How should we define "victory" in Iraq?, Where do we draw the line and say we won or

[OrangeEmpire]

What constitutes a victory in Iraq?

How will we know we won/lost and it is time to go?

Do we all agree that benchmarks and series of goals should be set to achieve victory?

If so how long do we allow for each set of benchmarks and goals to be achieved?

If we repeatedly fail to acheive those goals should we change tactics or leave?

If we change tactics how many times do we change tactics?

Where do we draw the line and say we won or we lost and get out?

Thoughts?

 

[BigPapaVol]

What constitutes a victory in Iraq?

How will we know we won/lost and it is time to go?

Do we all agree that benchmarks and series of goals should be set to achieve victory?

If so how long do we allow for each set of benchmarks and goals to be achieved?

If we repeatedly fail to acheive those goals should we change tactics or leave?

If we change tactics how many times do we change tactics?

Where do we draw the line and say we won or we lost and get out?

Thoughts?

1. Self sustaining government with long term US bases for staging area for Alliance troops.
2. We aren't going
3. Without a doubt and without the press.
4. Timelines are disastrous
5. Change tactics
6. Every time necessary.
7. Repeat question

 

[All Vol!]

What constitutes a victory in Iraq?

1) How will we know we won/lost and it is time to go?

2) Do we all agree that benchmarks and series of goals should be set to achieve victory?

3) If so how long do we allow for each set of benchmarks and goals to be achieved?

4) If we repeatedly fail to acheive those goals should we change tactics or leave?

5) If we change tactics how many times do we change tactics?

6) Where do we draw the line and say we won or we lost and get out?

Thoughts?

1) We lost before the first bomb dropped because of
the long, long term damage this colossal mistake
has done to America's reputation in the international
community.

2) Real victory is not possible because it cannot be
achieved in terms of dead insurgents. There
should be one goal at this point: count our losses
and aggressively begin pulling out combat troops,
citing the now indelible mistake that was made by
the Bush administration in (deliberately) pursuing
the wrong enemy in response to 9/11.

3) Reference above
4) Reference above
5) Reference above
6) We draw the line yesterday; we say neither and get
out. Then we begin the hard work of reversing the
monumental damage this administration has done to
America.

 

[volinbham]

1) We lost before the first bomb dropped because of
the long, long term damage this colossal mistake
has done to America's reputation in the international
community.

2) Real victory is not possible because it cannot be
achieved in terms of dead insurgents. There
should be one goal at this point: count our losses
and aggressively begin pulling out combat troops,
citing the now indelible mistake that was made by
the Bush administration in (deliberately) pursuing
the wrong enemy in response to 9/11.

3) Reference above
4) Reference above
5) Reference above
6) We draw the line yesterday; we say neither and get
out. Then we begin the hard work of reversing the
monumental damage this administration has done to
America.

What damage would we do to America's reputation if we ignored Iraq's defiance of UN Sanctions?

If we ignored their continual aggression (daily shootings at Coalition aircraft in the No Fly Zone)

If we ignored the Oil for Food boondoggle.

If we ignored the calls for removing sanctions on Iraq?

I'm sorry but a reputation is more than being "liked". Throughout the 90's we were increasingly seen as a pussycat where the US reaction to attacks of various types were to ignore them or deliver a mild rebuke at best. I've got news, that's not respect. Anti-americanism is about so much more than Bush and Iraq.

Perhaps the Iraq war was an overreaction but we had certainly been underreacting for quite a while.

 

[All Vol!]

What damage would we do to America's reputation if we ignored Iraq's defiance of UN Sanctions?

If we ignored their continual aggression (daily shootings at Coalition aircraft in the No Fly Zone)

If we ignored the Oil for Food boondoggle.

If we ignored the calls for removing sanctions on Iraq?

I'm sorry but a reputation is more than being "liked". Throughout the 90's we were increasingly seen as a pussycat where the US reaction to attacks of various types were to ignore them or deliver a mild rebuke at best. I've got news, that's not respect. Anti-americanism is about so much more than Bush and Iraq.

Perhaps the Iraq war was an overreaction but we had certainly been underreacting for quite a while.

If we as a nation are to be so defiance-cognizant where UN resolutions are concerned, why did we not begin with Israel, who has been in defiance of numerous UN resolutions for decades, primarily related to the UN's demand that they withdraw their occupying forces from Lebanon? Are our allies perhaps issued a resolution-defying pass by the UN? Furthermore, if this administration is so concerned with the sanctity of UN authority, how does it begin to justify its utter indifference for the strong disapproval issued by the UN with regard to a unilateral approach to Iraq's defiance and lack of diplomacy thereof?

The two main problems I have with your argument are (1) the suggestion that international respect should be guaged in part by how aggressively and promptly we seek revenge and (2) it seems to completely and conveniently ignore what we know for certain: the Iraqi government was not responsible for 9/11.

 

[volinbham]

The two main problems I have with your argument are (1) the suggestion that international respect should be guaged in part by how aggressively and promptly we seek revenge and (2) it seems to completely and conveniently ignore what we know for certain: the Iraqi government was not responsible for 9/11.

1) I made no such suggestion. Instead, I suggest that taking stands via policy that you do not back up will not garner respect.

2) The war with Iraq was not a war on the government that was responsible for 9/11. It was viewed as a larger move in a war on the idealism that spawned 9/11. It was viewed as an attempt to transform a region. It will be years maybe decades before we know if it lessened risk or heightened risk.

You may have viewed it as a revenge but it was certainly a much more strategic policy than that.

As for the UN - I don't believe the UN carries much sanction ability. My points about UN violations is that if your policy is to say these actions (by Iraq) merit a response but never respond -- you render the UN even more inconsequential. The countries on the security council that did not side with us did so for their own self-interests; this was not altruism by France --- it was pure, calculated self-interest seeking.

 

[CSpindizzy]

If Iraq defied UN sanctions then it is the UN's role to act on that. it is not the role of one nation to self-appoint its military to be the enforcer of the UN. If the UN fails to act on its own resolutions, then it is the UN that loses credibility.

If we use the policy on invading Iraq as a standard, why have we done nothing on about 10 other nations who have actively done far worse for decades?

War on the idealism that caused 9/11? Are you insane for tying a secular socialist government that despises Islamic fundamentalism to wiping out a 9/11 mindset? If anything we removed a dam and replaced it with a flood of even larger 9/11 mindsets. We should have learned that Gulf War I influenced those involved in 9/11. Wouldn't logic and reason hold that doing something similar actually provoke a growth of 9/11 mindsets?

On the flipside of your argument, taking unilateral action on UN resolutions did far worse to the detriment of the UN than letting the sanctions go unanswered. The same logic that attacks France for sitting back for self-serving reasons has to be applied to the US in its actions. We are no different than France in this matter. Fortunate for France, they come away with a few businessmen in ethics scandals while we get stuck with a greater mess to clean up.

 

[CSpindizzy]

We have done all we can do in Iraq. We took out Saddam. We have erased the Ba'athist control and forced a 'democratic' regime with a constitution representing all parties. They have a government that functions and an infrastructure that is recovering. What is left to do according to those who say the mission is not accomplished is to remove the threats to this government. As a nation who cannot even secure its own borders, we expect to somehow have a democratic government control its borders to remove a very well blended in threat constantly coming in to undermine it. To complete the mission we have to get rid of a threat we can equate with the drug war or illegals in our own nation. It will not happen. No matter how large the bureacracy is and no matter how much money is tossed at it, we cannot stop a covert seeping in of threats.

The interests in the region will sit back and do nothing because the current situation benefits them.

Iran - they train their forces and feel our actions out giving them good intel. They help the Shiites and can either gain control or use the Shiites to undermine the entire nation. A weak Iraq means less of an economic threat as well. Oil not pouring out means Iran is a larger dealer and prices stay high.

Saudi Arabia - oil concerns Iran has are the same here. Unstable Iraq means higher prices. It also drives the Wahabi mentality up north giving the royals a little less to worry about.

Syria - again good intel on the US and its operations. It is a distraction from their own actions. They train their agents. They also help the Sunnis.

Turkey - a distracted Kurdish people means less effort for a fully independent Kurdistan. Dodging bombs and bullets means less time stirring up Turkey and Iran for their own nation.

This goes on and on. The status quo benefits most in the region.

 

[volinbham]

War on the idealism that caused 9/11? Are you insane for tying a secular socialist government that despises Islamic fundamentalism to wiping out a 9/11 mindset? If anything we removed a dam and replaced it with a flood of even larger 9/11 mindsets. We should have learned that Gulf War I influenced those involved in 9/11. Wouldn't logic and reason hold that doing something similar actually provoke a growth of 9/11 mindsets?

On the flipside of your argument, taking unilateral action on UN resolutions did far worse to the detriment of the UN than letting the sanctions go unanswered. The same logic that attacks France for sitting back for self-serving reasons has to be applied to the US in its actions. We are no different than France in this matter. Fortunate for France, they come away with a few businessmen in ethics scandals while we get stuck with a greater mess to clean up.

I'm quite sure I'm not insane - I am trying to state the administration's argument for the action in Iraq - it was part of a larger strategy in the middle east. The goal was to grow democracy there, empower the people and remove an impetus for terrorism. I didn't say I endorse the strategy.

My UN argument is basically the same as what you say. Each country including ours acts for its own self interests. My point is that after we pushed so hard for UN enforcement, we suffer by not trying to enforce our stated policy. We know the mess we are in now. No one knows what mess we'd have been in if we had taken other actions or simply ignored the situation.

As for damage to the UN -- it is damaged either way. Therefore, each country should (and does) look out for its own interests.

 

[All Vol!]

2) The war with Iraq was not a war on the government that was responsible for 9/11. It was viewed as a larger move in a war on the idealism that spawned 9/11. It was viewed as an attempt to transform a region. It will be years maybe decades before we know if it lessened risk or heightened risk.

It wasn't so much viewed that way as it was sold that way. Look, everything about the buildup to the invasion of Iraq gave the strongest impression that that, along with the artillery exrecise in Afghanistan, was America's answer to 9/11. What else of substance have we really done to pursue the purported perpetrator of 9/11, OBL - other than deliberately allowing he and his entourage to escape from Tora Bora? Nothing clear or worthy remains of the argument that Iraq was a player in state-sponsored terrorism against the west. Why just this week, the Defense Dept. issued a report saying it had concluded there were no discernable ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queida.
My point, bham, is that I believe there is plenty to support the notion that Iraq was NEVER what this administration wanted us to believe and that we knowingly went there for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with any belief that they were involved in terrorism.

By the way, do you know a little college south of Birmingham called Montevallo? My older brother teaches there.

 

[volinbham]

It wasn't so much viewed that way as it was sold that way. Look, everything about the buildup to the invasion of Iraq gave the strongest impression that that, along with the artillery exrecise in Afghanistan, was America's answer to 9/11. What else of substance have we really done to pursue the purported perpetrator of 9/11, OBL - other than deliberately allowing he and his entourage to escape from Tora Bora? Nothing clear or worthy remains of the argument that Iraq was a player in state-sponsored terrorism against the west. Why just this week, the Defense Dept. issued a report saying it had concluded there were no discernable ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queida.
My point, bham, is that I believe there is plenty to support the notion that Iraq was NEVER what this administration wanted us to believe and that we knowingly went there for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with any belief that they were involved in terrorism.

By the way, do you know a little college south of Birmingham called Montevallo? My older brother teaches there.

I know Montevallo - nice school.

I disagree that the war was only sold as a larger effort on the WoT. Throughout the build-up, the "neo-con" strategy of enabling self-determination in the Middle East was continually stated. In fact, it was a reason for criticism by many who disagreed with the notion. Whether or not one agrees with the strategy, I firmly believe this was the primary strategy of the Bush admin. It was not revenge for 9/11 or Bush Sr.; it was an attempt to test a theory of Middle East transformation.

 

[WA_Vol]

I think the line should be drawn at the 145 Billion dollars wasted point, where we are at.

 

[volinbham]

I think the line should be drawn at the 145 Billion dollars wasted point, where we are at.

There's alway the "sunk cost" issue though - the $145 million is gone -- will it cost more to stay or go?

Clearly depends on the time horizon and so many unknowns that the calculation is a futile exercise.

I'd feel a lot better about the Dem approach to set a timetable if they would at least discuss the long-term costs, consequences of such an action.

 

[OWB]

I'd feel a lot better about the Dem approach to set a timetable if they would at least discuss the long-term costs, consequences of such an action.

Why? Nobody did anything of the sort before invading Iraq..

 

[All Vol!]

clever, OWB...very clever. :salute:

 

[volinbham]

Why? Nobody did anything of the sort before invading Iraq..

If you're (dems in Congress) going to complain about lack of planning, you'd think you'd try some yourself...eace2:

You (VN dem posters) can't be proud of dumb to the power of two can you? :whistling:

 

[OWB]

If you're (dems in Congress) going to complain about lack of planning, you'd think you'd try some yourself...eace2:

You (VN dem posters) can't be proud of dumb to the power of two can you? :whistling:

Whatever, I got you on that one. So just give me my credit and let's move on. :dance:

 

[CSpindizzy]

I am trying to state the administration's argument for the action in Iraq - it was part of a larger strategy in the middle east. The goal was to grow democracy there, empower the people and remove an impetus for terrorism.

The problem is that the argument for the action has been changing. There has never been a consistent argument justifying the invasion of Iraq. We cannot expect to go into the Third World, overthrow one regime and prop up another regime to our liking much less a democracy and expect the situation to get better. Even those that argue this might take another 5-10 years don't understand not only the mindset of the people we deal with but all other factors involved. This is being led by the same people who, during the Cold War, thought we can go in and make people love democracy and hate communism. It did not work in Vietnam and it did not work in Latin America.

My UN argument is basically the same as what you say. Each country including ours acts for its own self interests. My point is that after we pushed so hard for UN enforcement, we suffer by not trying to enforce our stated policy. We know the mess we are in now. No one knows what mess we'd have been in if we had taken other actions or simply ignored the situation..

Plenty of people know. Look at Iran and North Korea as examples. Why suddenly enforce our stated policy for one nation but not for the more dangerous and threatening nations?

As for damage to the UN -- it is damaged either way. Therefore, each country should (and does) look out for its own interests.

Keep in mind our interests also have to do with winning the hearts and minds of the people we meddle with. We cannot expect to just go in and piss off entire regions and not expect a backlash. Anyone not planning for civil wars and insurgencies needs to go back to college and take some area specific PoliSci courses and read up on 20th century history.

 

[volinbham]

The problem is that the argument for the action has been changing. There has never been a consistent argument justifying the invasion of Iraq.

I would suggest that the emphasis for the action has been changing but not the underlying reason. From the beginning, all the arguments that pop up were made. Overall, the strategy (from the WH perspective) was to remove Saddam and attempt to introduce self-determination to the region as a stabilization tool. Why Iraq? Defiance of UN, brutal regime, WMD --- all were continually stated but these reasons received differing amounts of emphasis throughout the build-up and since then. The emphasis change goes along with the debate -- as objections arose, the facet most related to those objections received more attention. Some call this misleading, some call it changing reasons but the WH laid all these ideas out from the beginning.

Goal: Stabilize the region to protect US interests (both free-flow of oil and breeding ground for terrorists).

Strategy: Remove Saddam, install democracy (in the sense of self-determination). Influence of self-determination will spread and over the long-term, the goal is closer to achievement. For example Iran becomes surrounded by new "democracies" (Iraq/Afghanistan) and movement grows inside Iran.

Reasons for Iraq: US policy of regime change, years of UN defiance seen as evidence that the world will not strike back, belief of possession of WMDs that will be either used on neighboring country (eg. Kuwait) or provided to terrorists, Iraq had been provided support to terrorists (eq. support of Palestinian families), Saddam had demonstrated his willingness for bold action (Kuwait, brutal put-downs of Shia, Kurds).

All of this was laid out by the WH prior to the action in Iraq. Both the reasons and strategy are unique to Iraq. This would not work in Korea since the spread of democracy doesn't have the same bang for the buck potential. Iran didn't have the US policy of regime change, the laundry list of UN violations on the level of Iraq, had not recently taken over another country in the region, etc.

I'm not endorsing the strategy - just suggesting it's genesis.