Winning Or Losing?

[pbleighton]

"Bush told The Washington Post in Wednesday's editions that "you know, I think an interesting construct that Gen. Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing.' ""

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/20/...main/index.html

 

Who do you think is "winning" in Iraq?

 

My answer is that for once I agree with Bush: no one is winning. Everyone's losing.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Intolerance and hatred are both winning. How sad.

[pclayton]

At least he's half-right.

[hrothgar]

Good article by the Brookings Institute describing some mistakes that were made during the course of the occupation

 

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/pollack/20061214.htm

[pigpenz]

"Bush told The Washington Post in Wednesday's editions that "you know, I think an interesting construct that Gen. Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing.' ""

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/20/...main/index.html

 

Who do you think is "winning" in Iraq?

 

My answer is that for once I agree with Bush: no one is winning. Everyone's losing.

 

Peter

i always thought there are no winners in war :blink:

[mike777]

Come on you really believe this? Keep in mind millions can die horribly even with peace :blink:

 

When I read stuff like this I think do people really know there are worse things than war and that is why at times people choose war over the alternative?

 

Peace on Earth, Good will to all Men :)

[sceptic]

actually the only winner here is Saddam Hussain, all of a sudden he seems a better bet than the Britisgh or Americans, which is a very sad observation on my part

[helene_t]

I must admit that I didn't read all of that Brookings article (it's very long) but what stroke me was that it's just a long list of things that didn't work out while it's hard to see what might have worked better (expect for staying away of Iraq in the first place and spending the money on something with more perspective).

 

[...]United States created the twenty-five-member IGC and gave it an important role in guiding reconstruction. However, because Washington had not allowed enough time--let alone created the circumstances--for genuinely popular figures to emerge, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) simply appointed twenty-five Iraqi leaders well-known to them. Some, like the Kurdish leaders Jalal Talabani and Mas'ud Barzani, truly did represent their constituency. Others, like Shi'a leader 'Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, were at least respected in their community, even if they could not necessarily be trusted to speak for it. Most could not even claim that. Most were entirely unknown--a State Department poll found that only seven of them were known well enough for 40 percent or more of the population to have any opinion of them, positive or negative.

It seems quite good that seven of the members were known by at least 40% of the population, considering that the article also says that

he [sadam] had effectively "decapitated" the population by killing or co-opting any person with the charisma or stature to lead segments of the population and so pose a threat to his rule.

[Winstonm]

Once again Bush has uttered a half-truth and left unsaid the qualifier.

 

We are not winning; of course not, because there is no win.

We are not losing: no, we have already lost.

 

I am ceaselessly amazed at the discourse over Iraq, about winning and losing and what to do. At this point, winning and losing have everything to do with assuaging Bush's ego and nothing whatsoever to do with the Iraq people. The one thing lost in this charade is this: there never, at any time, was a valid reason for the invasion and Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld knew this beforehand.

 

The problem Bush is having in Iraq is in masquerading the deception - if we truly go in to "win", that is crush totally all resistance and establish our own hand-selected government then we tip our hand as to the "nation building" motive that is the real purpose of this invasion. But knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda ties, no nuclear program, and no biological warfare program, it would have been too much to send in 400,000 troops and totally anahilate Iraq and take it over as a colony with a puppet government - the world would have seen this action as no different than Germany's invasion of Poland. Hence, the hope that a "shock and awe" air campaign along with a few troops to roust the remainers would be enough to establish a puppet regime without too much fuss. We could always change our story as we went along, from WMD and biological weapons to ousting the evil Saddam, to introducing democracy to Iraq, to stabilizing the region, to whatever other excuses you could get the media to parrot.

 

To masquerade the deception, it is imperative to continue to make believe that democracy is what the Iraq people want and the reason we continue to stay is to support that aim and make sure Iraq doesn't fall into terrorist hands - isn't that a clever diversion - almost makes us forget the lies we were told to cause the invasion.

 

At this point, it is imperative for Bush to continue the war - if the troops were pulled the investigational spotlight would be back on him and his reasons for starting the war. Like any good magician, the trick has already been accomplished and now the rest is diversion and misdirection.

 

Before the war, Iraq was not a direct threat to the U.S. Now, unless we win, Iraq may be a direct threat to the U.S. I'd call that a loss no matter what happens.

[cherdano]

Good article by the Brookings Institute describing some mistakes that were made during the course of the occupation

 

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/pollack/20061214.htm

It's an interesting list of failures, but as Helene I don't trust Pollack (the author) on his overall conclusion, that Iraq would have been headed in a good direction without the many blunders by the US in post-war Iraq.

 

There are lots of things I outright disagree with:

1. I didn't notice the "international consensus" that Saddam had a WMD program at the time. It certainly didn't include the general consensus in Germany.

2. He claims that many states would have been willing to help the US in postwar Iraq more than the US asked for, and mentions Germany as an example. That's just plain wrong.

3. He claims that declining world-wide interest in keeping Saddam confined by sanctions would have made a war against Saddam necessary at some point (footnote 7). Excuse me?

4. He claims a military defensive, rather than offensive, approach to the insurgence in Iraq would have been the path to safety. My impression was that most civilian deaths in Iraq are due to bombings. I fail to understand how putting a couple of military officer in the middle of a market place will prevent a bombing.

 

This whole article has a touch of the "Civilization" computer game to me. Had we just invented Nation-Building in time, Iraq would be a prosperous country now. (Pollack claims that a lack of personnel experienced in Nation-Building was one of the major problems in Iraq.)

 

I am also surprized that Pollack always never mentions the need of enough personnel that are familiar with Iraq itself, or arabic culture, etc.

 

In some ways, I detest the current US Iraq discussion as much as I detested the prewar discussion at the time. Everybody is criticizing the failure in Iraq, but too few are going to the heart of the matter, whether invading was wrong in the first place.

[pigpenz]

actually the only winner here is Saddam Hussain, all of a sudden he seems a better bet than the Britisgh or Americans, which is a very sad observation on my part

I think that is why the first president Bush didnt go in and take out Sadaam cause there was no certainty that the replacement would be better

[Winstonm]

In some ways, I detest the current US Iraq discussion as much as I detested the prewar discussion at the time. Everybody is criticizing the failure in Iraq, but too few are going to the heart of the matter, whether invading was wrong in the first place

 

This irritates me to no end, as well. We keep hearing about what to do and how to do it and lost in the discussion is the most important question of all - what the hell are we doing there in the first place?

 

You cannot have an intelligent discussion about the start of the war without an understanding of the Project for a New American Century, PNAC.

 

PNAC was created in 1997 as a neo-conservative think tank located in Washington D.C., which outlined a course in the world for American interests. In 2000, the PNAC produced a white paper outlining their conclusions and strategies:

 

According to PNAC, America must:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia

and the Middle East;

* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft,

submarine and surface fleet capabilities;

* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a

strategic dominance of space;

* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;

* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic

product, up from the 3 percent currently spent."

 

Also:

 

"The two central requirements are for American forces to

"fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and

to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security

environment in critical regions." (Note it says fight, not be prepared to fight.)

 

Why is the PNAC, a dime-a-dozen think tank important to understand?

 

"When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the

imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense

Department and the White House.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the

group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for

Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position

with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin."

 

When the twin towers came crashing down, these men saw an opportunity to turn their "white paper" into official government policy. And they took it.

 

As so many in power before them have believed, the ends justifies the means, so if lying about a reason to invade Iraq was necessary it was for the greater goal of initiating this plan of action.

[mike777]

"The problem Bush is having in Iraq is in masquerading the deception - if we truly go in to "win", that is crush totally all resistance and establish our own hand-selected government then we tip our hand as to the "nation building" motive that is the real purpose of this invasion. But knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda ties, no nuclear program, and no biological warfare program, it would have been too much to send in 400,000 troops and totally anahilate Iraq and take it over as a colony with a puppet government - the world would have seen this action as no different than Germany's invasion of Poland. Hence, the hope that a "shock and awe" air campaign along with a few troops to roust the remainers would be enough to establish a puppet regime without too much fuss. We could always change our story as we went along, from WMD and biological weapons to ousting the evil Saddam, to introducing democracy to Iraq, to stabilizing the region, to whatever other excuses you could get the media to parrot."

 

If you think war is the best option in a nation's interest, granted a huge assumption, at least Winston has a plan...some plan that makes sense.

He hit on some excellent points, I just hope he embraces them.

[Winstonm]

I happen to agree with some of your ideas, Mike, one of the main being that if you go to war you do so with totality, with the concept of eliminating the enemy completely and conquering his territory. When the war ends, the enemy may still remain on that territory, but it is at the will and whim of the conqueror.

 

There should be no such thing as a "limited" war or a "police" action. War is War. It is a zero sum game of winner take all.

 

The problem with invading Iraq under this winner take all exercise is that the rest of the world may not agree with your cause - Germany would have done so much better if it could have convinced the world of Polish terrorists next door.

[helene_t]

There should be no such thing as a "limited" war or a "police" action.  War is War.  It is a zero sum game of winner take all.

The Chinese philosofer Sun Bin wrote in "The Art of Warfare" something like (I can't find the excact quote):

"Allways give your enemy the option of backing out without facing a total loss. Because otherwise will fight with the courage of desperation".

 

And this is because war can never be a zero sum game. It is an extreme negative-sum game. And therefore focus should be as much on limiting the total loss, rather than "winning" the war in the sense of inflicting a great(er) loss on the enemy.