Explain or define "Winning" in Iraq?

Question

What is the final happening or event that our operation in Iraq determines we have won and closes in history? Serious please,thanks.

Answer 1

Establishing a strong dictator, just like Saddam, who will keep everything under control, but be our puppet at the same time!

Answer 2

That's the essence of the problem with the Iraq situation. Well, it's the essence of ONE of the problems, anyway; there are several. Nobody knows exactly what is meant by "winning" in Iraq. This is because occupying Iraq is not like other wars where you defeat a foreign nation's army. We've already done the "defeating Iraq's army" bit, and it only took about a month.

That was the initial invasion. What we've been doing since is occupying the country and trying to stabilize it. And the U.S. isn't sure of what it's doing because people keep thinking of it as a "war." But a war is something you fight against a nation-state, so the "war" part of it is now over. The U.S. military isn't set up for handling a bloody occupation.

So when people say that "winning" means "killing the enemy, which means all the bad guys: terrorists, insurgents, etc.", they really haven't thought it through. Every Iraqi you kill has a family that gets even more infuriated that you killed their family member, so they take up arms, too.

So victory would be stabilizing the situation enough that the government we installed could hold itself up and we could leave. The best way to do this is through good PR, massive reconstruction, and better oversight. Get to work on improving Iraq (electricity 24/7, make clean water available, etc.), make it clear to the Iraqi people that the U.S. IS improving things in Iraq by building roads and improving the water infrastructure, and stop the corruption and graft that's part of everyday life in Iraq, and people will become less inclined to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in crowded markets.

There's a problem with this, too: I'm not sure the U.S. administration wants to leave. They've removed the troops stationed in Saudi Arabia built about a dozen permanent military bases in Iraq ( http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html ), as well as building a multimillion-dollar fortress embassy in Baghdad that's about the size of Vatican city ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/ ). It appears that they may have been planning to make Iraq America's new base of operations in the Middle East, assuming that the Iraq operation would be successful and that there'd be a strong, stable, U.S.-friendly government there to host those bases.

So "victory" would be stabilizing the country enough that we can leave. But our country's incompetent leadership doesn't exactly want to leave. So Iraq is one gigantic Charlie Foxtrot.

Answer 3

This is a complicated issue. In some sense we have already "won" in that regime change was effected, and we militarily defeated our adversary. Some would say we "won the war, but we are losing the peace".

To me, success means that Iraq has a stable, functioning govenrment that can handle its own security issues. By this definition of victory we are fairly close to the time when we can begin to draw down our forces, but we have to establish that the Iraqis can and will exercise control over their own affairs and that the rule of law will be in force. This means dealing firmly with the insurgent groups and putting an end to the attacks and sectarian strife. Al-Sadr leaving the country is a good sign. Hoppefully this surge will accomplish that goal, or at least suppress the level of violence long enough for the Iraqi forces to get to the level of capability they need to be at.

Answer 4

Victory in Iraq will be in the form of a stable Democratic Iraqi Government and an Iraqi Military and Police Force who exhibits the ability to control and maintain defence against any and all terrorist actions without the aid of Allied Forces intervention.
America has sucessfully thwarted Terror on our soil since September 11th 2001. When Iraq can claim the same we will have achieved victory.

Answer 5

Winning in Iraq is probably defined by the elected government being able to maintain control over its population without being dependant upon US/British/anyone else's forces to do so.

Unfortunately, that definition does not have one single event that defines success. Would 1 terrorist attack per month do it? Would 2? 3? If this is the definition of victory, then the numbers become arbitrary.

Answer 6

The establishment of an Iraqi government that will be able to control it's borders and work with the western world to fight terrorists. This may not be workable but it should be the goal

Answer 7

When Iraqi government can police their own country and have more power than the insurgent terrorist groups that are trying to seize control.

Answer 8

once iraq's government can stand on its own and protect its own people , the main goal being not for iraq to be a breading ground for new radicals

Answer 9

Winning a war period means to vanquish ones enemies OR force them to submit to your will. Therefore winning in Iraq must have the same definition.

After the hundreds of billions of dollars, the deaths and mutilations of 24,000 soldiers, the loss of credibility in the world, I don't think that America can "win" in Iraq. The best one can hope for is to stop the loss of life, limb, and finances.

Answer 10

Obviously, when the violence stops, and when the government their is fully established and functioning we have won.