The war is almost Won in Iraq...

[thebin]

It's interesting that we keep hearing about the war we are either losing or lost in Iraq. Seems to me all of the objectives have been met, as long as one doesn't assume that one objective was that the place was going to instantly turn into Switzerland.

More American people were shot and killed in Chicago (a one-party rule, Democratic fiefdom) this summer than in Iraq over same period.... Read that sentence again.

There isn't the slightest similarity at all with Vietnam that the half-educated can make with a straight face. McCain was right from the get go, and his fix (the surge) may well be credited with saving the US from losing a war.

cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html

[DrumsGoBang]

How many Iraqi's were killed in Iraq during that time? Americans live in Chicago. Americans are just small number of visitors (miltary, mercenaries, support) in Iraq. People seem to forget that just because your are not American, means you shouldn't be counted as a person.

[SFHoya99]

It seems to me the original objective was a stable democracy in Iraq that is not anti-American. You can't possibly know that for years, either way. You can't say we "lost" or "won."

If you are simply talking tactically in short term objective, sure, the military has been effective. Not a surprise to me -- the similarity with Vietnam is that it is an occupation but there are a lot of differences. The issue is that are we preparing the country as best we can to take care of themselves once we leave? The lack of any real rebuilding plan is troubling to me.

[DrumsGoBang]

Also prove that the Surge "won the war" You can't. First the administration has been redefining "Winning the War" at every chance they get. Didn't this start out as trying to defeat terroism? Instead we have created more terrorists, destablized the region further, and allowed Iran to gain more influence in the region. (Also it made gas prices go up). Additionally, the surge happened after years of heavy violence and sectarian killings that caused the people of Iraq to actually segragate themselves into only Sunni or e neighboorhoods. The Surge only reduced (did not eliminate) violence in one city that had almost totally completted segragating themselves.

Here are also things that the Surge did not help.
Corruption in the Iraq government
Rebuilding of power, road, and water infrastructure.
Stablizing the region in general
Reducing the amount of terroists in the region.

[DrumsGoBang]

Haha. I like how one of the two islamic religous groups is edited out in the hoyatalk board

[Bando]

The post is a classic example of what Stephen Colbert has called truthiness. Let's review.

More American people shot and killed in Chicago (run exclusively by Democrats) this summer than in Iraq over same period.... Read that sentence again

Population of the city of Chicago: 2,833,321, Percentage killed = .0043%
Number of US troops in Iraq: 146,000, Percentage killed = .044%

You were an order of magnitude more likely to be fatally shot this summer in Iraq than you were to be murdered in Chicago. Furthermore, the murder rate in Chicago has been dropping steadily for over a decade, and I don't have to tell you that Democrats were in control of the city that entire time.

Seems to me all of the objectives have been met, as long as one doesn't assume that one objective was that the place was going to instantly turn into Switzerland.

Let's look over said objectives:

1. Depose Sadaam Hussein and his Baathist regime.
- definitely accomplished

2. Establish a democracy in Iraq, at peace with it's neighbors and Israel, and an American ally.
- if you think this is what happened, I'd like to have what you're smoking

3. Prevent Saddam from using his WMDs.
- well, he didn't have any WMDs

4. Defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq.
- considering that they weren't there until we showed up, I'm going to put this in the "not
accomplished" column

You're shortsighted, though, to view such a checklist of objectives as an effective measurement of Iraq war. What you've left out entirely is are the broader strategic questions:

1. Has this war improved the strategic advantage of the United States?
- not at all. Our forces are overstretched, weaknesses have been exposed, and we can count those other nations that will gladly back us in another war on one hand.

2. Has this war reduced the danger of Islamic terrorism?
- no. Again, al Qaeda in Iraq was a reaction to our presence. If anything we've worsened the problem, acting as a great recruiting tool for Islamic radicalism.

3. Has this war improved the national security of the US?
- absolutely not. We removed someone who wasn't a threat and created more threats in the process. This counterproductive effort cost billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

[thebin]

Sept 5, 2008 10:49:19 GMT -5 DrumsGoBang said:

Also prove that the Surge "won the war" You can't. First the administration has been redefining "Winning the War" at every chance they get. Didn't this start out as trying to defeat terroism? Instead we have created more terrorists, destablized the region further, and allowed Iran to gain more influence in the region. (Also it made gas prices go up). Additionally, the surge happened after years of heavy violence and sectarian killings that caused the people of Iraq to actually segragate themselves into only Sunni or Editede neighboorhoods. The Surge only reduced (did not eliminate) violence in one city that had almost totally completted segragating themselves.

Here are also things that the Surge did not help.
Corruption in the Iraq government
Rebuilding of power, road, and water infrastructure.
Stablizing the region in general
Reducing the amount of terroists in the region.

I guess you were one of the people whose standard for winning the war was Iraq turning into Switzerland. Heinous regime Deposed. Fledgling democracy in place. Intersectional violence severely curbed......now go home. That is close to 180 degrees away from how we left Vietnam. It's up to Iraqies now.

[DrumsGoBang]

When did I ever say Iraq should be Switzerland? I didn't. I don't care if Iraq even ends up as a democracy. Winning the war would require at least one of the three points that Bando made; Improved the strategic advantage of the United States, Reduced the danger of Islamic terrorism, and Improved the national security of the US.

None of those has happened or will happen. If the only requirement that you had for winning the war was to reduce (not eliminate) sectarian violence they you have your victory (pat yourself on the back for doing it 4 years after it was suggested by generals), although you owe part of that Victory to the Iraqs themselves for killing each other off and segrating themselves.

[Boz]

I don't have a problem with people questioning whether we have "won" in Iraq or not.

And I don't have a problem with people saying that it will be some time before we know whether we've "won" or "lost."

I just question where all this skepticism was when Harry Reid and many other prominent Democrats were getting in front of any microphone or TV camera they could find and pronouncing that "the war was lost."

Also, I keep hearing "no political progress, no political progress".

Sorry, but that's truthiness too. There has been tremendous political progress. It doesn't mean there isn't still corruption that has to be fixed and it doens't mean that the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are all holding hands, having milkshakes and agreeing on everything that should be done moving forward. But every time there's a disagreement, we shout "See? No political progress," without hesitation. The fact that they are working -- and working peacefully, I might add -- through their disputes seems to be ignored.

[hifigator]

The son of a really good friend of mine -- and he's a friend of mine as well -- got back from Iraq a couple of weeks ago -- hopefully for the last time. He said that it is a night and day difference from his first deployment 3 years ago. Granted, he was pretty much stationed in Baghdad, but he said that was pretty much what he was hearing from everyone. He said that when he first went over there, you were literally looking over your shoulder every single place you went. But by the time he left, he was almost as comfortable there as here. In fairness, I'm sure that some degree of that is simply experience, but certainly not all. Anecdotal evidence? Yes. But real, factual and uncolorized evidence? Yes as well.

Another friend is in the National Guard and he got back from Afghanistan about a month ago. He said pretty much the opposite. I forget if he has been over two or three times, but in any case, he said he felt pretty safe the first time he went over there. He is a mechanic, so he isn't on the front line, so to speak. He works on the vehicles/tanks etc. In any case, he said that it is more dangerous now than before and that almost everyday, a friend comes back injured.

Thankfully, he is not likely to be sent over any more. He reenlisted full time and is making good money, but he will mostly work as an instructor in Jacksonville and Lakeland.

[Bando]

Sept 5, 2008 12:20:53 GMT -5 Boz said:

I don't have a problem with people questioning whether we have "won" in Iraq or not.

And I don't have a problem with people saying that it will be some time before we know whether we've "won" or "lost."

I just question where all this skepticism was when Harry Reid and many other prominent Democrats were getting in front of any microphone or TV camera they could find and pronouncing that "the war was lost."

Also, I keep hearing "no political progress, no political progress".

Sorry, but that's truthiness too. There has been tremendous political progress. It doesn't mean there isn't still corruption that has to be fixed and it doens't mean that the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are all holding hands, having milkshakes and agreeing on everything that should be done moving forward. But every time there's a disagreement, we shout "See? No political progress," without hesitation. The fact that they are working -- and working peacefully, I might add -- through their disputes seems to be ignored.

The only political reconciliation that really matters is the question of oil. And that's no closer to happening than it was a year ago. You can come to all these other areas of agreement, but without the oil being settled, there's no real political stability.

[hifigator]

Sept 5, 2008 14:07:08 GMT -5 Bando said:

Sept 5, 2008 12:20:53 GMT -5 Boz said:

I don't have a problem with people questioning whether we have "won" in Iraq or not.

And I don't have a problem with people saying that it will be some time before we know whether we've "won" or "lost."

I just question where all this skepticism was when Harry Reid and many other prominent Democrats were getting in front of any microphone or TV camera they could find and pronouncing that "the war was lost."

Also, I keep hearing "no political progress, no political progress".

Sorry, but that's truthiness too. There has been tremendous political progress. It doesn't mean there isn't still corruption that has to be fixed and it doens't mean that the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are all holding hands, having milkshakes and agreeing on everything that should be done moving forward. But every time there's a disagreement, we shout "See? No political progress," without hesitation. The fact that they are working -- and working peacefully, I might add -- through their disputes seems to be ignored.

The only political reconciliation that really matters is the question of oil. And that's no closer to happening than it was a year ago. You can come to all these other areas of agreement, but without the oil being settled, there's no real political stability.

Wow! I didn't know that you had it in you. You just made a reasonable valid point, without any of your nosensical liberal rhetoric and without any sort of snide remark about opposing views. I don't fully agree with you, but that is almost a sidelight at this point. I think that to say "only" political reconcialiation that really matters, does a disservice to the progress that has been made as well as to the efforts of brave men and women, both Americans as well as Iraqis. Still, I do pretty much agree with the premise that any peaceful agreements mean very little if they don't include acceptable arrangements by all sides with respect to the oil, its operations and its revenues.

[PushyGuyFanClub]

Winning the war would require at least one of the three points that Bando made; Improved the strategic advantage of the United States, Reduced the danger of Islamic terrorism, and Improved the national security of the US.

None of those has happened or will happen.
-----
I'll preface my comments by saying that I don't think anything is going to be resolved here. This is an issue that folks feel passionate about, and I readily admit that the goals from the start of the Iraq War to today have altered considerably.

But I do think you guys, with all do respect, are working from old talking points. I mean, when it comes to improving the strategic advantage of the United States, once the war started, there's just no question that we could pull out. That would destroy any and all credibility we have with the international community when it comes to backing up words with action. Just look at Europe. The Russian foreign minister openly mocked them the other day when after being told of some opposition to their energy-mongering he said something along the lines of "What, are they going to send us a strongly worded letter?" So, while the start of the war in Iraq did not improve our strategic standing given the lack of WMD, our ability to see this thing through, I think, has improved it from its nadir.

As for the danger of Islamic terrorism, I think it's clear that the violence in Iraq ended up engaging our military with al-Qaeda fighters. We are beating them back. The talking point is that this fight is a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda so anyone we kill gets backfilled, but I haven't seen firm statistical evidence of that. But I have seen firm statistical evidence that we've killed and captured members of al-Qaeda. It's come at a cost, but anytime we can fight and defeat members of al-Qaeda in the field, that's fewer members who can carry out attacks.

Put those two things together and while I won't argue that the invasion of Iraq improved the national security of the US, I will argue that the surge and the willingness to see a difficult situation through has vastly improved our national security over the alternative, to pose a counterfactual, of having pulled out of Iraq and leaving it in chaos 12 months ago. So, if we judge success in stages, the stage since the surge, in my opinion, has gone some way towards achieving the goals you guys laid out.

[DrumsGoBang]

We actually can't say that staying in Iraq has been positive or negative to international standing of the US since the metrics for those ideas dont' really exist, but we can say it has drasticly changed our standing and future policy. One issue that I've seen recently is the Russian conflict in Georgia is the fact that now other states are claiming that our past actions justify their invations. While I don't think the policy of "You did it, so I can do it" is good in any means, it will continued to be used by states like Russia where the only thing we can do to stop it is write strongly worded letters.

As for the increase in terrioism, there actually have been studies done that show an increase in terroists.
Here is the link to one report: www.comw.org/pda/0609bm38.html
I also remember reading about another report in the Washington Post with similar statistics. While I don't think this the right stategy for dealing with terroism, I do agree with your point that we are engaging the enemy and killing them which is a good thing. At the same time it still acts as a recruiting tool, and forces them underground to other locations around the world to plan and execute attacks, for example the London tube bombings.

Actually the most interesting thing about the Surge recently has been Woodwards recent reports in the Post and on 60 minutes. He has mentioned a new secret tatict that we are using that is very effective in our fight. I wonder what it is? Anal probing? Maybe.

[EasyEd]

Some people, including Woodward, seems to think the surge was merely an increase in troop strength. It was not. It was not only upping the number of troops but a drastic change in strategy and tactics on how to deal with the various factions in Iraq. This was straight from the Petraeus approach to fighting terrorism. He not only applied force at different places but he placed troops in various areas with the intent of engaging in dialog with the factions in the area. He introduced new ways of obtaining intelligence information, including bribes. The cumulative effect of these and other measures introduced with the "surge" have contributed greatly to the decrease in violence. Were there other factors that made large contributions to improved conditions. Yes, definitely yes and they need to be acknowledged loudly and clearly. But to pretend the surge was merely an increase in the troop level is doing a great injustice to the totality of what Petraeus has done.

[EasyEd]

An outstanding article in the Washington Post (that pinko newspaper, ha) on the scope of the "surge", showing what was done in addition to the increase in troop levels.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202410.html

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 14, 2008 18:36:13 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

An outstanding article in the Washington Post (that pinko newspaper, ha) on the scope of the "surge", showing what was done in addition to the increase in troop levels.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202410.html

You may remember that the Post also championed the war in the first place (like the NYT).

It is stunning to me that somehow, 2 months before an election, many politicians, full of vainglorious rhetoric, decide that we have won the war. We were told the same thing when President Bush went on the aircraft carrier in military costume.

[EasyEd]

Sept 14, 2008 18:43:38 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Sept 14, 2008 18:36:13 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

An outstanding article in the Washington Post (that pinko newspaper, ha) on the scope of the "surge", showing what was done in addition to the increase in troop levels.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202410.html

You may remember that the Post also championed the war in the first place (like the NYT).

It is stunning to me that somehow, 2 months before an election, many politicians, full of vainglorious rhetoric, decide that we have won the war. We were told the same thing when President Bush went on the aircraft carrier in military costume.

Show me one politician, or other person, that says we have won the war.

Also, do you dispute what the Post article says or do you merely condemn it because they initially supported the war?

[jerseyhoya34]

I am merely pointing out that your treatment of the media is very ad hoc. If you agree with it, it is supposedly on point and unbiased. If you don't, it is a liberal rag.

John McCain has said repeatedly that we have succeeded in Iraq, not simply that we "are succeeding." He said it at least 3 times in just one campaign stop and then hammered it home on the bus.

Nobody will argue with you that the surge was beneficial. The War Against Iraq, rather, is a study in choices that were made.

1. The WH and John McCain had an opportunity to support higher troop levels at the start of the war and, truth be told, the higher troop levels did not come in to play until after the war had turned south. To the extent tactics have changed, I am not sure how much those changes are attributable to John McCain or any political leader.

2. It is now clear that the Administration could have gathered more information (as many suggested at the time) without any harm done to our national security before hastily pushing the "go button" on the war itself. In the process, they could have ginned up a larger force to handle the postwar.

3. Members of Congress could have demanded a postwar strategy when it was clear to many that one had not been developed to any level of sophistication.

4. Afghanistan is now in bad shape and unstable. While we still have troops there, does anyone buy the idea that our administration has been as focused on Afghanistan as it could have been?

[strummer8526]

www.mefeedia.com/entry/senator-lindsey-graham-we-are-winning/11282766/

5:46. "We are on the road to victory. Victory! You can say it at this convention. We are winning."

OK, didn't say that we "won," because, of course, no one has yet determined what "winning" is, but still...