As long as there is a Shi’ite majority with zero interest in coddling al Qaeda sympathizers in their midst, and as soon as we abandon the fantasy that anything resembling democracy will take root in the country, al Qaeda’s days in Iraq are numbered.
I had this epiphany today while listening to Mitch McConnell bloviating about extracting the “surrender date” from the military-funding bill. “Got to stay there and fight al Qaeda no matter what the Democrats want,” he kept repeating, sticking to his idiotic talking points despite the efforts of the NPR interviewer to get him to say something, anything, of substance. And it occurred to me that the best way to fight al Qaeda in Iraq is to get the hell out and let the Shi’ite government crush them.
There would, needless to say, be an appalling amount of collateral damage accompanying said crushing.
But the bottom line is, the only reason al Qaeda has any presence at all in Iraq is we’re still there. Oh, and Mitch McConnell is full of shit. I think we can agree on that as well. Yes? Good.
I’d say the definition of “winning” depends on who you ask. Groups like the oil companies, Blackwater and Haliburton no doubt consider it a massive victory; the neocons will probably consider it at least an incomplete victory if they keep their “enduring bases”. Bush would probably consider it a victory if history agrees it was the right thing to do, and blames other people for the disasterous effects, and doesn’t really care what happens in Iraq. Republican political strategist will consider it a victory if it gets Republicans elected. The Iraqis would consider it winning if our soldiers are gone or dead. And so on.
Yes, it did degenerate into that, so I really can’t complain about the move. Instead, I want to publicly thank TimeWinder, A.R. Cane, and John Mace for their on-topic responses prior to the move.
“Winning” would be bringing about a level of security not totally dissonant with that of a nation at peace, and being in a position to know that if we were to withdraw all our forces, the Iraqi government would be both desirous of, and capable of, maintaining that state.
No, it did not “degenerate” into that-since the definition of what this war is about has never been pinned down for any length of time, the definition of “winning” this war could be nothing but a collection of opinions.
1 - sovereignty and independence
2 - a stable government
3 - a stable economy
4 - decent human rights by regional standards
5 - no mass violence
6 - not threatening the United States or other countries
7 - not a terrorist base
8 - no ethnic warfare
9 - no WMD programs
10 - not dependent on outside powers
If all of this happens, it will be a great victory.
Under the circumstances, that’s both hypocritical on our part and contradictory on the Iraqi’s part. It’s going to be a long time if ever before hurting America is no longer a goal for the Iraqis; if they are independent I fully expect them to try to harm us as much as they can, for generations at the least. And it’s hypocritical and rather whiny for us to complain about other countries threatening us at this point.
You can have one or six, but I doubt you can have both.
If I believed that were true, I say it’s a strong argument for keeping American troops in Iraq. Sure, I might sympathize with their point of view, but I wouldn’t place their desire for revenge above our safety.
But I don’t believe it’s true. We certainly aren’t threatened by Germany, Italy, or Japan.
Did we attack them without provocation ? Did they try to avoid war with us ? No. Japan attacked us, Germany declared war, and Italy was an ally. They brought disaster upon themselves. The situations aren’t at all the same.
Seems a mite odd to get all pissy over the fact that you asked a question that is not amenable to a factual answer.
As you observed in your OP, NO ONE knows exactly what the “War On Terror” means. There is no clearly identified enemy. Nor have there ever been any clearly and consistently identified goals.
Is that the answer you wanted?
I offered unilateral withdrawal ASAP as the option that I believed was achievable, and that would confer upon us the greatest likely benefit (or perhaps more precisely, would not likely cost more than any alternatives.)
The fact that the thread was moved is the answer you were looking for. And you’d think it would behoove the people conducting this war to lay out exactly what “victory” would look like, just to stop all the guessing.
I think you’re wrong. I think people are lot more likely to hold a grudge or not because of the what happens after the war rather than over how the war started. Our current good relations with the former Axis powers is due to our responsible behavior during the occupations. If we were being comparably responsible during the Iraqi occupation, we would be building a similar foundation for future good relations. The Iraqis would forgive and forget the shakey legal grounds for our taking over their country if we had done a good job afterwards. As others have said, we won the war and lost the peace.
Too bad Keeve isn’t coming back to the thread, because I have some information that he’d probably like. Oh well. I guess I’ll post it anyway for general consumption.
On March 21, 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld laid out eight objectives for Operation Enduring Freedom. Here they are:
(I typed out a paper that I have printed at my desk, but a news story about it is here.)
Obviously, things have changed. In the fall of 2005, the White House released its definition of victory in Iraq. Read it here. It consists of:
The link goes into more detail that I won’t bother reprinting.
The operative phrase being “in their midst”. I understand your thinking here, but don’t be so sure that a Shi’a majority can exercise its control over all of Iraq.
Not quite. The reason they got a foothold in Iraq is because we were there, but it’s pretty naive to think that they are going to give up when we leave. If anything, they will have even more sympathizers once we get out, as I suspect the Shi’a majority will exert its will over the Sunni minority in ways that they can’t while we’re there.
Well, as it turns out, this question is amenable to a factual answer, and it is not the answer you thought it was! NYAH, NYAH!
My observation in the OP was that I don’t know exactly what the “War On Terror” means, not that no one does. (Look it up!) I was hoping that someone might have defined it at some point, and it turns out that someone did do exactly that.
Many sincere thanks to Ravenman for posting Secretary Rumsfeld’s eight objectives (in post #35).
Other than the laughable notion that the Bush administration ever thought Iraq’s oil belonged to the Iraqi’s (apart from Bremer paying lip-service to the notion by only privatizing every single part of Iraq’s oil industry except “primary extraction and initial processing”), this particular line item smacks to me of post-saudi-peak-oil desperation.
Even the most obstinate conservative is beginning to realize that Saudi oil is very near its end, and so we make up the idea that Iraq’s reserves are criminally underdeveloped so that we don’t have to face the reality of decline.
Actually, I’ve read there’s a falling out between them. The Iraqi insurgents want to focus on driving the Americans out of Iraq and taking over Iraq. The Al Qaeda forces in Iraq see these as only part of their goals and are looking for a broader agenda. Al Qaeda recently attempted to bring all insurgents under a unified command that was Al Qaeda controlled - some of the largest Iraqi groups refused to join. So Al Qaeda killed several dozen of the Iraqi insurgents. Relations since then have been somewhat strained.