Now with the Republicans talking about “victory†in Iraq, I would like to know what that is. If we bring democracy to Iraq, as we were originally told was as George W. said was the goal, and they freely and fairly elect a violently anti-American repressive government as Iran did, Have we won? Just what is "victory"
I too have wondered "What are we trying to win?" I know that we can't leave until we "win". The decider said so.
Sadly, a "win" for this administration is for this war (and others) to NEVER end. They are stealing taxpayer money at such a rate via defense contractors and via high crude oil prices .... why would they want this "war" to end? They don't. This "war" won't be over until the neo-cons are kicked out of office. Sadly, it looks like that's not happening anytime soon. ... Brad
Is neo-con is short for "new conservative" or is it short for "new con artist"? It seems like either could apply.
A question with no answer. The question to ask is "What is the criteria for withdrawing from Iraq?" PS I do not recall Iran ever having elections for a government.
I think it means that they forget all about their culture, their history, their independence, their pride, and just do whatever we say, quietly and without fuss. Then after the oil runs out we cut them loose and leave them to their own devices. It's really a very sensible solution to the problems that were caused by Gods putting our oil underneath their country.
I don't like the term victory, but not for the same reasons. Our approach to terrorism changed after 9/11. Pre-9/11 it was a law enforcement issue, post 9/11 a national security issue. Even though the problem is of such a level as to be a national security concern, it still has to be referred to in terms of law enforcement. As such, no one should have ever been able to apply the term "war" to a problem as ingrained, as eternal, as undefinable, as nebulous as terrorism. The word "evil" used in this context is actually a good description. How presumptuous of someone who believes in evil to speak about it as if it can be beaten. Ridiculous. The ability to deliver a final blow to evil (terrorism) is to have the ability bring about Armageddon and the end of humanity and bring about the rule of whatever God or monkey deity you see fit to not believe in... Not unlike how the President of Iran sees the world and how his actions fit his world view. As any sane person knows, you can never win a "war" on "evil". All you can do is fight. The same way we fight corruption, robbery, murder, and all other "evils" we face as a civilized society. Our fight against terrorism must eventually come under the rule of law and sanity. Just like law enforcement, it has to fit within our budget. A real "no-shit" idea, I know... but it seems beyond the rational grasp of our government. What US city would go so proportionally as far into debt to pursue even their greatest law enforcement problem? With regard to Iraq, once it stopped being a war against Iraq the country and became a war against terrorists and insurgents, you lose the ability to declare victory. There is no victory in Iraq. There cannot be. To declare victory in Iraq is to declare victory over evil and thereby proclaim ourselves equal to God. Theologically, you cannot defeat evil without death followed by resurrection. Even Christ had to die, spend three days in Hell, and be Resurrected. [I'm applying theological terms here because this is how the war was sold to us] So we're left with a dilemma. We have to take about law enforcement tasks with military might. The laws between civilian and military become blurred. The lines between personal freedoms and the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens are laid waste. I don't think we'll see "victory" until we live in the Gene Roddenberry world where we have a free, unlimited energy and food source. Imagine every person in the entire world waking up each day, and not having to exert effort in search of sustenance. I'm not sure I have such faith in humanity. But maybe that's because I know myself too well.
I pretty much thought of the war in Iraq as a "victory" when I saw Saddam hanged. Now we can't pull out because we seem to have drawn all the bad guys there with our presence. The good news is, now they are concentrated in Iraq. The bad news is, we don't know how to kill them all without also killing innocent (meaning they don't hate us?) Iraqis. I don't think we can pull out until the Iraqi government and security forces are able to take over in rooting out the terrorist. We can't leave a government in place that is sympathetic to the terrorists, or incapable of fighting them effectively. If we pull out prematurely, the insurgents have a very real chance or overthrowing the government and taking over Iraq. In such a scenario, the Iraqi people would certainly not be any better off then when they were under the torturous reqime of Saddam. Now I cringe every time I hear about a soldier being killed over there. But at least the fight is over there, and not in the middle of LA or NYC. Every day we stay there, we thin out the bad guys a little more. We definitely need to get out of there, but we must use reason in choosing the appropriate time. Just my .02 Mike
