Why the pessimism?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's also what you have to do. Wars aren't won when their 'moral' objectives are achieved. Only when military ones are.

OK, let's reassert. The US destroys the Baath. 6 months after they leave. Some Baath partisans take back the power. Was the war won?

Seriously, your definition of war is pointless. This particular one won't be won until Iraq is stable and democratic. Else, the term 'war' would only be valid when it involves military operations from official legal states. So, what about the war on terror? the war against crime? the war against drugs?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The US destroys the Baath. 6 months after they leave. Some Baath partisans take back the power. Was the war won?

Yes... if the US destroys the Ba'ath party and then leaves, and then later the Ba'ath take over again, that doesn't mean the US lost the war, they lost the peace.

the term 'war' would only be valid when it involves military operations from official legal states.

Yes, mostly. Doesn't have to be official legal states, it can be an organized opposition force with leadership, etc.

So, what about the war on terror? the war against crime? the war against drugs?

None of them are truely wars. Even the 'War on Terror' isn't a real war.

This particular one won't be won until Iraq is stable and democratic.

The war is over. Having Iraq being a democratic state is part of the nation building aftermath of the war.

[Fake Boris]

That would be because you are a lawyer interested in pointless semantics. Yeah, it may not be a war in the sense of Geneva's convention, but who cares, really?

Iraq was justified as a morally right war- therefore, it requires that both the war and the peace be won. Anything else is a failure, and you know it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Iraq was justified as a morally right war- therefore, it requires that both the war and the peace be won. Anything else is a failure, and you know it.

According to its justification, Iraq has easily already been won. Saddam is gone. Was it justified on the ground that we'll build a democracy in the ME? No, it was justified on getting rid of Saddam, a brutal dictator.

Any 'failure' is a failure of the peace. The war has already been won. And it isn't semantics because that is what the word means... man, do I hate revionists .

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
According to its justification, Iraq has easily already been won. Saddam is gone. Was it justified on the ground that we'll build a democracy in the ME? No, it was justified on getting rid of Saddam, a brutal dictator.

Any 'failure' is a failure of the peace. The war has already been won. And it isn't semantics because that is what the word means... man, do I hate revionists .

No, if you get rid of Saddam only to have him replaced by someone just as bad, you've actually lost.

Well, you don't really care, don't you? As long as he protects free market and oil wells, he's fine, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, if you get rid of Saddam only to have him replaced by someone just as bad, you've actually lost.

But that doesn't change the fact that you've won the war!

Simply because Germany rose up and took over France in 1940 doesn't mean that France did not win WW1.

Well, you don't really care, don't you? As long as he protects free market and oil wells, he's fine, right?

And the strawmen come out in full force. Wouldn't expect anything less from a commie bastard who'd rather see a Stalinist paradise .

[Zevico]

This argument is over nothing but a faulty definition.
Imran takes war to mean an actual military conflict. By his definition of war, America won the war. This is not in dispute.
Whether the USA will achieve its goals in going into Iraq is the matter being discussed. If someone as bad as Saddam gets into power, then the goals of the USA will not have been achieved.
The true underlying justification of the war, as Imran stated, was to get Saddam out because of the danger he posed--not because he had WMD but because the USA thought he would be crazy enough to use them. I really don't understand what this argument was about...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
According to its justification, Iraq has easily already been won. Saddam is gone.

Uh, no. Not until you find all those BCN weapons and destroy them. Or perhaps Syria got them already? Heads will roll!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Iraq was justified as a morally right war- therefore, it requires that both the war and the peace be won. Anything else is a failure, and you know it.

And so WWI was a failure from the POV of the Commonwealth. We bled to win the war on account of the danger to Britain, but the peace was lost. Do you agree?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I am pretty impressed with the amount of informations Oerdin provides here. I sincerely hope, that they won't cause him to get in troubles.

I sincerely hope the brass doesn't find out about it so I don't have to explain it.

Seriously, I believe most of it is safe though the military often tries to pretend that even safe info must be kept totally secret which I disagree with. The people have a right to know about everything which doesn't directly indanger soldiers on the battlefield or risk national security. I don't believe I've done either. I've simply shared my thoughts and observations from the war zone.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by debeest
Oerdin, I want to bump my question. What do you see as a reasonably likely positive outcome in Iraq?

If Iraq can be turned into something similiar to Turkey then I think we can consider it a success. That means a fairly stable democracy which has a few worts but which by and large shows steady improvement both economically and in social rights. It would be nice if, like Turkey, Iraq became a western ally.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Interestingly, people with university degrees tend to be more liberal- so maybe our overeducation is morte than balacning out the massive male whiteness of the board?"

That isn't correct. The most liberal groups tend to be people who have never been to college, and people who have a post-graduate degree. Moreover people here aren't liberal in the typical American sense, they are far left-wing extremists who are totally outside of the mainstream. Whether it's civ players who are like this or people who like posting on off topic boards about civ games, we don't know.

[NeOmega]

Oerdin, I remember you from before you left, you said you ooposed the war.

You are now in your world, and you must deal with it.

It has nothing to do with how the average Iraqi feels. Wars are not about average people, they are just the ones who get hurt by them.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
That isn't correct. The most liberal groups tend to be people who have never been to college, and people who have a post-graduate degree. Moreover people here aren't liberal in the typical American sense, they are far left-wing extremists who are totally outside of the mainstream. Whether it's civ players who are like this or people who like posting on off topic boards about civ games, we don't know.

Nope. What you call the 'extreme left' is the normal center left in Europe.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But that doesn't change the fact that you've won the war!

Simply because Germany rose up and took over France in 1940 doesn't mean that France did not win WW1.

Methinks there's a difference between 30 years and 3 years.
I mean, whatever. You may have won the war, but you'll have lost. Intransitively, with no object complement.

And the strawmen come out in full force. Wouldn't expect anything less from a commie bastard who'd rather see a Stalinist paradise .

You are a fascist. I am right and you are wrong.