Victory? Please define

[fed1943]

You very right, EST: victory to whom, that's the point.

But, such as to Iraq people, to each American, or to each American
group, victory can be a diverse thing.
Does anybody think that victory has the same meaning to Mr. Bush,
to a military, to a right wing, to a left wing, to the Board of Essex?

Best regards,

[Lazerus]

Can any of you define victory, and how you would be able to show that victory was achieved.

Opposition = Saddam
Saddam = dead
death of Saddam = Victory.

Has the victory made the situation any better ?
Well that's a different question which hasn't been answered yet.

[Kataphraktoi]

I support the war somewhat, but i have thought from square one victory is impossible. I say its all flying past the OP though

[East Street Trader]

I wonder what the position would seem like now had the suspicion that Saddam Hussein held stockpiles of missiles together with nuclear or chemical warheads proved well founded?

Maybe not very different.

[Spec]

Victory: The white house and Texas vaporized.

Now THATS victory for all of us.

EDIT: throw arkansas in there.

Spec.

[PLATO]

Wow...I'm suprised that so many people don't actually listen to what's going on around them. Perhaps reading too many liberal blogs all the time?

Victory, as has been repeatedly stated, is when a viable Iraqi force can sustain the democratically elected government without active combat help from the coalition.

That's when the majority of our folks get to come home. That's when the "regime change" will be complete. That is what the Government has been consistently saying for years now.

It is just so much easier to be able to whine about not knowing what victory is because you chose to listen to those who wish to confuse the issue with far left wing agendas than to actually acknowledge that their is a clear point to what we will call victory.

The major stumbling block is not the insurgency...not the relationship with the Sunni...not the fact that the Iraqis elected themselves a real crappy government. It is simply the difficulty of being able to create a force that can accomplish the objective. Until that time, it is the US job to keep the country stable enough for the elected government to survive.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
I wonder what the position would seem like now had the suspicion that Saddam Hussein held stockpiles of missiles together with nuclear or chemical warheads proved well founded?

Maybe not very different.

I was maybe the last person in the world to be convinced that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. --But I was against this war from the beginning.

If you remember, this war had a double premise. First, Saddam had WMD. Second, he was about to give the WMD to his good friends al Qaeda, who would use them on us. These two assumptions appeared placed America in immenent risk of attack, thus "justifying" our pre-emptive war.

But it was a well known fact that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda hated each other. So, from the get-go, this war has not made any sense.

Victory in Iraq = Never having invaded in the first place.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I was maybe the last person in the world to be convinced that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. --But I was against this war from the beginning.

If you remember, this war had a double premise. First, Saddam had WMD. Second, he was about to give the WMD to his good friends al Qaeda, who would use them on us. These two assumptions appeared placed America in immenent risk of attack, thus "justifying" our pre-emptive war.

But it was a well known fact that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda hated each other. So, from the get-go, this war has not made any sense.

Victory in Iraq = Never having invaded in the first place.

The WMD was never the real issue. It was the only issue under which the US could obtain any kind of international umbrela. UNSC 1441 provided the legal cover the US needed. As far as the premise that Saddam wouyld give WMD to al Qaeda, this was never stated anywhere from the government. The possibility that he would supply wmd to terrorist was mentioned, but AQ was not specifically named anywhere. The inference, however, given 9/11 was clear. This administration has walked a very tightrope in what they have said versus the impression they give. They have tried to do this internationally as well. Both to their detriment I must say.

I would have been much happier if we had just said the truth..."We are going to try and change the face of the ME and we are starting here. Any questions?"

[Sandman]

Victory, as has been repeatedly stated, is when a viable Iraqi force can sustain the democratically elected government without active combat help from the coalition.

That's unlikely to happen. Why not settle for a semi-dictatorship like in the rest of the Muslim world?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sandman


That's unlikely to happen. Why not settle for a semi-dictatorship like in the rest of the Muslim world?

It is certainly not likely given the type of timetables the liberals are pushing. An early withdrawal from Iraq is a certain recipe for disaster.

If the result is a viable, stable Iraq, then what is the problem of taking the 5 years or so that it will take to get things right? We have already been there for nearly 5 already.

This is another case of people really not listening. The government has been telling us that it will be a long haul since the beginning...albiet they certainly didn't forsee the military complications (which imho were mainly their very poor post invasion planning).

The whole point of Iraq was to get away from the dictatorial type regimes and begin to establish true democracy in the region. Certainly the democratic form of government has led to less conflict in the long run and is a well worthwhile goal.

[Ramo]

The major stumbling block is not the insurgency...not the relationship with the Sunni...not the fact that the Iraqis elected themselves a real crappy government. It is simply the difficulty of being able to create a force that can accomplish the objective.

Where have you been? That hasn't been the strategy for the past eight months. The entire logic of the surge is that a pure military solution isn't going to work, and that the real stumbling block is that the political leaders need work out some really messy compromises. None of which has been accomplished so far, and little of which is expected to be accomplished by the time we need to start redeploying troops out of Iraq (the deadline seems to be about April)...

[Patroklos]

The point of the surge is to establish security from which all else will follow, which is exactly what PLATO said.

We didn't have parliamentary lockins and hope security would follow.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

The major stumbling block is not the insurgency...not the relationship with the Sunni...not the fact that the Iraqis elected themselves a real crappy government. It is simply the difficulty of being able to create a force that can accomplish the objective.

Where have you been? That hasn't been the strategy for the past eight months. The entire logic of the surge is that a pure military solution isn't going to work, and that the real stumbling block is that the political leaders need work out some really messy compromises. None of which has been accomplished so far, and little of which is expected to be accomplished by the time we need to start redeploying troops out of Iraq (the deadline seems to be about April)...

I am really amazed at your lack of understanding. The inability of the US forces to raise a force capable of providing enough stability for the goverment to function is the reason for the surge. It is impossible for many of the politicians to work out the "messy compromises" until some type of stability can be ensured. Far from a departure from the stated policy, the surge is an acknowledgement of the failure to quickly bring a trained professional Iraqi force to the ground. In fact, the stability that the surge is beginning to create is allowing more Iraqis to stand up for military service.

The real problem in Iraq is the artificial timeline that the libs keep insisting on. The solutions to that country's problems will take time and are worthwhile. To leave in the middle will create disaster and is simply irresponsible.

[Ramo]

No, he claimed that the major stumbling block was to create a viable army. The lack of a viable army follows from the lack of political compromise. In other words, we're not going to get a viable army before the Iraqi political factions work out a compromise.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by PLATO
UNSC 1441 provided the legal cover the US needed.

Didn't we argue the diplomatic and legal nitpickings of 1441 and every other resolution it cites back on MZO a few years back? If memory serves me well, you disappeared from the debate once it became obvious your interpretation was not exactly the correct one. And yet after all this time you keep repeating the same despite knowing very well otherwise...

I would have been much happier if we had just said the truth..."We are going to try and change the face of the ME and we are starting here. Any questions?"

Didn't really work out that well did it?