The death of U.S. strategy in Iraq

[EV_Ares]

Tokyo; and Cambridge, Mass. - John McCain has set off a firestorm by suggesting that the timing of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is "not too important." What is important, he said, are the casualties in Iraq, pointing to long-term US troop presence in Japan, South Korea, and Germany. He should be commended for his "straight talk" in articulating what he believes, despite its unpopularity.

But Senator McCain has yet to give the American people clear answers to three fundamental questions: What, exactly, are the political objectives of keeping large numbers of American soldiers in Iraq for years to come? What plausible outcome would benefit the United States enough to justify the wrenching costs of achieving those objectives? And what, concretely, is the strategy for getting there?

McCain may genuinely believe there is still a political objective, albeit a far more modest one than President Bush and the war's supporters originally articulated, that can justify the sacrifice of still more American lives and treasure. But if he can't do better than slogans such as "winning" and "stability," it's hard to avoid the conclusion that such an objective simply doesn't exist. And in that case, we can add one more exorbitant cost to the war's bill: the death of strategy.

What outcome can justify the costs of fighting on?

For the rest of The Christian Science Monitor article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0617/p09s02-coop.html

[KharmaTrain]

1. There's Always Been A Strategy...War For Profit

The other day TPM ran a feature on the billions squandered by Blackwater, but also alluded to the fact that there are as many contractors in Iraq now as there are U.S. military which makes this a bigger mess to deal with. When it comes to withdrawl, how does one deal with these mercenaries? Give them a deadline to get out? Just pull our own troops out and let them fend for themselves? Or will they find a way to profit from the withdrawl as they did from everything else? It's an elephant in the room that I wish Senator Obama would discuss.

The objective in this war has always been to benefit a military-industrial complex that can't rake in the cash fast enough. That's been the strategy since anything else makes no sense.

One of the biggest shell games played by repugnicans is trying to get them to define what a "victory" is in Iraq. What constitutes a "peace" or "victory" that would allow us to remove troops? What's the benchmark for saying that "mission is acocmplished"? Is it a partisianed Iraq? A new strongman who take orders from Washington? The status quo? You'll never get a straight answer as these people have gotten so lost in this mess and the rhetoric, they can't admit how bankrupt the political prospects are.

[liberal N proud]

2. That is the only clear strategy they ever had

[calimary]

3. Kick!

What outcome can justify the costs of fighting on? And for HOW LONG are we supposed to fight on? When is it too big a price to pay for the minimal or even imaginary results we'll get out of that hellhole?

[bemildred]

4. Spending boatloads of money is not a strategy, and it never has been.