McCain Keeps Saying That The Americans Want To Win In Iraq.....

a couple of questions:

1. Has he defined what a win is?
2. Are we really looking for a win or just to get out without more deaths? Does winning really matter in this case?
3. By withdrawing troops from Iraq does that constitute a loss?

He has nothing (to my knowledge) to back up this claim... He might be right that they don't want to lose, but your first point... What the hell is a win anyway? Maybe he means killing the rest of the Iraqi people might be a win.

The poll is from Feb '08.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1258

:crazy:

Shit, Iran 'won' the Iraq conflict three years ago. What troops & civilians are dying for over there now is how much we're able to limit the scope of Iran's victory.

There will be problems for a short while after we pull out. Our troops are a pressure point on some level of violence there. When you let up the pressure, some more violence will erupt. But the sooner we remove the irritant of US occupation, the sooner Iraq can start to get its act together.

All that blood; all those dead people. What a horrible waste.

Sadr was Iran's boy. You haven't heard to much out of him since he surrendered Basra and then Sadr City, have you?

I don't think you can say that and then tell me to pay more attention. Sadr & his very recent supporters in Iran are a short term marriage of convenience. They're allies because our troops are there. Sadr's long term goals are as a populist conservative Iraqi nationalist. He wants to keep his country from from all foreign domination. We basically drove him into Iran's arms--and this happened only in the last two years. Had we left or dramatically reduced our presense after winning the war, he could have been won over with a modicum of porkbarrel politics. Hmmm, better make that lambbarrel politics.

The Sadrists effectively stood down Maliki's troops, by the way. He didn't surrender; he fought the government forces to a standstill. It was Maliki who blinked first because his troops weren't performing too well under fire.

This was all very recent. You have not heard the last from Moqtada al-Sadr. He's probably the most indispensible player in country right now. Failing to force him and Sistani to cut a deal is probably the biggest single failure to go with this occupation.

Meanwhile, Iranian firms continues to win development contracts and trade deals with Iraq's government. They'll be making the long term profits. And that is what the fighting is really all about.

That's the best I can do.

Is we can never get an answer on what victory IS.....all I keep hearing is "we'd rather fight the war over there, than here".....which I always reply with, "I'm sure the Iraqis really think a lot of that reasoning". That's like saying, "I'd rather have my birthday party at your house than at mine....that way the mess is in your house; not mine".

But am I wrong? Has anyone ever heard a talking head give us an answer on what victory is?

1. The Iraqi Army and Police take full tactical and strategic control of all provinces.

2. US Combat Units (ie Army BCT's and Marine RCT's) are able to rotate out of the country as the Iraqi's take over the provinces.

3. The Iraqi Government is able to maintain security in every province.

4. The Iraqi Government is able to hold fair and open elections.

5. The Iraqi government is able to provide the basic logistical services for its institutions and population , ie (water, power, etc)



The first four could happen within a year or two, the last one is going to take longer.

US combat units could be able to leave soon if things continue, but army logistical units are going to be needed for a while.

First of all, I never thought the war could be won. Nothing has changed my mind about that.

Second, I have always regarded this Mesopotamian misadventure as a colonial war. I am unalterably opposed to colonialism in all its forms. Consequently, this American never wanted to win in Iraq.

Thanks to John McCain, there is a new word in the Iraq war lexicon. Gone is George W. Bush's talk of "victory" or "winning." The new standard is merely "success."

More than a dozen times in his short opening statement on Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq, McCain cited "success" or its variations as the new goal for the war.
At the beginning of his statement, McCain included this line: "We're no longer staring into the abyss of defeat and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success." He ended as follows: "Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We should choose instead to succeed."
A distinction without a difference? Hardly. When it comes to selling war at home, language is nearly as important as the combat itself. And "success" sounds easier to achieve than "victory," even if no one really knows what either word means in the context of this war. Watch Craig's video discussion of this topic, including McCain clips, at Video Trail Mix.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/mccain-seeks-success-inst_b_95815.html

Frankly, I regard "success" and "victory" as one and the same thing, especially in a war whose goal is to alter the political culture of a nation. Bush, McCain and the neoconservatives call it bringing democracy to Iraq; it's really bringing an American-dominated neoliberal market paradigm to Iraq, but in either case, it's altering the system and leaving a friendly (i.e., crooked) pro-American government in power.

That's imperialism and I'm against it.

Democracy -- a state where citizenship is universal, equal and inalienable -- will come to Iraq when Iraqis are ready for it and not before. Of course, the neoliberal paradigm does not benefit the common people of developing countries -- nor does it do a lot for the common people of developed countries -- and is rejected wherever the common people of developing countries have the opportunity to do so, such as in Venezuela, Bolivia and Brazil. Where democracy cannot be imposed at the point of a gun, neoliberalism can only be imposed at the point of a gun. To correct Granny D, who had the formula backwards, neoconservatism is the enforcement department of neoliberalism.

They could remove all the "victory" emotionalism and just end the occupation, as we implicitly agreed to
do, when the Iraq govt is "ready."

We could start to leave whenever we dicided to, and still have our "victory."

Obviously something else is going on here, something they don't want to talk about (oil) so they pretend we still haven't "won." They even contradict themselves. (Mission Accomplished.)

They have got off on the wrong track and are too pigheaded to turn around and get it right.

That is to goal that is still illusive.

Look at the Mummy.....he has nothing but ole shit....no creative solutions none....the GOP is absent of innovative thoughts on solving without destroying...