When one says, " we need to stay in Iraq till we 'WIN THE WAR'". How is a "win"defined?

Question

Standard pat answer to any 'conflict' ( I hate that characterization too) is, " WE WIN WHEN THEY SURRENDER". Well. Iraq surrendered , now what? When you tackle IDEOLOGY ( religious dogma and a thousand years of religious hatred between sects), can the outcome anticipated, approach anything like democratization ( or better yet for the military -industrial complex, capitalism)? How will we know when we beat 'terrorism' ? Is increased terrorist group recruitment and cell growth, a sign of losing the war on terrorism ? How do we measure success? If Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni's and Iran suppports the Shiites, are they likely to be covertly drawn into the war? Does Israel have a stake in us staying there? Would a permanent base (think germany and korea) be possible? Likely? How does that effect our view of "winning", in the interest of minding the oil...................

Answer 1

I am very curious when people talk of defeat or victory in Iraq what they mean? Didn't GW tell us we had won months ago? If we won, then how can we be defeated? Or did GW get it wrong and we never won?

The fact is that you cannot talk about the war in Iraq in terms of victory or defeat. If we stop using the bumper sticker phrase war or terror and start talking in concrete terms we can then talk in terms of victory or defeat. In that case we can have real defined goals

1) Victory in Afghanistan: This means that the Taliban is defeated and the democratic government secure. The Taliban is outlawed the same way the Nazis are in Germany

2) Victory over El Quida: This means that Osman Bin Linden and his key personal are dead or capture and the financing for further crime is cut off. This victory is much more akin to defeating the Mafia then defeating an army. We need to in the words of Deep Throat "Follow the Money" even if it leads, as it likely will, to our friends in Saudi Arabia

3) Victory in Iraq: More complicated, on the one hand we have won by ousting Sadamm, now we need to bring all the three major fractions to the table and assist them as they negotiate a peace. This victory is a combination of political where we meet with ALL people from the area including Syria and Iran and Military where we act as a peace keeping force. This will not be easy. Here Democrats are wrong to think we can just leave. We can;t we cause a problem we need to fix it, and Republicans are wrong to think we can achieve victory without diplomacy

4) Victory in the Region: The cool thing is if we are big enough to reach out to Syria and Iran and negotiate a peace in Iraq, and we defeat the money flow to El Quedia we may be able to pull together enough good will to force Hamas and Israel to the table and with all the players in the region involved: Jordan, Egypt, Saudi, Iraq, Syria, and Iran find a peaceful two state solution to the Palestrina problem

Of course this will take leadership and nerve and humility and the ability to compromise and the ability to lose some to win more from American leadership. And given the current crop of hatred on both sides of the American spectrum, this is a lost cause. Which is s a shame because all of this is within our ability if we would just stop hating each other. If we could get past GW's lack of an IQ and Bill Clinton's need for a BJ. Ah but that is asking too much

Answer 2

The reason that we find ourselves in such a lousy predicament today is that this question was not answered before we started the current war. In fact, we definitively won the military aspect of the conventional war, but Bush and company did not have enough prescience to foresee the aftermath and be prepared for that. I'm glad you did not ask 'how to' do this but only asked for a definition because I am not sure how or if the desired result can be effected at this time.
Winning would be driving out of the country all those who will not contribute to a peaceful functioning government that will be self sustaining. It is that simple to define; it is virtually impossible to achieve given all the outside intervention and support from neighboring countries that the rebelling factions receive and as you pointed out the historical internecine problems of the populace. If we could afford to put 2-3 million men in arms there for 10 years we could accomplish it but we can't afford that option. If we had put 1/2 million (Colin Powell's number and mine) there initially we likely could have accomplished it, but it is far too late now.

Answer 3

It's terms. Our leadership just want the Iraqi people to be sercure against tyranny. We will leave when they can take care of themselves. That is the going theory anyway. We already beat Saddam and his forces... hence the statement of, "Mission accomplished."
People twist words to meet their agenda.
We still do not tolerate a country training, equipping and giving safe haven to terrorists, especially Al Qaeda. That war will probably never end because they've been given a chance to grow in the first place.

Answer 4

You are correct in the idea that we will probably have a permanent base in Iraq, whether they want it or not. That will create even more distrust of us.
On the "win" angle, I would have to say that it means when the terrorists finally realize that we will not quit, EVER! We will not surrender our way of life to theirs. It comes down to religion. They don't want to convert us, their religion says that it's required of them to kill us because we are infidels.

Answer 5

unbelievable. I take a break from the boards for a few months, and there are liberals still asking the same questions, ignoring every speech our president has ever made.

Our initial goal was to overthrow Saddams regime. That was accomplished in a matter of days.

Now, we are trying to allow the government (which was elected by the majority of iraqi's) a chance to survive against the well funded (by countries and governments, such as Syria, Iran, and Iran's hezbollah) millitants, who do not wish to see a stable government.

Not all Sunni's are extremists. Not all Shiite's are extremists. You have extremists on both sides who wish to see failure of a stable government. Those are the ones who do not want the majority of the iraqi people to WANT to live together. That is why they are trying to seperate the sects.

WINNING IS A STABLE GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ!! One who can defend themselves. Can you imagine what an extremist group, such as al qaueda, could do with the riches of Iraqi's oil fields?



----------------------

and for the "mission accomplished" fools.... are you stupid, or do you just ignore the reasons for that banner? Did you not listen to the speech that was given under that banner? The banner was the mission of the ship, which was returning after a successfull MISSION, not "war". And the president CLEARLY said that there was a lot of hard work, and it would take a LONG TIME.

Answer 6

can't "win" in the traditional sense. That said, it becomes unclear how to suceed there. By what standards do we measure said sucess? This becomes open for personal interpretation, debate, and in the end, merely a tool for politicians.

Answer 7

once youve killed the king of iraq you have won. all the others will retreat. and we will take them hostage of blow them up. maybe dump them some where else. now the isrealies can finnaly sleep in peace. that land may go to some foreghners or and oil property of the U.S. the point is Bush is retarded. and our soilders have no point in being there. some one should assasinate the president, and not the good ones. i cant belive you read this.
-peace

Answer 8

Don't you remember our great leader George Bush in 2003 aboard the aircraft carrier under the huge banner stating "Mission Accomplished"? Where have you been?

Answer 9

if you listen with your ears to the rest of the statenments by the president - you will hear until the country is stabilized if you go to www.whitehouse.gov you will read so called "benchmarks" which must be met for us to leave or call "win" or you can listen to the mainstream media and they will tell you none of those exist.

to say loose the war on terrorism- I don't think you understand the full implication to say a war is lost. if so be prepared for their forces to march on in and change our culture to theirs.

Bush never said mission accomplished- it was a sign that was on baord a ship coming home- whihc they had just accomplished their mission they were originaklly sent out for but now coming home.

Answer 10

What a fantastic question! Depends on who you talk to. Remember Bush said "mission accomplished" ? Was that his idea of winning?
I say get the hell out and argue the question later.
Our soldiers are dying.....for what????