XDA

Roger,

Perhaps it is you who lives in the parallel universe. You have constantly and consistantly defined "victory" in Iraq in military terms and if that is your definition, we have indeed achieved it.

If, on the other hand, your definition of "victory" in Iraq is a free and democratic Iraq (I think this may be the President's but I will not presume to speak for him) where Iraqis may live free from sectarian violence; ethnic cleansing; foreign fighters; international terrorists like Al Qaeda; and the undue influence of neighboring states, well then, I do not believe that "victory" is an option nor do I believe it was ever an option.

Again, any student of history would have known this going in.

I am quite certain that you believe America's exit from Iraq is inevitable. I am also quite certain that you cannot believe anything but that the only rational objective is to organize our inevitable exit.

I break w/ my party, however, in believing that imposing deadlines, any of which are perforce arbitrary, are aviable solution.

I believe it is paramount that we exit Iraq w/ "face." How this may be accomplished, however, I know not. I am interested in anyone's suggestions in this regard.

W/ felicitations from the 23rd Dimension, I remain,

VTY

T
 

I wrote a long comment in reply but the blog ate it so it will be forever the lost reply. Short version, crime in America doesn't mean we failed in our form of government, Iraq without carbombs is setting the bar too high for 'victory' Focus on the good and you'll find a long list, focus on the bad and it's all extermist suicide bombing, regular bombing and reprisals for that. The first version was better.
 

I'm in agreement with Tony here. Having said that, according to your view, Roger, instability is not an issue (as it is comparable to the current situation in the U.S.) so why not pull out now?
 

Because we want to win the war Jihadists are waging against us in what both the #1 and #2 of al Qaeda say is the central front of the war. We want to really win it, and be perceived as winning it for the strong horse/weak horse thing. We want victory. Why do I have to keep telling lefties this? Don't you all want it too?
 

I agree with Roger w/ respect to the strong horse theory and do not believe we can w/draw from Iraq until we can at the very least generate the perception that Iraq is a better place than before we invaded it.

This is a monumental task given the current state of violence which prevents rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure which was already in vey bad shape b/f the war and is in worse shape now.

We need not go into how the administration screwed the pooch w/ respect to the reconstruction of Iraq.

When I say we need to organize our inevitable exit, I preceive that exit as being years away.

I remain certain that the political structure we leave behind will collapse like a house of cards w/o our presence. I only hope that it does not do so until we have closed the door and had time to walk down the hall.

P.S. Roger. Am I still a lefty?
 

"focus on the bad and it's all extremist suicide bombing, regular bombing and reprisals for that."

Well, lets not leave out a few bad other things:

1. As a result of the Iraq affair, Iran has been allowed to become the most powerful country in the middle east and a much bigger threat than Sadahm ever was.
2. As a result of the Iraq affair, we have diverted resources that could have been used elsewhere in effectivly fighting terrorists.

3. The costs of the war have been enormous, much higher than predicted, and greatly outweigh the benefits. And the thousands of American lives lost and the countless more ruined, are only part of the costs.

4. After 9/11, the USA was looked on with favor by most other countries. But Bush blew it: he failed to rally world opinion, he failed to get the Arab world on our side, he failed to let the inspections process run its course, and he failed to plan properly for the postwar occupation. The result is a loss of American power and prestige, a diminished chance of Iraq becoming a pluralistic democracy, and an al-Qaeda that's been given a second lease on life thanks to George Bush's Queeg-like obsession with Saddam Hussein.

5. Does anyone dispute the fact that the world is less safe than it was before we invaded Iraq?
Al-Qaida is still capable of causing harm to us in our homeland. Osama bin Laden is still at large and able to lead events from some relatively secure place, probably in Pakistan; Almost all of our shipping containers slip in without inspection; our borders, particularly our southern one, remain alarmingly porous; our first responders are still absurldly underfunded.

6. tHe occupation of an Islamic country by the United States has resulted in a recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists. And this is tragic bottom line of the
Bush catastrophe: the administration has at once increased the ranks
of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and
recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America's will and resources to confront that expanded threat

7. We cannot win the civil war in Iraq. The Sunni and Shia hate each other. No amount of dead infidels is going to change that.
And neither of them want us there.

So what do we do now. I have no idea. But I do know that we can't afford to pay for this affair forever. And when the time comes to raise taxes to fund it further, people like Roger will stop talking nonsence azbout the "long list of good" we've accomplished in Irag, and will be leading the charge to cut and run.
 

Roger,

I was being a little tounge a cheek here. So you admit the war is still "on like a moth#rf*&^%$". Not exactly a "cakewalk" is it?

4 years in and we are still in essentially the same place as we were in May of 2003.... only worse for the wear.

We've got about another year before American patience runs out, which is what I've said all along.

Doesn't look like we are going to "win" whatever that means.
 

Mike, Viet Nam was 20 dead a day and we ran out of patience about 6 years in but the Republican President successfully Vietnamized the struggle and our ground forces were out before 8 years. Then he got in a scandal, the country voted Democrat in the 74 elections in a huge way and the Democrats voted no aid, no air cover for the South and what started as a NVA probe in 1975 became a blitzkreig attack which took the South because we couldn't lift a finger to help (never underestimate the power of the purse). I could foresee something similar in Iraq, but at 3 a day, we should be able to establish what will pass for order with a teetering but non totalitarian government and occasional carbombs. I of course want that to happen sooner than later but whatever it takes, it takes. If we can't take 3 a day in a war the exteremist brought to us (and which our President has cleverly put in their backyard, rather than in NYC and DC) we should just bug out, retreat here and cower with cries of 'mommy. make them stop' after they nuke one of our cities.
I'd still rather have their fighters take on our fighters in a foreign land. Still waiting for your statement of support for victory.
Peter b, I'll post a comment on your lengthy but not very well thought our talking points. Thanks for the effort.
 

Comparing to Vietnam?

I think the general concensous on Vietnam (excluding those like yourself who actually LIKE war) is that it was a disaster and that it shouldn't be repeated. If we are to use Vietnam as a measuring stick, it becomes clear that we are in for more than we bargained for. I know that you are realistic about the costs in both blood and treasure, but the adminsistration was not, nor did they convey such a realistic assesment to the American people on the eve of the invation.

You continue to use the fly-paper argument with regards to Iraq, which I summarily dismiss as illogical. The war in Iraq does not preclude, say, a Pakistani from blowing up one of our cities. It does not follow that the war in Iraq somehow keeps all the terrorists occupied over there. Indeed, as England has learned, it motivates many to attack the west who perhaps otherwise would not have found sufficient motivation to do so.

I'd love to see "vicotry" but I don't know what that looks like nor do I see it as possible with the woefully insufficient force on the ground today. I feel like you are asking me to join some kind of club, by the way.
 

Boy are you guys suckers for the media. Every report I have ever heard from people who have actually been to Iraq, participated in the rebuilding, say that the vast majority of the country is well on its way to stability and its own form of democracy. But the nay sayers, day in and day out, just won't let you believe. And of course you are vested in not believing, becasue if the war is deemed a success in any way, that means Bush was right, and the Republicans win again. The left, including the media, is vested in losing because their political fortunes are riding on it.