POLL: Is Iraq Lost?

[MonstaThrilla]

I think it is. I see no way that the US can recover from the photos (more released today by the Washington Post). Bush went on Arab TV and didn't apologize. Arab hatred against the US is at an all-time high (and that's saying something). Thousands more of Bin Ladens have been created. I'm afraid that a capture of Bin Laden in the next few months (you KNOW its gonna happen) will trigger almost instant terror attacks against our troops in Iraq, or worse yet, to civilians here at home.

I don't see anyway for the Iraq situation to be salvaged. As long as our troops are there, they'll be sitting ducks. The only option I see is a messy, full-scale pacification operation that will result in thousands of dead Iraqis and hundreds of our troops. I don't think that's a price anyone is willing to pay.

So on June 30, why shouldn't we give the keys to whoever Brahimi tells us to and just cut and run?

EDIT: In a press conference with Jordan King Abdullah, Bush stated he told the King he was "sorry for the humiliation suffered" by Iraq prisoners.

Today's Washington Post article

 

[tnitsuj]

not yet

 

[smashp]

cynically Yes.

But I pray im Wrong, I hope The War Can Be Won and that my cynacism be proved Wrong.

 

[KB]

The moment we leave, they will immediately start Civil war. The Sunnis, shiites and kurds all hate each other. The only thing keeping Iraq together now is their mutual hatred of the US.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

..Another disgruntled "Dean--break the bat" participant, I see. Yea, it's lost....f*ck them, right? Don?t you think they should be afforded the same right to go to, say, ?CALIFORNIA, then MICHIGAN, then NEW YORK, then DISNEY LAND, then GEROGIA?YeeeeeaaaaaAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!?

 

[glugglug]

Iraq was lost as soon as it started. Has nothing to do with the pics.

 

[conjur]

It was once lost...but now is found.


Praise Bush!

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
..Another disgruntled "Dean--break the bat" participant, I see. Yea, it's lost....f*ck them, right? Don?t you think they should be afforded the same right to go to, say, ?CALIFORNIA, then MICHIGAN, then NEW YORK, then DISNEY LAND, then GEROGIA?YeeeeeaaaaaAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!?

easy now galt. forgot to take your medicine this morning?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
..Another disgruntled "Dean--break the bat" participant, I see. Yea, it's lost....f*ck them, right? Don?t you think they should be afforded the same right to go to, say, ?CALIFORNIA, then MICHIGAN, then NEW YORK, then DISNEY LAND, then GEROGIA?YeeeeeaaaaaAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!?

easy now galt. forgot to take your medicine this morning?

YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I'll start a poll: "Is Dean Lost? I think so. There is no way he can recover from the Secret Photos" ...not.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Simple questions can't always be answered with a yes or no. Just as I don't see how to accurately define winning, I am not sure how one defines loss. Certainly Saddam being gone is not something that the Iraqis as a whole regret. The problem is that one can gain a positive, and offset it with a whole host of negatives.

This can play out many ways.

First, everyone on the Iraqi side gives up. We win. Not likely.

Second, Americans surrender to their forces. We lose. Not any more likely


For me, the realization of a stable area without a major downside would be a victory. That means Iraq MAY fragment. I would prefer 3 relatively stable countries than one big powder keg. So, we may need to consider that as a possibility. Of course that creates a problem between the Turks and Kurds, but that may have to happen.

Democracy as we envision may not come to pass because I am not sure those there want to be "little americans". There may be things about the area I do not like, however pragmatism needs to rule here. You cannot change a culture when the people don't want to change. The Brits found this out in what became Iraq early last century.

To achieve what I think of as a best resolution, we need to be far more engaged with leaders there, both secular and religious. We also need to reverse our thinking of "if you are not for us you are against us" into "if you are not against us, we will not be against you". Take it down a notch. This would be a practical reason to bring in someone other than Bush. Bush loves being the war president. He came with a sword in hand. No one sees him as a man of peace. To make a biblical analogy, God would not let David, the "war leader" build the temple. Another, Solomon, was left that task. This hardly endorses Kerry as Solomon, but rather is to convey that Kerry could be seen as someone who hasn't an axe to grind. Any solution to this will be political, not of the military. Diplomacy is not Bush's forte.

If we continue on the present course, I think we will achieve a victory of a sort. Eventually we could subjugate the populace. It would be a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[kage69]

No.





Not yet anyway...consider it etched in stone if Bush gets re-elected though.

 

[chrisms]

No. It's a tough job. There will be hard times, and there will be easier times, but in the end the objective must be achieved, and I believe Americans are determined to make sure we don't embarrass ourselves again.

We may fail in Iraq, but if we do it will be after at least a few more years of trying. To say it is lost now is foolish because in the long-term, the effort has just begun.