Is Iraq winnable?

[Rex Kickass]

Howard Dean said no in December. A lot of folk here jumped at the chance to crucify him. Turns out he might have just been ahead of his time.

 

Bill O'Reilly says no too.

Somewhat of a disturbing report out of Iraq, and it's more important than it first appears. The governor of -- or the mayor of Karbala, which is a town in the south part of Iraq, Shiite-controlled, has banned any further government dealings with the American military in his province, saying that they're not behaving well.

 

Now, it's a small little thing, but I picked up on it, because here is the essential problem in Iraq. There are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them. And I don't -- we're never gonna be able to control them. So the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible. Because we just can't control these crazy people. This is all over the place. And that was the big mistake about America: They didn't -- it was the crazy-people underestimation. We did not know how to deal with them -- still don't. But they're just all over the place.

 

So does William Buckley, founder of National Review.

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.

 

So the question worth asking: Is Iraq still winnable?

[YASNY]

Yes it is.

[samclemens]

regardless of how long it takes, yes we will. its called nation-building, and it's a tradition in this country. embrace it, dont hate!

[BigSqwert]

regardless of how long it takes, yes we will. its called nation-building, and it's a tradition in this country. embrace it, dont hate!

Gotta love blind optimism.

[YASNY]

Gotta love blind optimism.

 

As opposed to pure pessimism.

[BigSqwert]

As opposed to pure pessimism.

When I have blindy stated that Iraq is not winnable? There has been very little news out there that shows that this campaign will be successful. Facts are facts.

[YASNY]

When I have blindy stated that Iraq is not winnable?  There has been very little news out there that shows that this campaign will be successful.  Facts are facts.

 

In 1780, it didn't look like a free and democratic society would succeed here either. But last time I checked, it did.

[BigSqwert]

In 1780, it didn't look like a free and democratic society would succeed here either.  But last time I checked, it did.

We choose to be free and democratic. We didn't have another country invade us and force us to do that.

[kapkomet]

We choose to be free and democratic.  We didn't have another country invade us and force us to do that.

True or untrue, why do you feel this way? Why the negativity?

[Reddy]

True or untrue, why do you feel this way?  Why the negativity?

 

the fact of the matter is, there is no country on earth that ever succeeded when a government was forced upon them. democracy ONLY works if it is what the PEOPLE of that country want and if they are willing to fight for it. otherwise what purpose does it serve? the only reason ours has worked up until now is because of the amount of passion that was vested in it at the founding of our nation (and because we were breaking away from a monarchy and wanted the exact opposite). in Iraq there is no catalyst for becoming democratic EXCEPT that it's what the US WANTS them to do. and that is absolutely no motivation for the average iraqi.

[samclemens]

the fact of the matter is, there is no country on earth that ever succeeded when a government was forced upon them.  democracy ONLY works if it is what the PEOPLE of that country want and if they are willing to fight for it.  otherwise what purpose does it serve?  the only reason ours has worked up until now is because of the amount of passion that was vested in it at the founding of our nation (and because we were breaking away from a monarchy and wanted the exact opposite).  in Iraq there is no catalyst for becoming democratic EXCEPT that it's what the US WANTS them to do.  and that is absolutely no motivation for the average iraqi.

 

i disagree. see Japan.

[minors]

Yes IT WILL BE WON... If we just gave up everytime it looked bleak this country first of all wouldn't have exisited. Or if in Early 1864 when everyone wanted to surrender to the south we would have been split in 2 pieces. The point is sometimes we have to fight the good fight no matter the costs. Just to put into persepective we lost more troops in 3 days in the C-War than in all of Vietnam combined.

[Balta1701]

Yes IT WILL BE WON...  If we just gave up everytime it looked bleak this country first of all wouldn't have exisited.  Or if in Early 1864 when everyone wanted to surrender to the south we would have been split in 2 pieces.  The point is sometimes we have to fight the good fight no matter the costs.  Just to put into persepective we lost more troops in 3 days in the C-War than in all of Vietnam combined.

So wait, within 6 months of the bang-bang major victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg right before the 4th of July in 63, the country wanted to surrender? That sure doesn't sound like the history that I know.

[minors]

So wait, within 6 months of the bang-bang major victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg right before the 4th of July in 63, the country wanted to surrender?  That sure doesn't sound like the history that I know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Then your view is skewed because there are countless letters from Lincoln where he is even considering not running again because McClellan's anti-war message was so strong. Yes getting the victory at Gettysburg was huge but it was also disappointing because the Union failed to chase down the rebels. And with Army of the Potomac stalled around Richmond suffering heavy losses + the southern division stuck at Lookout mountain it was very bleak. While we would have won sooner or later the public (New York, Boston) were tired of the losses and wanted out maybe not surrender but some type of truce which would have been a victory for the south. Big Victories are nothing unless they are taken advantage of.

Edited February 25, 2006 by minors

[BigSqwert]

True or untrue, why do you feel this way?  Why the negativity?

True or untrue?? What does that mean? No country invaded America and made us change to a democracy. Turning Iraq into a democracy was the 5th or 6th rationale for invading after the previous reasons turned out to be false.

[CanOfCorn]

Winnable? That's the wrong question. This isn't a win or lose proposition. We went in there for whatever reason you want to believe and blew up the country...literally and figuratively.

 

What we should ask is...when the inevitable civil war breaks out, do we want to be there? What side are we going to be on? Cuz it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

 

The question that remains to be asked is: How long are we going to stay?

[EvilMonkey]

Winnable?  That's the wrong question.  This isn't a win or lose proposition.  We went in there for whatever reason you want to believe and blew up the country...literally and figuratively. 

 

What we should ask is...when the inevitable civil war breaks out, do we want to be there?  What side are we going to be on?  Cuz it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

 

The question that remains to be asked is:  How long are we going to stay?

The question that remains to be asked is since we ARE there, why is the entire country not doing everything it can for us to win this conflict, so we can come home? Instead, politics rears its ugly head at every turn on both sides, and nothing gets done as well as it could or should, creating a stagnant situation. Why can't libs just say 'fine, we hate that we are there, but realize that just pulling up and leaving isn't a good option. Let's do whatever it needed to win this so we can bring our troops home.' Is it winnable? How will we ever know until all of us actually get behind the idea of winning it in the first place? And just think, if the Dems DID do that, sure they would piss off some of thie rbase, but would they really go and vote Republican out of spite? I don't think so. PLus, it would swing alot of middle-of-the-road voters who would finally think that the Dems are serious about the defense of our country, and really aren't Frenchmen in disguise. It would be a win-win for the Dems!Be on record as aginst the war, but also supporting the troops and our country. When we win, they get to share in the glory.

[BigSqwert]

why is the entire country not doing everything it can for us to win this conflict, so we can come home? 

What exactly have liberals done to prevent a winnable situation?

[Balta1701]

The question that remains to be asked is since we ARE there, why is the entire country not doing everything it can for us to win this conflict, so we can come home?  Instead, politics rears its ugly head at every turn on both sides, and nothing gets done as well as it could or should, creating a stagnant situation.  Why can't libs just say 'fine, we hate that we are there, but realize that just pulling up and leaving isn't a good option.  Let's do whatever it needed to win this so we can bring our troops home.'  Is it winnable?  How will we ever know until all of us actually get behind the idea of winning it in the first place?  And just think, if the Dems DID do that, sure they would piss off some of thie rbase, but would they really go and vote Republican out of spite?  I don't think so.  PLus, it would swing alot of middle-of-the-road voters who would finally think that the Dems are serious about the defense of our country, and really aren't Frenchmen in disguise.  It would be a win-win for the Dems!Be on record as aginst the war, but also supporting the troops and our country.  When we win, they get to share in the glory.

So, let me give this counterpoint...the Dems have offered up quite a few alternative options, such as the Murtha plan, which the Republicans labeled as "Cutting and running"?

 

You're asking why the entire country isn't doing everything it can to win? Well, let me put this to you. Paul Bremer is about to release a book saying he needed a hell of a lot more men/troops over there. The U.S. has basically run out of reconstruction funds over there due to fraud, waste, bribery, and the insurgency, and the Administration isn't planning on providing more.

 

Would you be in favor of a significant tax increase to fully fund the war over there, including a large expansion of the army through whatever means are necessary? You ask why the entire country won't get behind it...fine...let's propose getting the country 100% behind it; put enough troops and funds in there to actually rapidly rebuild everything and put an American squad on every street. Even if it takes a million men. That would be doing everything possible to win. Do you think that's a good option? Would you support that? Even if you or your family wound up having to pay a thousand dollars a year for it and had to send either you or someone close to you over there to fight because we need the manpower?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The question that remains to be asked is since we ARE there, why is the entire country not doing everything it can for us to win this conflict, so we can come home?  Instead, politics rears its ugly head at every turn on both sides, and nothing gets done as well as it could or should, creating a stagnant situation.  Why can't libs just say 'fine, we hate that we are there, but realize that just pulling up and leaving isn't a good option.  Let's do whatever it needed to win this so we can bring our troops home.'  Is it winnable?  How will we ever know until all of us actually get behind the idea of winning it in the first place?  And just think, if the Dems DID do that, sure they would piss off some of thie rbase, but would they really go and vote Republican out of spite?  I don't think so.  PLus, it would swing alot of middle-of-the-road voters who would finally think that the Dems are serious about the defense of our country, and really aren't Frenchmen in disguise.  It would be a win-win for the Dems!Be on record as aginst the war, but also supporting the troops and our country.  When we win, they get to share in the glory.

BushCo. (forgive me, it is just easier than typing out Bush and his supporters every time) has done a pretty great job at alienating the allies of the US. These mass stockpiles of WMD have now been found to be bunk.

 

http://www.outragedmoderates.org/ -- Has a story on 9/11 notes from Rummy and Co. that says that the morning of 9/11, Rumsfeld was demanding that a link be found between Iraq and OBL so it would justify an attack. Many members of the admin were asking for a regime change to control oil supplies for years as part of the Project for a New American Century. When that is paired with the Downing Street Memos, it paints a damning portrait of a President at worst lying us into war and at best being dreadfully incompetent to put us into a questionable war. (the same could be said of LBJ for the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident or FDR knowing about the Magic Messages)

 

Hell, Francis Fukuyama -- one of the biggest proponents of the Iraq invasion has now said that it was a terrible move for the US to make, especially in the post-war strategy development and justification departments. The justification for the war has changed more than Superman buying some clothes. Other famous conservatives (and neo-cons) have declared it unwinnable.

 

I think this move into Iraq was pretty damn niave by PNAC (basically many of the founding members were in the Bush Administration) and this overarching fear of the terrorists is causing Americans to freely give up their liberties. It suddenly becomes okay for the government to go in without warrants to look at our tangible records (via the Patriot Act...it actually says "tangible records" in the document) It suddenly becomes okay for the government to go in without warrants to tap phone calls. It suddenly becomes okay to go into peoples' homes without warrants (just need to have reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause in the Patriot Act) and never have to say that you were there -- and oh yeah, if you do find out, it is illegal to say anything...even to a defense lawyer (via the Patriot Act again)

 

As the famous patriot Thomas Paine once said: "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot."

 

Most Iraqis want us out and they're voting for an opposition-to-the-US group of politics. We've created a vacuum there that I don't know can be fixed by us as the US. Perhaps a multinational collaboration instead. The public was sold one bill of goods for an entrance into Iraq. Now we're being sold something else that is completely different as a reason to stay. I'll defer, for time's sake, to William F. Buckley Jr's new discussion that the war is unwinnable...and then reinterate the old Paine quote I used above.

[BHAMBARONS]

So wait, within 6 months of the bang-bang major victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg right before the 4th of July in 63, the country wanted to surrender?  That sure doesn't sound like the history that I know.

 

Well since I am a History major I can give some info. The North at no time was going to surrender, there was talk about a peace agreement because of the losses. The Union's biggest problem in 1863 wasn't that they were losing but after big wins like Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Chattanooga the army didn't pursue good enough. The union after Vicksburg could have trapped the confeds to the gulf. After Gettysburg the confederate army was in such shambles that the Union could have trapped them there as well. Finally after Chattanooga instead of just chasing the confeds out of the city and letting them retain their composure and allowing the confeds to retake the city, the union could have kept them retreating to Atlanta and so on. It took Grant and Sherman who had the leadership qualities to finally keep pursing the confeds which ended the war.

[EvilMonkey]

So, let me give this counterpoint...the Dems have offered up quite a few alternative options, such as the Murtha plan, which the Republicans labeled as "Cutting and running"?

 

You're asking why the entire country isn't doing everything it can to win?  Well, let me put this to you.  Paul Bremer is about to release a book saying he needed a hell of a lot more men/troops over there.  The U.S. has basically run out of reconstruction funds over there due to fraud, waste, bribery, and the insurgency, and the Administration isn't planning on providing more.

 

Would you be in favor of a significant tax increase to fully fund the war over there, including a large expansion of the army through whatever means are necessary?  You ask why the entire country won't get behind it...fine...let's propose getting the country 100% behind it; put enough troops and funds in there to actually rapidly rebuild everything and put an American squad on every street.  Even if it takes a million men.  That would be doing everything possible to win.  Do you think that's a good option?  Would you support that?  Even if you or your family wound up having to pay a thousand dollars a year for it and had to send either you or someone close to you over there to fight because we need the manpower?

I have 2 cousins and an uncle over there now, and a few more cousins in the various services that are stateside, so that is a moot point for me. My 13 year old son has also talked about wanting to join the air force since he wants to fly. I have no problems with that. As for the needed manpower, we would have more troops if there weren't groups actively doing anti-recruiting. If you think those groups haven't had an impact, you would be wrong. And for the funding, why does everything involve a tax increase with you libs? I for one don't think that the invasion was the best course of action. But the Murtha plan isn't very good either. We are there, we just can't 'redeploy'. Anything that looks like a loss, or a surrender, or that we are running away, will BE a loss because it will further embolden the enemy. Since we are there, lets win. I will be the first to say things haven't been run there as best they can be. Hindsight is always 20-20. How about some foresight?

 

As for sending ME over there, I am a good shot, but with my knees, bad eyesight and torn rotator cuff, I don't think they would want me.

[jackie hayes]

I will be the first to say things haven't been run there as best they can be.

One of the Jack-Benny-funny things about war: conservatives swearing that they'll be the first ones to complain about things that liberals have been complaining about for more than a year.

[Balta1701]

But the Murtha plan isn't very good either.  We are there, we just can't 'redeploy'.  Anything that looks like a loss, or a surrender, or that we are running away, will BE a loss because it will further embolden the enemy.  Since we are there, lets win.  I will be the first to say things haven't been run there as best they can be.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  How about some foresight?

Ok, so let me just deal with this part here...You say since we're there, let's win, without telling me exactly how we're going to do so? We've done the stay the course thing for 3 years now. And it just keeps looking worse. More casualties on all sides, more shi'ite militias killing sunnis, more sunnis targeting shi'a religious sites, less oil flowing than before the invasion, less electricity than before the invasion, and the U.S. has basically stopped funding reconstruction & is starting to say they're on their own. The government is losing respect because the people feel it can't protect them, and they're turning to sectarian militias as the only thing which can hold together law & order. We're training troops left and right, yet the security situation isn't improving, and the U.S. has been unable to withdraw troops despite the additional Iraqi forces. And now there's this Mosque mess. We've imposed daytime curfews across the entire country and somehow people are still dying left and right.

 

So, you say let's stay there and win. How exactly are we going to do that? We've run out of time to gain the Iraqi people's trust. We haven't provided security, electricity, or hope, in 3 years. The people of Iraq don't want us to stay any more. Hell, the Iraqi parliament endorsed attacks on U.S. soldiers last year as a method of getting us to leave.

 

How exactly do we "Win"? What happens if by staying there and trying to "Win", we just wind up making ourselves the target for longer and longer until we don't have a friend left in the whole middle east? That's not the guaranteed outcome, but it's sure a possible one. And it would make us look even worse than something regarded as a "retreat".

 

Edit: let me toss in a little bit more: if I could think of an easy way to "Win" this mess that we got ourselves in to, I'd have supported it in a second. I still would if I saw that. I think at most places since we got ourselves in, I've tried to hope for what I thought would do the best for the U.S. and the people of Iraq.

 

It's for this reason that I tried to point out the mess of idiotic planning, fraud, waste, and corruption that Iraq turned into under the CPA. That's why some Democrats put forwards an alternative to Bush's blanket $87 billion request which would have required Mr. Bush to actually make sure he knew where the money was going, instead of having billions of dollars of cash just disappear. That's why we complain when, say, the U.S. ships over a few hundred million dollars worth of power generation equipment which is totally unusable because it's incompatible with the power plant where it was supposed to be set up, so the generators just sit there idle. Etc.

 

Yes, there are some out there who genuinely want the U.S. to lose. Almost no one you'll ever meet will be a part of that group. Once we got into it, there were things we could do that would have actually helped, and if I'd seen us doing those I would have cheered. Things like actually planning the reconstruction, or actually having oversight over what was done with all the money. Or making sure we weren't re-opening torture chambers, or encouraging splitting of the country along ethnic lines, all of which we wound up doing.

 

So for at least a year now, I've been sitting around hoping someone would present an actual plan that would lead to real victory. But the only thing I've seen is "Stay the course and win." This just doesn't make sense...we've tried staying the course for 3 years, and it hasn't brought us any closer to winning. It may have made winning even farther away, because the corruption has just continued and things have failed to improve.

 

So, the thing I'd advocate right now is whatever would make things over there the least bad. I personally don't see any good option. Staying there will just keep the whole country focused on removing us, will serve as a rallying cry for every anti-American SOB out there, and may very well start a Civil War that the U.S. can't stop. On the other hand, pulling out could also start a Civil War that the U.S. can't stop. So I have to admit...I don't have a clue what we should be doing. I don't see a good way to fix it, now that we've been so damn negligent and let these people in the government screw around by trying out their fancy flat tax proposals when the power grid was falling apart.

 

My goal right now in advocacy is, I think, to try to find some path that will allow the U.S. to get out without sparking a civil war. Without concrete steps to make things better up and down the list, and an actual plan about what we're going to do at every step, from reconstruction to military options, including actual steps that will significantly improve the lives of the Iraqi people instead of just wasting time and money, I don't think that's possible. Could the Murtha plan lead to civil war? Certainly. But so could just staying there and trying to "Win". So the question is...what else can we do?

Edited February 26, 2006 by Balta1701

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well since I am a History major I can give some info.  The North at no time was going to surrender, there was talk about a peace agreement because of the losses.  The Union's biggest problem in 1863 wasn't that they were losing but after big wins like Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Chattanooga the army didn't pursue good enough.  The union after Vicksburg could have trapped the confeds to the gulf.  After Gettysburg the confederate army was in such shambles that the Union could have trapped them there as well.  Finally after Chattanooga instead of just chasing the confeds out of the city and letting them retain their composure and allowing the confeds to retake the city, the union could have kept them retreating to Atlanta and so on.  It took Grant and Sherman who had the leadership qualities to finally keep pursing the confeds which ended the war.

 

 

To add to that point. The Union was taking MASSIVE losses during Grants spring campaign of 1864. He was getting 10-15 thousand men killed or wounded PER BATTLE! Personally I dont think Grant displayed any great generalship during that time. He basically used the Army of the Potomac as a bludgeon and kept hammering away knowing the South couldn't replace the men it was losing. Basically it was a classic war of attrition but it was so bloody that the people wanted it stopped no matter what.

 

Up until Sherman captured Atlanta it was widely thought that Lincoln was going to lose the election, to McClellan of all people, and had that happened the war would have been halted and there would be 2 America's today.