How do you surrender, when you already won?

Question

Saddam is gone, mission accomplished (4 YEARS AGO TODAY). So how is leaving after a victory 'cut and run' or 'surrender'?

so FUNNY! Two of you guys gave the exact same answer about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! I don;t need to watch fox news, I just come here and listen to the lemmings repeat it over and over again ad nauseum!

tinker, I have never seen a more brilliant use of rhetoric rich language! Are you a bobble head? Cause that is what I imagined when I read your 'response'. Oh, and you forgot to answer the question.

Answer 1

How can it be cut and run when even the governement of IRAQ wants us out?

June 2006: When George Bush visited Baghdad on June 13, Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, asked him for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. The following day, President Jalal Talabani released a statement expressing his support for the vice-president’s request.

Answer 2

We're all getting trapped in semantics. Bush said mission accomplished, four years ago. Harry Reid said we lost, ten days ago. "Stay the course." "A new direction." "Cut and run." "One signature away from bringing the troops home."

I'm spent. This is not a criticism of you, just of the process.

I generally support the war, but it seems apparent to all that the US can't fight a war successfully unless and until a much larger percentage of the population believes it's in our national interest. Much of the public does not see a threat. It does not matter whether they are right or wrong, or what the reason for that is. It's just a fact, apparently, and we have to deal with it.

All that ultimately matters is what we do going forward.

No great thoughts here. As I said, I'm spent.

PS I may have been too dismissive before. Yes, framing the debate in a certain way can help win the argument - words do matter - but not everyone on this site puts as much thought into their words as you and some others do. The "dumb" posts are wearing me down!

PPS Speaking of which (rhetorical flourishes), I guess we could "declare victory" against Saddam (although some say Bush already did, four years ago today), and immediately redeploy to where al-Qaeda is . . . which happens to be Iraq!

Yes, I know that the contention is that maybe this all could have been avoided. Without an alternate universe (and a view into it) we'll never know what would have happened otherwise. (I can well imagine the headlines if Bush had sought merely to "contain" Saddam and some attack, somewhere, occurred. If Saddam had no ambitions to greater power, why didn't he just comply with the inspections, etc.?) And without a time machine it doesn't matter anyway.

Refusing now to confront al Qaeda in Iraq, no matter how it got there, could be seen as abandoning our stated policy - one just about everyone agrees on - to spite Bush, for the perceived mistake of going in in the first place and other mistakes made in the operation. No president has conducted a war without making them (and Bush and many others do see the operation as part of a greater war), and the cost in lives is nauseating. (700 US soldiers died in a training exercise for D-Day, and in retrospect those lives could have been spared. Again, we have no time machine.) But when it's done we only remember the outcome.

The Democratic bill sought to mandate limits on who we could fight and not fight in Iraq, but the limits seemed extremely unworkable, to say the least. America is showing renewed commitment to getting rid of the ones stirring up existing resentments, and the mere perception that we're not about to leave is causing more people to put their trust in the central government than in their own sectarian militias for protection. It's not easy - it may indeed be seen as coming at too high a cost, for some - but some progress is being made. And if our goals are achieved it will be better for Iraq, the region, and us. If we quit now, the goals will NOT be achieved, and we will let everyone know that a terrorist base in Iraq is acceptable to us.

I understand, although I do not agree with, the sentiment against Bush's policies and decisions. People have recourse against Bush and the Republicans in 2008, as they did in 2006. And de-funding and impeachment are also always possible, if public sentiment is strong enough.

'Round and 'round we go. I don't know why I picked your questions for my longest speeches, but you ask interesting ones. And again, slogans - "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," etc. - require far fewer words than rational explanations. Let the board decide the merits, to the extent anyone gets through all the verbiage.

I want to find a way to get paid for writing! I may be losing some interest in my present career. It's been 20 years of it. Been there, done that. I dunno. Maybe I need to click on the "male menopause" link. :)

Answer 3

It's all about 1/2 breed babies.

For thousands of years when an Army invades another nation the soldiers grab a bunch of women and start a family.

This 1/2 breed factor is what actually creates the peace. The children are 1/2 nation "A" & 1/2 nation "B"

In Iraq this has not happened yet. So as soon as the Americans marry a bunch of Iraqi girls it will be time to pull out.

Answer 4

The people calling it cut and run or " policy of surrender" are just spewing partisan rhetoric. We are in a situation in Iraq where there is no victory or defeat. We simply have varying degrees of success. What is the goal? A stable and democratic Iraq. How do you know if you win? When Iraq is stable? Define stable. what if there is one attack a day? one a week? one a month? what defines stability. Surely people recognize that there are varying degrees and that there is no black and white victory or defeat in this situation.

Leaving now means accepting the curent level of success. Staying longer means investing more lives to try and achieve more success.

People who try and break it down to one or the other are wrong. They are confused and they are trying to confuse others.

Answer 5

We are not fighting Saddam. He lost. We are not fighting the Iraqi people, we are fighting terrorists who came to Iraq to embarrass the coalition and establish a base of operations in Iraq. The terrorists believe they can take over the country and own it just like one man did before. The fight is not over until the terrorists are vanquished and the Iraqi people have control of their country. Leaving is loosing no matter how you look at it. The coalition looses all respect and the Iraqi people loose their country. Any citizen who defies any fundamentalist will be executed on the spot by the terrorists. This is not fiction - this is not a video game - you can not reset and start the game again after you cut and run - the game will reject your quarter. Millions of Iraqis would die and millions more would never be able to return to their homes.

Answer 6

Only Democrats and capable of snatching Defeat from the
Jaws of Victory. Webb is a poor excuse for a Senator.

Answer 7

That statement was for the sailors on that mission. And Iraq is the front on the war against terror. Cut and run is surrender. The best defense is an offense, or do you have stock in a burka factory?

Answer 8

This is a good question. Let me spin this the Republican way, if I can. Yes, we won the country, but we wanted to secure the young democracy from terrorism. Republicans don't just cut and run from their duties and responsibilities, they finish what they undertake.

Answer 9

Well... it seems the whole "Mission Accomplished" thing was a little premature. 'Course, we never really stated what our mission was: we just updated it to reflect what we kinda-sorta wanted to do. Evidently, what we want to do is create a US satellite to buffer Israel while simultaneously provoking Iran into giving us sufficient justification to invade (liberate). Unfortunately, if we do that we will see a LOT of body bags.

Answer 10

The Democrats final solution snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.