a success or not?
-Is there a deadline date?
-Is there a certain number of terrorists/insurgents that have to be killed?
-Does the civil/sectarian war have to stopped?
-Does Iraq's borders have to secured?
-Does Baghdad have to be 100% secured?
-Do Iranian & Syrian supplies to the insurgents/terrorists have to stop?
What will determine the success or failure of Bush's Surge or is it really just giving Bush more time to cut & run from the White House in 2009 & not have to take the blame for losing the Iraq war?
2007-08-11 14:27:13 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, there is no deadline.
No head-count, no wars stopped, no borders secure....
Baghdad is supposed to be at least mostly secure -- meaning violence down significantly -- but with bombs going off daily, that isn't even close to being me.
The Iraqi parliament is supposed to be more stable -- but the two largest Sunni factions just walked out.
What will determine the success of the Surge? Bush making an arbitrary determination that it was successful.
It's not hard to show you are meeting your goals if you keep changing the goal line retroactively to be wherever you happen to end up.
It's purely a stall tactic to spin out the clock on Bush's time in office -- or to set the stage for something even more stupid.
2007-08-11 14:34:58 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There are no benchmarks nor time limits. When these are proposed the President rejects the idea or when Congress passes any act that would set goals or deadlines, the President vetoes it and the Republicans--who say they no longer support the war--will not vote in accordance with their political statements. (Although he's apparently losing badly, at least McCain's votes mirror his statements).
It is not possible to "win" this war in the way Bush envisioned. The Sunnis have pulled out of the coalition government. The U.S. administration refuses to recognize the Shiites and Sunnis are arguing violently over a purely religious issue--is Ali or the Caliph the legitmate heir to Mohammad? This is a 1300 year old dispute and has been marked by 1300 years of violence. (Google Shiites/Sunnis for more detailed information). My point is that whenever we leave, Iraq will dissolve into chaos. If we killed every terrorist IN THE WORLD today, we would not create a peaceful or democratic Iraq. No one seems to understand that the terrorists are not attacking rival mosques, the opposing religious faction is. We went into a country ruled by a brutal dictator who kicked out the U.N. weapons inspectors. That seemed legitimate at the time and I will not criticize the President for that. We deposed Saddam and destroyed the weapons he had. At that point, we had won and should have left. Bush staged a photo opportunity on a ship in San Diego harbor and said "mission accomplished." Ok--everyone does the photo opportunities and the "sound bites"--I get that. What I go not get is why this administration thinks we can solve the problems in Iraq. Are we going to send a team of psychologists over and get the Shiites and Sunnis to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"? That's what it will take. We're trying to make people get along who believe the other sect is evil. What does "the man on the street" want in Bagdad? Electricity--and we can't even supply that. EDIT: Anyway--what Coragryph said--I wouldn't have bothered answering if his answer was up. He always gives great explanations and I talk too much.
2007-08-11 21:51:29 · answer #2 · answered by David M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why the President's say so of course. That and General Petraeus' report which will undoubtedly say we can't afford to leave no matter how bad things look at present. What's the difference, the goals move every time one fails. We have accomplished nothing but a waste of money and lives. Iraq cannot be won with military force, period. The only "winning" will be a diplomatic solution which must be enforced by Iraq's neighbors. Fat chance of that happening. All we did was remove the only person who was holding the whole mess together. Sure Saddam was a tyrant but is Iraq better off now then it was with him in power? I think not.
2007-08-11 22:08:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only surge that has worked for Bush is the one he gets after drinking his prune juice.
What benchmark to show it is working? The only 'benchmark' that Bushco Inc. has set in Iraq is the one left on the bench by some puppet judge's fat azz in the kangaroo courtroom they have set up there now.
2007-08-11 21:44:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Please don't even insinuate that we could ever 'win' in Iraq.
It's bad for the democrat party.
2007-08-11 22:00:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋