Just what the hell is success?
Posted by Vinnie at January 7, 2006 11:33 AM"We are successing all the time in Iraq!-W
Posted by bbtb at January 7, 2006 12:10 PMJust what the hell is success?
Silly man, it's whatever Darth Cheney says it is.
Didn't you get the memo?
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 7, 2006 12:28 PMEven with a million troops and five trillion dollars, it still would have been immoral and illegal to invade Iraq. Arguing about what would have been more efficacious in invading Iraq is like suggesting that another type of gas would have been more efficacious in Buchenwald.
Posted by mamayaga at January 7, 2006 12:56 PMI'll tell you who was right about the war - the million US protesters who marched against it before the 2003 invasion. (Globally, there were tens of millions protesters.)
We are also right to agree with Rep. Murtha and the others who want our troops home now.
Yes, we have listened to, and understand, the reasoning behind why we must remain - but those same reasons will remain even after we have spent more trillions, and lost more servicemen. A quagmire is a quagmire.
Posted by DOT at January 7, 2006 01:13 PM
I got an idea. Why not just proclaim victory and get out?
We could order our troops home in 30 days, and tell the Saudis, Jordanians and Syrians that its in their best interest to pitch in with money and to secure the borders from terrorists, maybe even training the Iraqi troops to help Iraq stabilize a central government----unless they want the threat of another extremist Islamic government like the Taliban or Iran on their borders.
Of course, that is just way to simple and easy when we need till 2010-2014 to do the same thing.
Posted by Hank at January 7, 2006 01:21 PM"A new study suggests that middle-aged adults who go on drinking binges may face a heighten risk of dementia later in life. The study is entitled, 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq'.-Tina Fey, SNL
Posted by bbtb at January 7, 2006 01:32 PMGreat post, Marie. It sickens me that congressional supporters of the occupation cannot define the "mission" nor the terms of "success" in Iraq. They don't have the moral courage of a few in Congress who stood up belatedly to say that their vote for the invasion was wrong, and that it is time for the U.S. to leave.
There is not now, nor was there before the invasion a justified military mission in Iraq. Therefore, we cannot "succeed" where we don't have a purpose or a stake.
The Iraqis, on the other hand, are the stake holders. The US military-corporate occupation is the principle barrier preventing Iraqis from achieving real success on their terms.
Those who argue that setting a timetable for withdrawal emboldens our enemies to wait us out perpetuate an absurd fantasy. The reality is that the "insurgency" is not waiting us out; rather, it has grown in strength, sophistication and frequency of attacks killing and maiming unprotected American troops and Iraqi bystanders. Moreover, establishing a timetable for withdrawal is the only way to end the violence and begin the process for peace and stability in the region.
It's time to end the needless spending, death and destruction in Iraq. It is time to support our troops and bring them home, now.
Posted by fafnir at January 7, 2006 01:38 PMWhy not just proclaim victory and get out?
Mission Accomplished, anyone?
Can't do it. Too much oil at stake. Besides, the permanent hardened bases aren't finished. We're in it for the long haul. Think South Korea only longer term. Democracy + Freedom in Iraq = Domination. A simple equation.
Posted by phidipides at January 7, 2006 01:41 PMThe only freedom and democracy that we have brought to Iraq is the freedom of the grave and the democracy of death.
I agree with this opinion piece, and have long felt that the politicians who supported this war are either tools or fools.... either way, they got to go.
I don't like that comment about Al Gore. There's no way to know what would have happened, no matter how much he wants to fit into a persecution theory on Iraq.
For instance, I often say that if it hadn't been stolen from Al 9/11 would never happened, for Al isn't an idiot lazy drunk. But we'll never know, so it's a moot obseration.
Posted by paradox at January 7, 2006 02:23 PMBut we DO know that Al isn't an idiot lazy drunk. Oh if only we had a time machine.
Posted by Sharon at January 7, 2006 02:37 PMMore troops in the beginning may have secured the ammo dumps and minimized the looting, BUT the bigger footprint may have helped motivate recruiting for the insurgency. After 3 years, were the headlines in the Soviet Union, " We must win the war in Afghanistan"? How did that one turn out? How big would the Bush outrage be if China would have invaded Iraq? P.S. Al Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, but not Iraq, and Bin Laden would be toast.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 7, 2006 03:17 PMWhat part does the Euro play in this whole thing?
Posted by Judith at January 7, 2006 03:44 PMThe Iraqi War has also been used as the greatest reason to spy on us. Success will be defined as the total control of this Country by fascists and the total control of Iraqi's oil. They go hand-in-hand. Without the War, Bush cannot justify to those who are stupid, the brazen gall of spying on Americans.
WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.
But now he believes that the relationship has somehow sparked the interest of the Department of Homeland Security and led the agency to place him under surveillance.
Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935/
What part did France, England, and U.S.A. leaving Uncle Joe out of the post W.W.II monitary decisions have in starting the cold war?
Posted by TIKI AL at January 7, 2006 04:24 PMWhat part did France, England, and U.S.A. leaving Uncle Joe out of the post W.W.II monitary decisions have in starting the cold war?
None. It started becasue old Joe played the diplomatic game better. Read Kissinger's Diplomacy for your answer.
Posted by phidipides at January 7, 2006 05:55 PM“So”, he said, “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. Every man and woman on the earth has a right to freedom,” Bush announced defiantly as his spellbound audience inexplicably cheered the idea of engaging in unending, eternal war, “because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth.” He warned “every ruler of every nation” that they will face a “moral choice” -- their way which is always wrong, or our way, which is eternally right.
Operation Freedom Crusade is underway. Bush says he has lit (sic) a fire in the minds of men – “an untamed fire of freedom” that he promises will “reach the darkest corners of our world.”
From GWB's State of the Union in 2004. Doesn't sound like he intends to stop waging war anytime soon, anywhere.
Posted by Judith at January 7, 2006 06:00 PMhttp://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb05/Samples0209.htm
Link for above.
Posted by Judith at January 7, 2006 06:02 PMThe "success" was always about paying back the Pioneers and gratifying the Paineian "hubris of Kings" who've got everything but the sense that theyve bent history and left a legacy.This would start to change quickly if any of these pigs sons and daughters had to die.
Posted by jondee at January 7, 2006 06:27 PMI agree with almot everything in the post and the comments (but not that Gore would have taken us into Iraq).
But no one talks about what happens next if we do pack up and leave Iraq.
We criticize Bush for going in without a plan. So how about we talk realistically about what happens if we leave Iraq. What happens 6 months out, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years...?
We destabilized Iraq. There will likely be a terrible bloodletting if we just leave -- but how many of us say we should have interceded in Rwanda? In Rwanda we're at fault just for not trying to stop it after it started, but if there is civil war that kills lots of people in Iraq that is entirely on our heads, for triggering it and leaving to let it happen. (What is happening now is a trickle compared to what would happen in an unrestrained civil war.)
Then there is the "next" situation with Iraq. What if it becomes a client state of Iran? What does that do to US? What if they ban education for women - not just driving, etc. which is a certainty?
Any discussion of leaving Iraq should include this discussion. "Just leaving" might sound great, but we should understand the longer-term consequences of doing that vs doing something else. I think we shouldn't just say "leave" because that's like saying "let them all die" after the U.S. stood them in front of the guns. I'm saying that maybe Bush has gotten us into a mess that is a lot harder to fix than just saying "leave."
Maybe the solution we should be advocating should actually involve a solution.
Posted by Dave Johnson at January 7, 2006 06:42 PMMaybe there is no solution. In fact, I'm pretty sure these isn't--except to leave and stop killing.
Stopping the killing is a long way toward the solution, believe me.
Posted by paradox at January 7, 2006 07:32 PMIt's no surprise we're losing. Xenophobic fascists have a history of getting their ass kicked.
Posted by steve duncan at January 7, 2006 08:18 PMMaybe the solution we should be advocating should actually involve a solution.
Many here have said it. A draft and troop strength at sufficient numbers to actually do something. Whatever the solution will be, I assure you some 'libruhl' will think of it. The current crop of idiots are dangerous. Nothing else.
Posted by phidipides at January 7, 2006 08:31 PMphidipides? centipedes from Philly? re: cold war- should I believe Kissinger or the History channel. Besides it was confirmed by Art Bell. The mere anouncement of a draft would stop this war in short order.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 7, 2006 10:37 PM"Many here have said it. A draft and troop strength at sufficient numbers to actually do something."
Sometimes I think that, and it would be the right thing under other circumstances. But even though we started it and it is our responsibility, with Bush, American presence can only aggravate things.
I think we should tell the UN we would like to withdraw, drop all claims to anything in Iraq, and give the UN time to bring in suffieienct numbers of peacekeepers. I think we should pay what it costs to do that and rebuild Iraq.
I think t is irresponsible to talk about "just leaving." That would really be a war crime.
Posted by Dave Johnson at January 7, 2006 10:55 PMand give the UN time to bring in suffieienct numbers of peacekeepers.
We spooged them so completely they will let us swing. These idiot neo-cons still yammer on about blue helmets in Detroit. We set our sails on this course no matter how unwillingly. Cut and run is the Bushco way, while we're stuck looking for reasonable alternatives.
Posted by phidipides at January 7, 2006 11:18 PMStart the draft. We must win.
Posted by L. I. Beralhawk at January 7, 2006 11:21 PMphidipides? Spiders from the "city of brotherly love??? I agree, and don't forget the U.N. still isn't sure they were'nt "set up" in that tragedy they suffered while trying to help in Iraq.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 7, 2006 11:57 PM