Is the Iraq War unwinnable? Indeed, what is winning?

[domer]

I ask these questions in all sincerity, and as I do, I note one of the lessons of Vietnam: a "strategic defeat" can usher in an overall victory (the Soviet Union falling some 15 years after our withdrawal from Vietnam). Would anyone care to discuss this in realistic terms?

[sirs]

what is winning?

Winning the "Iraq war" (vs the War on Terrorism) is the Iraqi Government & it's military/police forces working independently without any further serious American Military Intervention, be it as a defacto Iraqi Army or as Governmental Security forces, etc.  Winning is the Iraqi Government telling us to "please leave now, we can take it from here"

The above needs to and is occuring on their timetable, not ours.  Any arbitrary timetable we try to apply will only make the case for the enemy & insurgents to just hold out a little longer...that the Americans are going to"run away like cowards as they ususually do"

[Michael Tee]

I would discuss the prospects of winning it in realistic terms, but you have always persisted in looking at the real objectives of the invasion in unrealistic terms.  If you can't accept that the real objectives are to secure the oil wells as a strategic as well as a possible economic asset, then the whole exercise becomes one of assessing whether the US can achieve a "stable" and "democratic"  and "independent" Iraq, which just begs the question of whether the US should win or not.

[domer]

That parroting of the party line does nothing for me. Maybe I've been affected by my formative years. When I was not quite 18, I witnessed "the college game of the century," from the sidelines, on a dank November day in East Lansing, Michigan. My coach "settled" for a tie in that game to give us a better opportunity at the "prize," the national championship, which would be (and was, in our favor) decided by the next week's game. Maybe we have a nation that elevates Pickett to greatness because of his reflexive "courage," but I prefer a MacArthur returning to Bataan after an "ignominious" retreat.

[sirs]

Strange, I thought a serious question was being posed.  My bad

[sirs]

If you can't accept that the real objectives are to secure the oil wells as a strategic as well as a possible economic asset, then the whole exercise becomes one of assessing whether the US can achieve a "stable" and "democratic"  and "independent" Iraq, which just begs the question of whether the US should win or not

Start with a false premise and ....... well, we all know the rest     

[Michael Tee]

You can't seriously be thinking of this as a college football game?

[domer]

It's a metaphor, (capece?) you asshole.

[sirs]

It's a metaphor, (capece?) you asshole

Nice.  Great example at trying to lead a discussion on a supposed serious subject.  Only 2 posts into the thread.  I guess that's better than just a knee-jerk 1 response before flailing the insults 

[Michael Tee]

Well, it's one of the poorest metaphors I've ever seen.

[Michael Tee]

<<Start with a false premise and ....... well, we all know the rest   >>

What's debatable is WHOSE premise false.  But I've gotta go for lunch and a slice of real life, so I'll just settle the issue now by providing the answer:  Yours and domers'.

[domer]

Yes, gentlemen, give me a lecture on serious and intelligent. I'll be back.

And, Tee, you don't know much about the American (administration) psyche if a sports metaphor (especially a football metaphor) is viewed as inapt. Indeed, a celebrated "novel" of the Vietnam era by Norman Mailer, "Why Are We in Vietnam," employed an extendded metaphor, to considerable effect, of war as an extension of our indigenous hunting culture, et al.

[sirs]

What's debatable is WHOSE premise false

The one that this is all about the oil.  The one that has no basis in reality or fact, but gobs load of conspiratorial nonsense

[Plane]

.  If you can't accept that the real objectives are to secure the oil wells as a strategic as well as a possible economic asset,

I don't accept this as genuine , but I am willing to discuss it.

If this is really what we want winning is pretty simple , we have won already all the access we will ever need and simply by quitting to defend the feilds from the "terrorists " we can punish Europe and China where the need for this particular sorce of oil is more critical than it is for us.

Oh but what shall we do if we run low on terrorists willing to disrupt the mineing and distribution of oil?


 

[BT]

Good question Domer. My apologies for the initial round of responses.

Perhaps everyone involved would like a do-ever and try to respond seriously to the question posed.

Personally i think Iraq is but one piece of the puzzle. And i don't think peace wil break out until all countries in the region (including a free Palestinian State) are willing to recognize each others sovereignty and be willing to peacefully co-exist.