Why hasn't Bush defined "Victory" in Iraq - or is this totally incapable of defining?

Answer 1

Because he still can't decide why he has us mired there.

So much for being The Decider.

Answer 2

Victory in Iraq will be difficult to define. When the government is totally stable and able to stand on its own two feet, it will be a victory, anything else will be considered a lost war by most people. The reality is that most of us are incapable of seeing what we are really there for. The real result of what we are there for won't be clear for many years. It is not just oil, that area is a powder keg and could easily ignite WW3, at which time most of us would be onboard to support the effort much more!

Answer 3

Victory usually means an increase in land or territory or at the very least influence. I haven't the foggiest as to what exactly we could 'win' there anymore. They hate us and when we do leave, they will gun each other down with great glee.
In honor of the "unwinnable by usual definition war" I think we ought to declare a new kind of win...BIg Announcement....WE WON!!!... and then we get the heck out of Dodge and spend that money we put aside last year for the victory celebration on one huge BBQ at Crawford.
I'll bring the potato salad.
We can't stablilize the region, no matter how long we stay there, it wasn't a country before Britian made it one, and we keep saying we want one state not the three that got shoved into one by the Brits with no regard as to regional or religious or tribal preferences. You can't have what they never had and ask Americans to give their lives for this on an endless basis.

Answer 4

I think victory in Iraq has been defined. It is just going to take time. We will have victory when the new government is capable of standing on their own two feet and defend themselves from the terrorists that abound in that area.

Answer 5

Victory isn't definitive enough for the media and liberals, bohoo. Victory is when their is regional stabilization, and that is our objective. It can also be measured in each time they get a chance to vote, to create their own government, or go to school, or go to a hospital, or drink clean water, etc. Things which liberals seemingly could care less about because they are the very things they take for granted. Regional stabilization takes a lot of time, maybe even decades, which is precisely why they have never given a timeline let alone commit to one.

Answer 6

Dear friend,

I remember at the news arrived during 2003 that mission was officially terminated.
Anyway there are final operation for establishing Iraqi government which are taking a long time.
I don't think that US have done a job in vain.
We must believe. And I must say that European allies are less involved (see Spain and Italy , my country, which is only engaged in security operations).
Progress have been done.
You see.. it's the end of Saddam's tiranny.
Bye!

Simon (from Milan)

Answer 7

It is more of a political issue. If you do not define a goal, then you can't be held accountable for not reaching that goal.

See what happens when you let the political realities in DC govern your decisions on fighting a war?

Answer 8

He did not define "Victory"in Iraq because he is unable to achieve anything tangible against the Iraqi resistance.

Answer 9

I'm sorry maybe you missed the news flash on May 1, 2003
"Mission Accomplished"
The next time it will read "Mission Accomplished Part 2: This time we mean it"

Answer 10

It has been defined.

If you have not bothered to look this up for yourself - it is your fault.