What is "winning" in Iraq?

[npincus]

CNN was pimping "How to Win in Iraq" this weekend; and "winning" in Iraq seems to be our endgame.

But "winning" a war is when one country satisfies it's strategic or national security objective for entering that war in the first place-- the reason given was Sadaam's stockpile of WMD. We found none, have admitted that much, so what is there to "win"? At best, we are there to repair the damage we've done by going in the first place. And unless we can reanimate many thousands of dead people, that isn't possible.

"Winning in Iraq" is a crock. B*sh's Iraq Folly is an orgy of death, disgrace and loss. When is this phrase going to be put out of it's misery?

[Spazito]

1. To the bush cabal, imo, "winning" in Iraq really means keeping

the public fearful in order to keep control of Congress and, seeing the latest polls, they have lost that one too.

[Warpy]

2. They should have declared victory and prepared to withdraw

the second Hussein was turned over to them.

There are only two ways this thing could have been salvaged: doing a Marshall Plan for Iraq to get Iraqis back to work at 100% employment rebuilding their country or declaring victory once Hussein was caught and leaving the country.

There is no way to salvage anything now.

[knowbody0]

3. Exactly!

Winning what? we've created 300,000 refugees, killed over 100,000, destroyed any semblence of civilized society. All of Iraq is suffering from depression and PTSD, it is not safe anywhere. Shame on us.

[Lasher]

4. Nobody knows, there is no objective

The reasons for invading keep changing all the time.

WMD? Didn't find any, can we go home now?
Regieme change? Check, and Saddam's captured, can we go home now?

Bringing freedom and democracy, blah blah... Okey fine they had their election, can we go home now?

Fighting the terrorists in Iraq? But there weren't any before, they cropped up because we invaded. Maybe they'll go away if we do, can we go home now?

Fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here? The administration said another attack here is inevitable, so where's the 'won't have to fight them here' part come from?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the Idiot-In-Chief and his neocons have from the very start had a deliberate intention that we will never leave Iraq?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. DUPE

sorry dupe-network problems

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. DUPE

sorry dupe

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Who knows?

I don't think Bush has really seemed to define what "winning" in Iraq would look like (at least not recently), however I would argue that, at least based on the reasons we were given for going to war with Iraq in the first place, we really HAVE "won" in Iraq and, theoretically, we should have already withdrawn or at least begun the process of withdrawing our troops by now. To date:

1.)We "disarmed" Iraq: We have ensured that Iraq does not currently possess any WMD (although Clinton and the UN had already taken care of this even before Bush took office).
2.)We removed Saddam Hussein and his government from power and killed or imprisoned him and nearly all of the members of his former regime. (Also, unlike some "terrorists", they are actually getting a trial)
3.)We helped ensure the election of a "sovereign" and democratic Iraqi government ("purple thumbs" up!:woohoo: ).

At this point, our leaders' reasons for being in Iraq ("staying the course") seem unclear at best or non-existent at worse. :shrug: Unfortunately, I think that this apparent "vagueness" by the Bush (mis-)administration in regards to Iraq is intentionally designed to allow them to simultaneously bolster their "tough on terrorism" mirage and to tar the Democrats or anybody else whom opposes our continued (or initial) involvement in Iraq as "weak", "terrorist appeasers", or "soft on terrorism". I truly believe that Bush/GOP is only keeping this up until after the mid-term elections at which time it is likely that Bush will quietly start withdrawing troops.

In the interests of full-disclosure, I was opposed to the invasion/occupation of Iraq from the beginning.

[catnhatnh]

8. For anyone actually IN Iraq at the boots level....

...it means the same as in Vietnam-surviving...

[Parche]

9. iraq

Havn't you ever played 'RISK'?? by winning you have all of your armies in one area,
and then attack to take over the world

[NeedleCast]

10. An Impossible Scenario

We can't win in Iraq. There's nothing to win. We're not at war with Iraq. We're not at war with it's government or it's people. We're at war with some shadowy figures which Bush has only made stronger. Unfortunatly it's happening in Iraq's back yard and tearing up their house.

The US forgot after WW-II that the only way to win a war is to destroy your enemies capacity to make war. This is why war should be ONLY A LAST RESORT, because you can't fight nice and win. War is not a boxing match, it is a bar brawl turned deadly. Problem is we're not at war with Iraq. Destorying Iraq is not the goal (although we're certainly doing a good job of it).

We're really "at war" with the ideology of fanaticism (and I realize that's seriously under stating the problem) and it can't be killed in a conventional war.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. You are so right - It would be like playing a football game with

no clock. It also screws the next president since "they" can
ALWAYS say he/she cut and run if "they" want to, no matter
what the new prez does.

Sad, sad, approaching milestone: 2.752 died in the WTC on 9-11 - As of yesterday
US dead in Iraq - 2,748.

[spanone]

12. We have already lost. There is no win.