Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

To clarify what I mean by 'winning' - are the seeds of stability taking root over there? This is a crucial question that will be debated continually over the next few months. Do not mistake my question as "Should we have gone to war"; we've beat that dead horse a million times over.

 

From my perspective, the surge seems to be working. It looks like the turning point was Maliki sending troops into Basra against Al Sadr, a fellow Shiite. That seems to have given him credibility with the Sunni's and Kurds demonstrating that he is a national leader and not just a 'shiite' leader.

 

Or was Harry Reid right?

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
I would say we're "winning" when are troops are coming home. Not before, not one minute.

Interesting standard. Does this mean we lost World War II or that we're still fighting it?

 

You can't ignore a 17 month trend. The violence is way down. Military deaths are down and Iraqi security is stepping up. The country is clearly stabilizing and we're on the way to a pretty remarkable achievement.

Posted

17 month trend after how many years...? yeah that's nice. Sorry, for me until the Iraqi government is ready to take over completely and troops are ready to come home... I'm not really going to call anything winning or mission accomplished, again.

Posted
I would say we're "winning" when are troops are coming home. Not before, not one minute.

 

Thus illustrating the biggest part of the problem: no one can agree on what "victory" is supposed to be in Iraq. Used to be "a free democracy". Now it's "stability". Unless you're completely anti-war, in which case it's "No more Americans die (and who gives a sh-- about A-Rabs, by the way)." And then there's the complete idiots who believe victory involves somehow retroactively banning the invasion so it in some moral sense never happened - fortunately a distinct minority.

 

 

Interestingly, what's probably the most sane definition - an Iraq independent of US support - is embraced by all sides, even though everyone's too busy fighting over it to realize it.

Posted
Thus illustrating the biggest part of the problem: no one can agree on what "victory" is supposed to be in Iraq. Used to be "a free democracy". Now it's "stability". Unless you're completely anti-war, in which case it's "No more Americans die (and who gives a sh-- about A-Rabs, by the way)." And then there's the complete idiots who believe victory involves somehow retroactively banning the invasion so it in some moral sense never happened - fortunately a distinct minority.

 

 

Interestingly, what's probably the most sane definition - an Iraq independent of US support - is embraced by all sides, even though everyone's too busy fighting over it to realize it.

 

That unfortunately is what we've had to settle on with this mess. But I believe it is an obtainable goal if conditions continue to improve the way they have recently. Hopefully we don't go broke first...

Posted
That unfortunately is what we've had to settle on with this mess. But I believe it is an obtainable goal if conditions continue to improve the way they have recently. Hopefully we don't go broke first...

 

 

I am sure that if McCain gets elected we'll go broke first.

Posted
17 month trend after how many years...? yeah that's nice. Sorry, for me until the Iraqi government is ready to take over completely and troops are ready to come home... I'm not really going to call anything winning or mission accomplished, again.

So you're ready to dismiss a 17 month trend and won't even commit to "winning" when things are clearly improving?

 

Gosh, it's almost like people don't want to acknowledge any good news from the region. :devil:

Posted
So you're ready to dismiss a 17 month trend and won't even commit to "winning" when things are clearly improving?

 

Gosh, it's almost like people don't want to acknowledge any good news from the region. :devil:

 

 

 

No, there has been good news from there. Just as there has been bad news. People, like me, are getting tired of hearing about the "good news" when major officials involved come out and say that even though there have been some progress, we are not even close to the light at the end of the tunnel. Statements like those are what drive me to say it's not about winning, it's about knowing when to say we've done enough and to get out.

Posted
No, there has been good news from there. Just as there has been bad news. People, like me, are getting tired of hearing about the "good news" when major officials involved come out and say that even though there have been some progress, we are not even close to the light at the end of the tunnel. Statements like those are what drive me to say it's not about winning, it's about knowing when to say we've done enough and to get out.

 

Part of the problem is that you don't really HEAR good news; what the mass media reports is whatever is salacious...which in a war zone is blood. No blood, no news. The news we get out of Iraq (or Afghanistan, or any other conflict region) is generally bad via corporate bias.

 

On the other hand...there is the question of how worthwhile it is to keep pouring SO much money down a bottomless pit, no matter how good the news is. But hell, the US government doesn't give a sh--, it's not their money they're spending...

Posted
Part of the problem is that you don't really HEAR good news; what the mass media reports is whatever is salacious...which in a war zone is blood. No blood, no news. The news we get out of Iraq (or Afghanistan, or any other conflict region) is generally bad via corporate bias.

 

On the other hand...there is the question of how worthwhile it is to keep pouring SO much money down a bottomless pit, no matter how good the news is. But hell, the US government doesn't give a sh--, it's not their money they're spending...

 

 

 

 

Personally, I am getting tired of everyone blaming the media. Granted blood & guts stories sell newspaper and TV shows. However I would imagine that there are more bad stories to good.

Posted
Personally, I am getting tired of everyone blaming the media. Granted blood & guts stories sell newspaper and TV shows. However I would imagine that there are more bad stories to good.

 

And the only reason you'd have to imagine that is because it's what's reported.

 

I don't "blame" the media, mind you. It's simply a fact that it's a for-profit industry that has to compete for viewers, which biases reporting towards the salacious and thus affects people's perceptions.

×
×
  • Create New...