BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
- Aug 26, 2005
- 1,055
- 0
- 0
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
Here's a breakdown of those goals....
An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency - Not much luck with this one.
Meeting political milestones - I think we've met a few of 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 - Not much accomplished here, either.
Tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy - What does this mean?
In all fairness (God forbid that we get into that), Reid went on say, and apparently tell the President, that there had to be substantive changes in military, diplomatic and economic policy in order to pull this thing out and that the policies the President seems determined to pursue aren?t working.
Won or lost, it seems to me, are simplistic measures better suited to John Wayne movies and comic book analysis that to the real world.
The real question is whether after all this time, all this money, all these lives there is any significant movement toward a stable and US friendly government in Iraq that actually has control of the territory and population?or any reasonable prospect of it. Manifestly that isn?t happening. Worse than that the nation?s ability to pursue the President?s policies is now compromised ? just look at the Regular, National Guard and Reserve formations that are rotating back to Iraq and Afghanistan without the necessary training, personnel and equipment.
Another measure of how things are going is to look at the publicly stated objectives and reasons for the invasion in the first place. Iraq certainly doesn?t have and nuclear weapons now, Saddam is certainly out of power. Maybe we should do just what some suggested that we do in Vietnam: declare victory and get the hell out.
This Administration is so heavily invested in the John Wayne approach to Iraq that it cannot even consider any other approach without suffering what it sees as a devastating loss of face.
All it can do now is posture, spend more time, more lives, more money and more national credibility to desperately hold on in the expectation that some new Administration will have to clean up the debris and then can be accused of losing the Middle East because of a lack of will. In my childhood ?Who lost China? was a widespread political rallying cry. I fear that ?Who lost Iraq? will be the same thing.
The most annoying part of this debate is that people think the people who want to pull out are simply being defeatist or against our whole plan there.
The problem is the aimless nature of the whole operation from beginning to end. Basically it was, "Go in and hope that it goes our way" Well it didn't and we've been screwing up ever since.
The most annoying part of the won/lost debate is that those who prefer to keep trying can't even imagine how things could get better. It's not, "Well let's just try this, we think it will work, because X, Y, and Z reasons" It's nothing like that, it's simply "it's working, be patient. Look at these results!" But it's obviously "not" working.
The best way forward, is for the Republicans and Democrats to not divide it between keep doing what we're doing, or leave, but rather, "How can we both be realistic?"
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.
Here's a breakdown of those goals....
An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency - Not much luck with this one.
Meeting political milestones - I think we've met a few of 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 - Not much accomplished here, either.
Tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy - What does this mean?
In all fairness (God forbid that we get into that), Reid went on say, and apparently tell the President, that there had to be substantive changes in military, diplomatic and economic policy in order to pull this thing out and that the policies the President seems determined to pursue aren?t working.
Won or lost, it seems to me, are simplistic measures better suited to John Wayne movies and comic book analysis that to the real world.
The real question is whether after all this time, all this money, all these lives there is any significant movement toward a stable and US friendly government in Iraq that actually has control of the territory and population?or any reasonable prospect of it. Manifestly that isn?t happening. Worse than that the nation?s ability to pursue the President?s policies is now compromised ? just look at the Regular, National Guard and Reserve formations that are rotating back to Iraq and Afghanistan without the necessary training, personnel and equipment.
Another measure of how things are going is to look at the publicly stated objectives and reasons for the invasion in the first place. Iraq certainly doesn?t have and nuclear weapons now, Saddam is certainly out of power. Maybe we should do just what some suggested that we do in Vietnam: declare victory and get the hell out.
This Administration is so heavily invested in the John Wayne approach to Iraq that it cannot even consider any other approach without suffering what it sees as a devastating loss of face.
All it can do now is posture, spend more time, more lives, more money and more national credibility to desperately hold on in the expectation that some new Administration will have to clean up the debris and then can be accused of losing the Middle East because of a lack of will. In my childhood ?Who lost China? was a widespread political rallying cry. I fear that ?Who lost Iraq? will be the same thing.
The most annoying part of this debate is that people think the people who want to pull out are simply being defeatist or against our whole plan there.
The problem is the aimless nature of the whole operation from beginning to end. Basically it was, "Go in and hope that it goes our way" Well it didn't and we've been screwing up ever since.
The most annoying part of the won/lost debate is that those who prefer to keep trying can't even imagine how things could get better. It's not, "Well let's just try this, we think it will work, because X, Y, and Z reasons" It's nothing like that, it's simply "it's working, be patient. Look at these results!" But it's obviously "not" working.
The best way forward, is for the Republicans and Democrats to not divide it between keep doing what we're doing, or leave, but rather, "How can we both be realistic?"
