t begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost.

Let the ad hominem arguments commence.

Let’s say I’m at a boxing match, watching my favorite boxer. He manages to last three rounds against his opponent, but has been beaten pretty badly. Not knocked-out, mind you, but in pretty bad shape. His opponent, OTOH, looks like he doesn’t even have a scratch on him, even though he’s taken a ton of solid punches.

If this scenario continues for much longer, it’d be in the best interest of all parties involved to end the match in a TKO. As a result, my boxer has lost the fight. Does this mean I now hate him, and everything he stands for? Hell no, he put up a damn good, impressive fight. And I’m glad the TKO was called, because otherwise he would have really been hurting by the end of the match (brain damaged?).

Just because someone says that we’ve “lost the war”, doesn’t mean that person hates our troops.

And with that, it’s back to work I go.
LilShieste

[Der_Trihs]

@LilShieste

• Tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy… What does this mean?

Most likely, like BrainGlutton said, turning the Iraqi tax system/economy into a Republican fantasy, which has been done. Which is one reason why Iraq is so screwed up, and will continue to be until they get rid of us and throw out the rules we’ve imposed. And it’s something that helps make any other goal that much harder to accomplish; screwing up their economy for our own profit makes it that much harder to stabilize the country, and much harder to convince the Iraqis we are anything other than enemies to be killed.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Story here. Is he right?

Maybe we can arrange a surrender ceremony for him the next time he’s over in Iraq.

That was a stupid, stupid thing to say. And if he really means it, he better introduce legislation right now that will start bringing the troops home tomorrow. Otherwise, what does that tell us about him other than that he’s willing to allow soldiers to keep fighting after he thinks the war is lost.

[Spezza]

You lost about a month after you invaded. Instead of liberating, you occupied.

Why cannot the United States public recognize that it’s military is occupying a foreign country? Why cannot people recognize that the “war on terror” is actually an “exportation of terror”?

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

And if he really means it, he better introduce legislation right now that will start bringing the troops home tomorrow.

:dubious: The Senate has already passed that legislation, or as near to it as can be hoped for under the circumstances. Now it’s up to W to accept reality and sign it.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: The Senate has already passed that legislation, or as near to it as can be hoped for under the circumstances. Now it’s up to W to accept reality and sign it.

No, it did not (emphasis added):

In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.

Why wait 120 days if we’ve already lost?

[Blalron]

@John Mace

No, it did not (emphasis added):
Why wait 120 days if we’ve already lost?

If you want the real answer: Politically, they wouldn’t be able to command a majority vote to get us out immediately. This is the best solution that can realistically pass.

[John_Mace]

@Blalron

If you want the real answer: Politically, they wouldn’t be able to command a majority vote to get us out immediately. This is the best solution that can realistically pass.

So, not enough members of his own party agrees with his assessment to pass such a bill? I can accept that. It was still a really stupid thing to say, and you note that he back-pedaled on the Senate floor the very same day.

[The_Hamster_King]

@John Mace

Why wait 120 days if we’ve already lost?

Because that’s a bill passed by the entire Senate, not by Harry Reid personally. I suspect if thought the Senate would go along with him he’d have a more aggressive time table.

[BrightNShiny]

@John Mace

Why wait 120 days if we’ve already lost?

It seems to me that a withdrawal takes time to plan and implement. What do you suggest is the appropriate time frame and why?

[Squink]

@John Mace

It was still a really stupid thing to say

Not so much stupid as slightly before it’s time. As the idea trickles through congress that now we’ll have to spend a trillion or so fighting a civil war, before even getting back to where we were in 2004, the sunken cost fallacy which props up our continued search for a ‘victory’ will become increasingly distasteful, even to Republicans.