Three Iraq Possibilities: Victory, Defeat and Quagmire

Once again, George Bush's narrow worldview is revealed by his "logic." Had he served in Viet Nam, or not spent those years in a drunken torpor, Bush would know that victory and defeat are not the only possibilities: the other is that we can win every battle but settle in to a long, costly, grinding attrition war, where the victor is the one with the most staying power. Bush has recently discovered this fact, that something akin to a "will to win" is needful in a prolonged war, but he does not understand that there is no way our will to win in Iraq will ever match that of the Sunnis. Bush, and others on the right, are busy trying to bolster public support for the war, but they fail to realize that support is generated by the facts of the case, not mere propaganda.

For us, this is a war of choice. For the "insurgents," this is a matter of national survival. It is pitiful that Bush, who has been alive to witness the conflict in Israel for his entire lifetime, has no understanding of Arab nationalism. The Israelis have stayed the course because that conflict is also a war of national survival for them, yet today, even most schoolchildren in Israel realize there must be a political solution.

The bottom line is that the Sunnis will fight us as long as they are there, and Bush refuses to leave so long as the Sunnis fight us. $500 billion, 2K+ US lives lost, and Bush has not learned the first thing about the enemy. He cannot refer back to the history of European colonialism in Arab lands for lessons because he is entirely ignorant of it. So long as he claims that Iraqi democracy holds important lessons for Damascus and Tehran, without also pointing to Riyadh, his brazen hypocrisy will be apparent to the enemy. Bush and Cheney can deny imperial ambitions all they want, the longer we are there the less plausible this becomes.

Bush now claims that victory and defeat are the only possibilities, again proving his utter ignorance of the lessons of history. those of us who are opposed to the war, and were from the beginning, are supposed to support him now because not to do so would be to choose defeat. Once again, he is wrong. We are not free to choose between victory and defeat. The third possibility, that of a long, costly and bloody stalemate, was apparent to all with eyes to see and brains to think from the very beginning.

they parrot the al Qaeda crap rather than admit that few people would put up with this kind of occupation, especially when it's obvious the point is to pillage their country of oil.

terms.

"We have won the war which we did not need to start, did not need to send brave men and women to lose there lives for. We won that war... Now the occupation and Imperial nature of our stay there is another conflict that we need not undertake. Over the next 6 months we will begin a draw down in Iraq but keep a close presence in the gulf with our navy and marines...."

Bush has declared victory several times already--hell, it's on the backdrop every time he speaks nowadays. If we have won, why can't we get the hell out of there?

Declare victory and leave.

For clearly, we won the "war". The war was with Saddam Hussein's dictatorial government in IRAQ, which has long since been completely demolished, deconstructed and defeated. There are no remnants of that government except insofar as the insurgents are people who lived in IRAQ prior to th war (though some of whom may well have been low to middle level employees of the former government). We "won", there can be no real argument.

Furthermore, it's plain to see that this occupation provides impetus for a self-sustaining insurgency, the solution to which is simply withdrawal. Altogether not nearly as difficult as the Administration would have us believe. Withdraw to remote bases :hide: at the edges of the country, create a "No-Go" zone around them for security then just stand-off and watch the IRAQI military/security forces deal with the problems. Lend tactical air support, share surveillance/intelligence and provide logistics and material support as well as ongoing training as needed for a period of time... Result? Troops out of harm's way and the opportunity for IRAQI's to take responsibility for their own country--which is the strongest motivator and fastest way by which they will approach self-sufficiency. How much political control can we enforce from there? Who knows, but is it really our right to care? Is it our right to tell the people of another country how to live their lives and govern their country? Perhaps if we had actually "annexed" IRAQ in imperial fashion and made them a territory of the United States we would be obligated/empowered to do so--whether we would have a moral right to do so or not. We didn't, wouldn't and aren't going to do anything like that (and the world might have something to say about it if we did). So what would we be left with? Are we to punish them by force or by sanctions until they choose to further develop and/or maintain a western style "Democracy" or otherwise do as we demand? In any event, with such proximity, surely it would be easy to gather certain forms intelligence and mount forays against identified "terrorist" cells--which even then, our efforts should be secondary to the IRAQI national forces responding to terrorists identified by IRAQI national intelligence or populations. Seems to me it could work well.

That's probably the wisest. No defeat or victory is involved, because no standard for judging either is pasted together out of thin air, as the Bushist's nonstandard-standard has been.

Though I had thought that was implicit. Very well, then, three, no, FOUR, are the possibilities in Iraq.




Armaments, chapter two, verses nine through twenty-one.
"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.

The U.S. military has always been able to bomb the hell
out of almost any country, some with more powerful
retaliation than others. We've previously chosen our fights
more wisely....

The question regarding the invasion of Iraq, a clearly
militarily weaker country, is at what cost.

that it is perfectly reasonable to spend our last remaining dollar so that our last remaining soldier can have one last bullet to kill terrorists, YOU'RE SUPPORTING TERROR!

about middle east governments or at least have less knowledge than he....

My prediction is that getting thrown out is the more likely option.

The "war" was lost the moment the first GI crossed the border.