Not the administration's definition (if there really has been one yet) but yours. What will it take and why haven't we accomplished it as of now?
2006-06-08 06:06:11 · 7 answers · asked by bluejacket8j 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Toughguy...I am one of those "doomsayers" apparently. I want our troops to succeed and come home safe, I just don't see it happening. It's like when your favorite football team is in the Super Bowl against a tough team. You can support your team but still have doubts in victory. I may expand on this question with a new one.
2006-06-08 06:24:23 · update #1
That is a tough question. True victory will not happen until every single foreign troop is out of Iraq and Iraq can maintain itself. This is probably a long term goal as Iraq sets up their new government. Remember that it took the United States almost 20 years to finalize and ratify the constitution!
2006-06-08 06:11:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 14⤊ 1⤋
There is no clear definition: this is the trouble.
From the point of view of the foreign countries with troops in Iraq, there are two possible answers. Firstly, victory could consist of a stable government (or more then one, e.g. if the Kurds separated) elected democratically, respecting human rights and able to exercise power in Iraq without foreign intervention. Experience in Bosnia suggests that this might take approximately ten years.
Secondly, and much more cynically, victory in Iraq could consist of the West exercising sufficient control for a generation so that th United States and its allies, rather than other major powers, benefit from extracting the country's oil reserves. On this cynical view, victory would happen when the West had used up Iraq's oil, after which they would not care what state Iraq was in. It is quite possible they will succeed in this.
Victory consists in achieving your aims rather than those of an opponent. Neither of the outcomes I have considered in the the previous two paragraphs would be regarded as victory by a muslim fundamentalist or, for completetly different reasons, by a supporter of Saddam Hussein.
Global warming and depletion of limited resources such as oil are going to place huge strains on international peace in the years to come. They could result in "victory in Iraq" being overtaken by much more widespread conflicts. The coming challenge is for the world to work together to fight against the environmental challenges facing us instead of fighting between countries and between different religious faiths. War in the past has destroyed countries, but if we do not get our act together very quickly the human race itself will be destroyed.
2006-06-08 13:30:47 · answer #2 · answered by Philosophical Fred 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not like the super bowl. Victory is clear: the winner scores the most points. This war has no measure in which to gauge victory. It's a collosal waste of money and lives. The administration hasn't even attempted to fabricate a notion of "victory".
It is like Vietnam - eventually it will end when enough americans demand that war funding be cut off by congress.
2006-06-08 15:01:50 · answer #3 · answered by lip11 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes we must obtain victory though some doomsayers don't believe it or even want it yet they claim to support the troops which is plainly hypocricy. The situation is better than the media reports and it will happen within 2 years.
2006-06-08 13:13:19 · answer #4 · answered by toughguy2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should never have been there in the first place. My definition of victory anywhere is to leave people in peace and not try to push my will on theirs. There are different cultures all over the world, and they have different customs, and rather than trample all over them, we must respect them.
No, I don't advocate terrorism, but I really believe that the answer to 9/11 was not more violence and hatred. Too many of our young people have died and it hasn't changed a thing except to excaberate more hate.
2006-06-08 13:11:05 · answer #5 · answered by theophilus 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Victory will never happen. Do you really think our english-speaking troops are going to train a whole military and police force? They won't make it a day without us. We'll be there for a hundred years at least.
2006-06-08 13:09:17 · answer #6 · answered by Superconductor 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
bush declared the war over.. yet we've lost more soldiers since than we did during the war
too many lives have been lost for the US to ever 'win' this war
bush is just ignorant & wont leave well enough alone
2006-06-08 13:11:04 · answer #7 · answered by Stacie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋