Ret. General John Sheehan

[Lanya]

via War and Piece
 April 15, 2007

Ret. General John Sheehan: Why I declined to serve, as war czar. "What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region. [...] There has to be linkage between short-term operations and strategic objectives that represent long-term U.S. and regional interests, such as assured access to energy resources and support for stable, Western-oriented countries. These interests will require a serious dialogue and partnership with countries that live in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood. We cannot 'shorthand' this issue with concepts such as the 'democratization of the region' or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to 'win,' even as 'victory' is not defined or is frequently redefined."

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005976.html

[Plane]

So if it were about Oil ,he would be willing to serve?

[Lanya]

He is saying that sloganeering doesn't achieve goals.  Define the goals first.  What defines "winning" in Iraq?  What exactly?    Merely saying, "We're gonna win, we brought democracy to the region" is not helpful.

[sirs]

He is saying that sloganeering doesn't achieve goals.  Define the goals first.  What defines "winning" in Iraq?  What exactly?    Merely saying, "We're gonna win, we brought democracy to the region" is not helpful.

Nor has that been the definition of "winning" in Iraq

[modestyblase]

So, sirs, from your perspective, what is your definition of "winning" in Iraq?

[sirs]

So, sirs, from your perspective, what is your definition of "winning" in Iraq?

Same as it's always been...largely an echo of the Adminstration's definition, which is 2 fold --->
1) Regime change, which actually was facilitated in the prior administration, and to which that mission was accomplished + 2) The Iraqi Goverment believes they can protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic, and no longer needs our military assistance = "winning" in Iraq

[Plane]

Against Saddam we did win .


If we had left right away , we would have enjyed the same sort of victoy we had against the Soviets in Afganistan .

[modestyblase]

1) Regime change, which actually was facilitated in the prior administration, and to which that mission was accomplished + 2) The Iraqi Goverment believes they can protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic, and no longer needs our military assistance = "winning" in Iraq

On point one, I will concede that a regime change has, in its most bare definition, occurred. One wonders, though, if that regime change was effective.

On point two, I will not concede. The Iraqi government cannot protect itself from internal and neighbouring chaos, no matter how much they think they can. Not that I favour remaining for their benefit; I'm rather cruel in that regard. Let them fend for themselves. Sadly, we have worked ourselves into a desperate situation: the fallout of leaving can hurt the U.S. to a greater degree than the entire war already has. Quite a catch-22.