Is 'victory' in Iraq Possible?

[Arkaign]

Would just like to gather opinions from the guys and gals here

I'm abstaining from posting my personal feelings in the OP so as to make this an open start to the topic.

By 'Victory', I mean the standard accepted definition of what the mission in Iraq is designed to produce :

A stable, safe, self-governing Democratic Iraqi state.

 

[Jaskalas]

A poll for a poll would be nice

In short, no. ?Victory? would be the creation of a second Iranian style ?Democracy? who will be hostile to us. This is not a victory worthy of our blood.

 

[Arkaign]

My apologies for the broken poll, I will try to fix. Thank you for your post and input!

 

[Arkaign]

Thanks, I figured it out and fixed it

 

[miketheidiot]

the pre-conditions for victory do not exist as victory has been generally been defined. We can't "win" in iraq as long as there is an iraq. Break the country up and you might have a shot.

 

[Lemon law]

We can't ever say never, but we also have to be realistic, its going to take a political solution that GWB refuses to work on. And a national unity on a national bi-partisan plan that is not happening and can't happen as long as GWB decides to be the decider.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
A poll for a poll would be nice

In short, no. ?Victory? would be the creation of a second Iranian style ?Democracy? who will be hostile to us. This is not a victory worthy of our blood.

You mean to say that it would be a victory only if the US managed to install a puppet government? That won't happen. Iraqis are far to educated for that and guess what; most of them hate Americans.

I don't even think a democracy is possible if imposed by forced. The shiahs and sunnis will never agree on a power sharing government. When the US leaves, civil war is sure to break out until a man with an iron fist comes to power. And when civil war does break out Iran will interfere militarily.

No matter what, Iraq will almost certainly be anti-American. They may bow to American dominance but that will not mean that they will be US allies on a strategic level just like most ME countries. Iraq was a blunder and Iraq will be a Shia vs Sunni vs Wahabi battlefield once the US leaves.

I doubt there's anything anyone can do now to stop the violence. Americans just wasted 100 years of Iraqi development. I also think the Americans are obliged to stay back and pay for their mistakes. This may cost billions of dollars and many American lives but needs to be done to save the M.E from a major war.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We can't ever say never, but we also have to be realistic, its going to take a political solution that GWB refuses to work on. And a national unity on a national bi-partisan plan that is not happening and can't happen as long as GWB decides to be the decider.

Does this political solution include removing all troops AND expecting to have some sort of control of the situation afterwards?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We can't ever say never, but we also have to be realistic, its going to take a political solution that GWB refuses to work on. And a national unity on a national bi-partisan plan that is not happening and can't happen as long as GWB decides to be the decider.

The problem is that it isn't up to either the Reps or Dems. It's entirely dependent on those in Iraq. If the Iraqis don't want what we want then there isn't going to be a "victory" in any meaningful sense.

I don't see significant willpower in Iraq to make this happen. What I perceive is a population who wants the US there to provide security, but doesn't either have the will or ability to deal with the present reality. As long as we stay, the situation will be relatively stable. The moment we leave collapse occurs. I think if it's ten months or ten years it's a given. The question to me is if the stability of Iraq is worth eternal occupation. I'm thinking not, although I find it hard to throw people to the wolves. No good choices now.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
A poll for a poll would be nice

In short, no. ?Victory? would be the creation of a second Iranian style ?Democracy? who will be hostile to us. This is not a victory worthy of our blood.

You mean to say that it would be a victory only if the US managed to install a puppet government? That won't happen. Iraqis are far to educated for that and guess what; most of them hate Americans.

Do you consider Afghanistan a puppet government?
Do you consider your government a puppet government?

They continue to fight against Islamists such as the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. I believe the Iraqi government would fall to such Islamist terrorist groups and be as supportive to them as Iran is now. As open to hosting and waging war with those terrorist groups as Iran is now.

The requirement for victory would be ONLY if the government itself does not become the essence of violent and repressive Islamic Supremacism. Being our friend is not a requirement, anything in-between would be fine.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
A poll for a poll would be nice

In short, no. ?Victory? would be the creation of a second Iranian style ?Democracy? who will be hostile to us. This is not a victory worthy of our blood.

You mean to say that it would be a victory only if the US managed to install a puppet government? That won't happen. Iraqis are far to educated for that and guess what; most of them hate Americans.

Do you consider Afghanistan a puppet government?
Do you consider your government a puppet government?

They continue to fight against Islamists such as the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. I believe the Iraqi government would fall to such Islamist terrorist groups and be as supportive to them as Iran is now. As open to hosting and waging war with those terrorist groups as Iran is now.

The requirement for victory would be ONLY if the government itself does not become the essence of violent and repressive Islamic Supremacism. Being our friend is not a requirement, anything in-between would be fine.

Perhaps facing such a dire threat would finally be enough to get the people of Iraq off their asses and starting fighting for their country and a national identity....

If they aren't willing to even do that much, then there will never be any "saving" of Iraq or "victory."

 

[daveymark]

a better question would be "do you want victory in iraq?"

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: daveymark
a better question would be "do you want victory in iraq?"

Define victory, how long it will take and how much money?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We can't ever say never, but we also have to be realistic, its going to take a political solution that GWB refuses to work on. And a national unity on a national bi-partisan plan that is not happening and can't happen as long as GWB decides to be the decider.

The problem is that it isn't up to either the Reps or Dems. It's entirely dependent on those in Iraq. If the Iraqis don't want what we want then there isn't going to be a "victory" in any meaningful sense.

I don't see significant willpower in Iraq to make this happen. What I perceive is a population who wants the US there to provide security, but doesn't either have the will or ability to deal with the present reality. As long as we stay, the situation will be relatively stable. The moment we leave collapse occurs. I think if it's ten months or ten years it's a given. The question to me is if the stability of Iraq is worth eternal occupation. I'm thinking not, although I find it hard to throw people to the wolves. No good choices now.

:thumbsup:

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: daveymark
a better question would be "do you want victory in iraq?"

That's not what this thread is about. Personally, I'd love that I want victory in Afghanistan as well. I just happen to think that it's not looking like we're going to get a 'Victory' in Iraq under popularly accepted terms.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
By 'Victory', I mean the standard accepted definition of what the mission in Iraq is designed to produce :

A stable, safe, self-governing Democratic Iraqi state.

Sorry, but that's absolute BULLSHIT! That's nowhere near what the TRAITOR IN CHIEF told us when he started his WAR OF LIES, and it's nowhere near any of the other lame definitions of "victory" he's spewed in his endless succession of changing objectives, moving goalposts and other outright lies, since then. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Arkaign
By 'Victory', I mean the standard accepted definition of what the mission in Iraq is designed to produce :

A stable, safe, self-governing Democratic Iraqi state.

Sorry, but that's absolute BULLSHIT! That's nowhere near what the TRAITOR IN CHIEF told us when he started his WAR OF LIES, and it's nowhere near any of the other lame definitions of "victory" he's spewed in his endless succession of changing objectives, moving goalposts and other outright lies, since then. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Okay, you can go back on your meds now.

Btw, I was never a supporter of the Iraq campaign. I thought it was a tremendous waste of lives, money, reputation, resources, and the most negative foreign policy decision ever undertaken by our country.

That said, please calm down and bring some details to this table.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Military victory was achieved.

The country is not ready or willing for a stable government.
The best that can be done would be to continue to babysit and seal the borders.
Let the Iraqis stablize themselves (no matter how it happens).
Just make sure that no interference comes across the borders from Saudi, Syria and Iran.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Military victory was achieved.

The country is not ready or willing for a stable government.
The best that can be done would be to continue to babysit and seal the borders.
Let the Iraqis stablize themselves (no matter how it happens).
Just make sure that no interference comes across the borders from Saudi, Syria and Iran.

You're right and I think this bears expanding on. My hat is off to our fine men and women in the military. They have performed with sheer excellence during this incredibly difficult mission, and have succeeded in almost every task given to them. The problem lies in areas quite beyond their control.

Also on that note. "The country is not ready or willing for a stable government." That's the whole reason I did not and do not support this mission. Looking at the internal structure of Iraqi society, achieving our version of a stable inclusive democracy is absurd to expect of that mix of ingredients. It's a nice dream, but just a dream.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Okay, you can go back on your meds now.

Btw, I was never a supporter of the Iraq campaign. I thought it was a tremendous waste of lives, money, reputation, resources, and the most negative foreign policy decision ever undertaken by our country.

That said, please calm down and bring some details to this table.

Sure. As soon as you figure out how to bring back the 3,792 American troops who have died in the TRAITOR IN CHIEFs WAR OF LIES! as of 9/20/07 9:03 pm EDT.

Until then, if you ever tell me to go back on meds, I'll be glad to show you exactly where you can KISS MY ASS! :lips:

 

[Arkaign]

Lol allrighty then Why would it be my job to bring back lives for a war that I never supported, caused by a President I never voted for (hell, I hated his dumb ass when he was governor here in Texas).

Btw, the meds thing was a joke. But it's hard to expect to be taken seriously with a bunch of all caps and repetitive anger and statements.

 

[dmcowen674]

Victory has already been achieved, the commander in Chief said so:

"Mission Accomplished"

 

[techs]

Great Britain "won" WW2.
At the cost of her empire and bankruptcy.
Pyrric victory.

 

[First]

Victory, originally, was defined as riding Saddam of WMDs and stabilizing the country after overthrowing Saddam. The only victory so far has been getting Saddam out of there, which was a great victory. Unfortunately, it created a whole other mess of problems the administration couldn't handle in the least, and isn't anywhere closer to handling now. I think another administration could clean up the mess in Iraq, but ultimately you're fighting a losing war because traditional warfare tactics don't fly against this enemy. This war, in a lot of ways like the Cold War, has to be won with the cloak and dagger and via superior information security, intel gathering, and economic sanctions. That can't happen for the next 15 months, as we desperately require an administration with foreign diplomacy skills and good judgment, and as Bush's record clearly shows, he has neither.

 

[First]

So while any level-headed person knows this war can't be won the way it's being fought right now, it can be won in the long-run with grassroots, negotiate-first diplomacy and leveraging the U.S.' immense economic pull. However, it'll take a political solution that I feel many in Congress on both sides of the isle are not willing to concede to. The neo-righties will have to let go of the trigger-happy mindset that led to disasters like Vietnam, while fringe leftists will have to ease considerably on proposals that greatly expand federal governmental power (and taxes) as well as economically unreasonable ecological policy. That would be a nice start, but it would require a deflation of the ego and I don't see both sides budging there.

EDIT: The worst trend that continues to this day on both sides is constant pandering to constituencies for the sole purpose of reelection, with too little weight put on proposing the unpopular policy locally, despite it being a policy that has a positive effect nationally.