What does "Victory in Iraq" Mean?

Conservatives are still using the phrase "We won't get out of Iraq until we have achieved victory"?

However I have know idea what this means. We have already gotten rid of Saddam, and we have ensured that there are no WMD's in Iraq. Is it possible that we have already achieved victory and can start leaving now?

If victory means a stable pro-US government, then staying in Iraq until we get victory means we will be staying in Iraq for a very long time. The problem, of course, is that a government is only stable if all major parts of society accept it (either through an agreed fairness, or through repression). The current government is going in the wrong direction-- getting less and less stable every day as sectarian violence continues rising daily.

So my question is simple. I would like your opinion on what specific things must happen before we can declare that we have "victory" in Iraq (and can start leaving).

I ask that if you respond, you be specific and measurable-- a good measure of victory would be something like-- less then 10 acts of political violence a day.

It's possible to establish a pro-US government in Iraq but at the point of a gun. A Democratically elected pro-US government in Iraq is far fetched. We're so hated in the ME that creating Democracies there is not likely to lead to any pro-US government.

I was looking for more specifics Madam, but we can start here...

The term sovereignty in this context is kind of silly.

You are basically saying, we will end the military occupation when you show sovereignty (kind of like the boss who said the beating would stop as soon as morale improves).

Of course the big problem with sovereignty is that very few Iraqi's want a sovereign Iraq. The Shiites want the power their majority (without the interference from the US and other outside powers) entitles them. The Sunnis want what is best for the Sunnis, and of course the Kurds will want a Kurdish state.

This means the US, being the only power in Iraq that wants a sovereign Iraq, is in the position of trying to force people to do what they don't want to do.

This is the recipe for a stalemate-- with the US imposing a fake government by force that most people don't want. This will mean the US troops will be their for a very very long time.

There is also the problem with Democracy. A real Democracy would mean that the people could demand whatever they wanted without interference from an occupying military power.

If the Iraqi people voted on it and the will of the majority would be respected, the American troops would be out tomorrow.

Hezballah and Hamas have both benefitted greatly from the Democracy we have brought to the region.

A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.

If the Iraqi people voted on it and the will of the majority would be respected, the American troops would be out tomorrow.

Brandon9000 wrote:

A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.

At this juncture, do you seriously believe that is possible?

kelticwizard wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.

At this juncture, do you seriously believe that is possible?

One tries to do the right thing, even when difficult. You don't just walk away from people who will suffer greatly because you do.

ebrown_p wrote:

Conservatives are still using the phrase "We won't get out of Iraq until we have achieved victory"?

However I have know idea what this means. We have already gotten rid of Saddam, and we have ensured that there are no WMD's in Iraq. Is it possible that we have already achieved victory and can start leaving now?

If victory means a stable pro-US government, then staying in Iraq until we get victory means we will be staying in Iraq for a very long time. The problem, of course, is that a government is only stable if all major parts of society accept it (either through an agreed fairness, or through repression). The current government is going in the wrong direction-- getting less and less stable every day as sectarian violence continues rising daily.

So my question is simple. I would like your opinion on what specific things must happen before we can declare that we have "victory" in Iraq (and can start leaving).

I ask that if you respond, you be specific and measurable-- a good measure of victory would be something like-- less then 10 acts of political violence a day.

Simple, when the Iraqis can & do take care of their own soveringty, their own safety, keep & build on the taste of democracy thay have been given.
This isn't a video game war, this is real stuff & there has never been nor will never be instant gratification in a war.

Brandon9000 wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.

At this juncture, do you seriously believe that is possible?

One tries to do the right thing, even when difficult. You don't just walk away from people who will suffer greatly because you do.

With a half-a-million dead, the Iraqis seem to be suffering pretty-damned much without the prospect that we will just walk away. In fact, it looks like the American presence is proving far more lethal to them than was the former Ba'athist regime.

How about, rather than sniping at those with whom you disagree, you offer a concrete and realistic statement of what you consider "the right thing" is that we must do?

What does "Victory in Iraq" Mean?

That was sniping? I answered the question asked in the post opening thread. Furthermore, even if they are suffering now, it's unrelated to the idea that we don't wish to abandon a feeble democracy and just watch it fall.

Brandon9000 wrote:

That was sniping? I answered the question asked in the post opening thread. Furthermore, even if they are suffering now, it's unrelated to the idea that we don't wish to abandon a feeble democracy and just watch it fall.

No, you were not answering the question asked in the opening post, you were responding to KW's question about your response to the opening post--which was vague and non-specific. Your response to KW implied that anyone who does not think as you do intends not to "do the right thing," and intends to "just walk away from people who will suffer." I consider that to be partisan sniping.

E_brown's opening post asked for specifics, and you have provided none. In the context of his opening post: you have failed to specify what a stable democracy will be, and how you will determine that it is capable of defending itself. It was rather the point of this thread, if i read E_brown's opening post correctly, to get specifics, and not vague bromides. Specifically, he wrote:

So my question is simple. I would like your opinion on what specific things must happen before we can declare that we have "victory" in Iraq (and can start leaving).

I have emphasized the important word here which tends to beggar your initial response, to which KW had responded.

I would like your opinion on what specific things must happen before we can declare that we have "victory" in Iraq (and can start leaving).

A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.