Hamburger, I'd like to get back to our discussion about what is and is not "success in Iraq."
First, I wish to emphasize my recognition of the obvious fact that you like anyone else are as free as I am to define "success in Iraq."
My definition (shown again below) is based on my prediction that the Iraq government will not decide to ask the US military to leave Iraq until they are confident they can protect non-murderers from being killed by mass murderers in Iraq. If that prediction were to prove true and such confidence by the Iraq government were to prove justified, then when the Iraq government does make that decision, the US will have succeeded in Iraq.
However, what about the possibility that the Iraq government decides to ask the US to remove its military from Iraq before they can protect their non-murderers from being killed by mass murderers in Iraq? In that case, the US will have not succeeded.
Should the US leave when asked by the Iraqi government regardless? I say YES! Staying when we are asked to leave will not allow the US to succeed. We will be compelled to find an alternate plan to succeed in protecting American non-murderers from mass murderers in Iraq (or elsewhere) emigrating to America.
Quote:old europe wrote:ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"
ican711nm wrote:
(1)The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month;
(2) the Iraq Government continues for one year after that to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and
(3) al-Qaeda continues for one year after that to be denied sanctuary anywhere in Iraq by the Iraq government.