What is "Winnable"?

[ryankeith]

I have asked this question of certain Jubbers who keep saying the war in Iraq is "winnable", or if we want to "win" in Iraq, we must press on and support the President and be more positive.

I have asked several times what they consider winning is, and they refuse to answer the question.

So my question to you all is...what do you consder a "win" in Iraq would be?

 

[Lostlover]

Winnable was/is a constant goal: leaving Iraq more stable and democratic than what it was before. (There was no terrorism link.)

Can we still win it? Yes.

What has made the war a catastrophe is that the administration mismanaged the war and under-estimated the enemies and wasn't prepared for the insurgency. Even if the admin felt Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, they should have been prepared for the alternative (which is what we're dealing with now).

I still think the war is winnable, but Bush in the meanwhile is responsible for hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths (civilians) through bad management.

One of Bush's many faults is that he over-sold democracy. This great thing he talks about doesn't stop mortars from going astray or car bombs from detonating. Iraqis don't need democracy now, they need security first.

Bush's blanketing of the criticism by mentioning the elections is an insult to the many dead.

 

[naked gent]

I recently posted my answer to this question in another thread concerning the "surge"

In answering those who say you don't support the surge because you don't want us to win I say I don't think it matters if the surge is successful or not......were it a screaming success I still don't think we'll 'win'.

Before we went into Iraq it was a country that didn't like us, the Saudis, the Israelis or the Iranians. For us to win after we leave Iraq must be closer to and share the interests of the U.S. and the Saudi's and not Iran. Should they be closer to Iran how could anyone possibly say we won?

The Bush policy of bringing democracy to Iraq has empowered the shia there and in a sunni arab world the only other majority shia country is Iran which would make them a natural ally if, as appears to be happening, the other sunni arab countries rally around the sunnis in Iraq.

I could go back to posts from a year ago where I have said that the problem with this war is that we're on the wrong side. We're hurting our friends and helping our enemies. If we had not lost a single american life in Iraq this would still be a disaster just for the money we've spent.

Currently Bush/Cheney are putting all their eggs in the Maliki basket and how ironic that is. In the past Bush has said any country that supports terrorists is not our friend and may even be attacked by us yet at the beginning of the summer Lebanon war the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians and the small gulf states all were critical of Hizbollah. Iran and Syria supported Hizbollah and so did Mr. Maliki.

So Bush's guy is supporting a terror organization which has killed americans.

Not only do I not think its a win but if Bush really means what he has said in the past he don't neither.

 

[WYSIWYG]

Sorry, but I disagree. I do not see this as being winnable! History in that region shows that ANY invader to that area has failed.

We went into Iraq because of WMD and in the end none was found!!!

We have alienated our allies and others in the world because of the mess we created.

We did the same thing in Vietnam! We kept being in more troops because this was the right thing to do, and in the end many more young American's died and for what?

And we have not even captured Osama! Afghanistan is now becoming another hot spot, and so is Lebanon!!!

I think we need to turn this situation over the Iraq's and let them do what needs to be done with US and coalitions troops being the support and gradually put out of this mess...

 

[chance1]

Winnable was/is a constant goal: leaving Iraq more stable and democratic than what it was before. (There was no terrorism link.)

Can we still win it? Yes.

What has made the war a catastrophe is that the administration mismanaged the war and under-estimated the enemies and wasn't prepared for the insurgency. Even if the admin felt Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, they should have been prepared for the alternative (which is what we're dealing with now).

I still think the war is winnable, but Bush in the meanwhile is responsible for hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths (civilians) through bad management.

One of Bush's many faults is that he over-sold democracy. This great thing he talks about doesn't stop mortars from going astray or car bombs from detonating. Iraqis don't need democracy now, they need security first.

Bush's blanketing of the criticism by mentioning the elections is an insult to the many dead.

I agree with much - not with some

Bush is not "responsible" for deaths - throwing that around is not right - he makes decisions as CIC - that's part of this job

Agreed that security trumps democracy - for now

Let the troops do their jobs - kill the enemy - and break their will

 

[iman]

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning.--------The smell, you know, that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like ......Victory."

Apocalypse Now

 

[Lostlover]

I agree with much - not with some

Bush is not "responsible" for deaths - throwing that around is not right - he makes decisions as CIC - that's part of this job

Agreed that security trumps democracy - for now

Let the troops do their jobs - kill the enemy - and break their will

Well what if Bush had more soldiers in Iraq in the first place and the situation was more tranquil than it is today?

Rumsfield wanted a small force. He wanted to "win on cheap" which has been said many times by insiders in congressional hearings.

Maybe more soldiers at the beginning would have prevented all the chaos in Iraq.

His mismanagement of the war ultimately comes on his shoulders. Who is responsible for all the murders, beheadings, car bombs in Baghdad? Ultimately it's Bush. I love the pottery rule... "you break it, you own it."

 

[chance1]

Well what if Bush had more soldiers in Iraq in the first place and the situation was more tranquil than it is today?

Rumsfield wanted a small force. He wanted to "win on cheap" which has been said many times by insiders in congressional hearings.

Maybe more soldiers at the beginning would have prevented all the chaos in Iraq.

His mismanagement of the war ultimately comes on his shoulders. Who is responsible for all the murders, beheadings, car bombs in Baghdad? Ultimately it's Bush. I love the pottery rule... "you break it, you own it."

In my opinion, higher troop levels would have been the ticket

Rummy was/is a boob - not the right guy. Bush's biggest mistake was picking and keeping him

For sure as CIC, it is his responsibility - but I think it is improper/unfair to "blame" him. That is his job to make those decisions - he made some bad ones. He owns it. But he is not "responsible" for the deaths. Perhaps this is semantics.

Good post

 

[JayHawk]

Rumsfield wanted to prove a new concept in our military that would allow a larger sum of the defense budget to go to technology and advanced weapons. The current military structure uses about 70 percent of the money in paying the personnel. He proved his point. That being that our technological advances trump large manpower use. In their attempt at proving this new warfare concept they forgot the "AFTER" you have decimated a enemy. If only Patreaus's counter insurgency ideas had been at the forefront prior to the end of the Invasion leg of this conflict then the outcome would be different today.

That said a win in Iraq will consist of three major accomplishments.

One: Regardless of how their relationship develops keeping Irans hand out of the piggy bank until the Iraq government has it's own two feet on the ARab stage.

Two: The sustained infrastructure for the only asset most Arab countries have; the oil industry. WHile our effort s at making Iraq financially solvent have causes cries of it is for the oil and nothing else. Only a fool would think Iraq can be successful without oil revenue.

Three: Sustained US relations and presence that does not evoke constant violence. While some would argue that this is impossible due to the alledged hate of all things American. I would agree that many in the Arab world including Iran make us out to be capitolistic cars filling up in Arab gas station countires, that does not and will not overcome the gratitude the majority of Iraqi's would feel if security is a reality. If that security is perceived to be the result of American effort and blood then a force of 50,000 will probably be in that region for years to come.

 

[Lostlover]

In my opinion, higher troop levels would have been the ticket

Rummy was/is a boob - not the right guy. Bush's biggest mistake was picking and keeping him

For sure as CIC, it is his responsibility - but I think it is improper/unfair to "blame" him. That is his job to make those decisions - he made some bad ones. He owns it. But he is not "responsible" for the deaths. Perhaps this is semantics.

Good post

I think it is an issue of semantics. Saying he's responsible or to blame is the same thing in my book.

I think a stable Iraq from the get go would not have had any many dead innocent civilians like there are now. Bush and co. didn't prepare for war and winning it and the bloodshed that resulted was directly from their negligence. They are responsible or to blame in my book.

No they didn't fire mortars or set off car bombs, but their actions promoted the environment in Iraq that is being seen today. An analogy would be saying that Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for gassing the Kurds because he wasn't physically involved in the genocide/gendercide.

He was just as responsible, although Hussein's intentions were sinister, they produced the same result as Bush war in Iraq-huge amounts of civilians dying.

 

[naked gent]

It is important to keep in mind that Rumsfeld didn't just come up with the lean, high tech military all on his own. Lots of guys with lots of brass on their epaulets were part of that plan, and in pre-insurgent Iraq, it did work. It was not designed to fight long term insurgencies, it was designed to tailor the American military to a post Cold War, smaller, faster reaction force. So much for new ideas...

Rummy made his share of mistakes but the military he advocated is the correct one for us. Absent an attack on the U.S. mainland the american public won't support protracted involvement in another country, isn't that where we are today? Why fund a military capable of fighting a type of war the public won't support.

A win in Iraq is not hard to define. A win is if the elected Iraqi government can survive after we depart. Whether the new Iraq will be able to keep the insurgents at bay until it can stand on it's own. Right now, it cannot. It probably will not be able to in the future and this attempt to bring order to Baghdad is probably our final chance before the political situation here at home becomes untenable for the President.

Wow seapuppy thats a low hurdle....you're really grading on the curve here aren't you. An Iraqi goverment that stands on its own two feet but does not share our interests and in fact is closer to Iran than the Saudi's.....thats enough for you to call it a win?

Thats worth hundreds of billion of our money and our loss of life? What do we exactly get for our money here.......500 bil just to get rid of Saddam? Thats a joke and you would never see any politican try and sell that because most americans would rather use that money here to solve our social security or health insurance problems.

Of couse Bush/Cheney knew that which is why we got the WMD fantasy. If we walk out of Iraq and they become an ally of Iran you might call it a win but I doubt many will agree with you.

If you want to know what would be worth the money check out Mazda's post above yours. He knows how to get value out of his money.

 

[iman]

For sure as CIC, it is his responsibility - but I think it is improper/unfair to "blame" him. That is his job to make those decisions - he made some bad ones. He owns it. But he is not "responsible" for the deaths. Perhaps this is semantics.

Nobody else on the political landscape would have taken the country into Iraq, and the public would not have supported the war had they not been misled and lied to.

Had Colin Powell been at the Pentagon or had the State Department plan for reconstruction been followed we might be in a better situation in Iraq.

If Bush is not responsible for the deaths resulting from his decisions, who is?

 

[JayHawk]

The terrorist fanatics that have died on a reassuring regular basis. The US Military was vying for this fight since beruit, since the cole, and on and on. We wanna finish it.

 

[naked gent]

I disagree Mazda....the U.S. military prefers clean wars in which their technological superiority wins the day. Getting bogged down in any country is not their thing as evidenced by their indifference to the rise of the militias.

The first gulf war was their kind of war......this one is the kind they would rather avoid.

 

[JayHawk]

I disagree Mazda....the U.S. military prefers clean wars in which their technological superiority wins the day. Getting bogged down in any country is not their thing as evidenced by their indifference to the rise of the militias.

The first gulf war was their kind of war......this one is the kind they would rather avoid.

I disagree we hamstrung our own efforts. Were leadership mistakes made? Absolutley. However, we are now finally taking on and exposing the reason this insurgency continued past summer of 2004.....IRAN. And they have their own problems now so we could make headway. We will definatley be confining or killing the real enemy now.

 

[naked gent]

However, we are now finally taking on and exposing the reason this insurgency continued past summer of 2004.....IRAN. And they have their own problems now so we could make headway. We will definatley be confining or killing the real enemy now.

Lets be accurate in our labels here. Iran has involved themselves in Iraq but they are no supporters of the insurgency.

The insurgents are the sunni who once ruled in Iraq but now find themselves in the minority. Iran is supporting their fellow shia the majority who we also support. We can only pray that the shia we support aren't the same shia the Iranians support.

While its a good idea to cut off those supplying the shia its also a good idea to cut off those supplying the sunni insurgents.

 

[JayHawk]

The insurgents are not only the Sunni.

the lines of a civil war as I have seen it reported are

Baathist (saddam loyalist), Al-qaida, and Sunni militants

SHiite militants supported by Iranian bomb making and materials

The Iranians were in hog heaven when we the US destroyed their two major enemies Al-Qaida and Iraq. That is why they feel entitled to the role as reigning power in the middle east.

The big turn of events was when the Shiite President Maliki actually vocally and in reality started taking action against Shiite militias including Al Sadr.

From the blogs you can read inside Iraq many people simply want a end to the daily death. Which is in part why Maliki feels emboldened enough to stand up to his internal terrorist.

Now Saudi Arabia is a sunni supporting country and if undue influence, as in the case where America leaves Iraq and Iran fully backs the shiite majority, well if undue influence is perceived then Saudi Arabia will start aiding the sunni side. That could result in regional conflicts.

The reason i said we are focusing on the real enemy is because for a year a lot more sophisticated and deadly explosives have been ripping apart Iraqis and American Soldiers. We should have taken this stance MUCH MUCH sooner. That is the biggest sign that washington is running this war politically and not based off of the ground forces needs.

 

[naked gent]

The insurgents are not only the Sunni.

Yes they are.

the lines of a civil war as I have seen it reported are

Baathist (saddam loyalist), Al-qaida, and Sunni militants

SHiite militants supported by Iranian bomb making and materials

Thats the sunnis vs. the shia. Each side targets those in the opposite sect, are you reading something which says they kill their own?

The big turn of events was when the Shiite President Maliki actually vocally and in reality started taking action against Shiite militias including Al Sadr.

Well thats not really happening just yet. Even our current surge plan which consists of building police stations in the violent parts of Baghdad does not plan on building one in Sadr city. A few have been arrested but they will hardly be enough.

Now Saudi Arabia is a sunni supporting country and if undue influence, as in the case where America leaves Iraq and Iran fully backs the shiite majority, well if undue influence is perceived then Saudi Arabia will start aiding the sunni side. That could result in regional conflicts.

Somebody's supplying the sunnis now, any guesses as to who that might be?

Maybe the surge will work but as I say above it hardly matters. The likelyhood of a pro-american goverment ruling in Baghdad is slim. Dick Cheney wonders if we have the stomach to see this through......how much of a stomach does it take to fight to place in power those who will promptly turn their backs on you.

 

[JayHawk]

How can you in one sentence say that the only insurgents are sunni then mention Sadr who has the biggest Illegal Militia.

It is working, Sadr is running, He told members of parliment under his control to stop striking and go back to work, and he had his militia put down their arms and patrol without weapons.

 

[naked gent]

Mazda I guess it depends on who you mean by "insurgents". If you mean anyone who is in a militia then you're right.

What I mean and what I thought was generally meant is sunnis who are against the americans and the current elected goverment.

al Sdar supports and members of his party are part of the current goverment. Given that an insurgent is defined as someone who rises up against a goverment or political authority how can al Sadr be considered an insurgent.

Its not as if either side is exactly targeting americans. When they kill each other at a clip of 100 per day and we loose 3 0r 4 our losses do seem incidental to the overall battle.