Did We Win the Iraq War (or even the Surge) - Page 2

Dondilion · #11 03-09-2013, 10:24 AM

I found the article too wide ranging.

icenine · #12 03-09-2013, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dondilion

I found the article too wide ranging.

It was a big picture op ed piece, not a master's thesis going into great detail over a narrow aspect of history. The historian was being expansive.

Dondilion · #13 03-09-2013, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icenine

It was a big picture op ed piece, not a master's thesis going into great detail over a narrow aspect of history. The historian was being expansive.

I am going to give the article a serious 2nd read.

My first impression: it was diffused and out of focus.

Dondilion · #14 03-09-2013, 11:24 AM

He is all over time and space making a lot of claims, coming to arguable conclusions and without investing sufficient effort on Iraq itself.

The surge worked because we were getting our ass kicked and it caused the kicking to cease so that we could withdraw with some dignity.

Did we win the war in Iraq.

First lets us define winning clearly.

IF we cannot, can we have a compromised definition?

finnbow · #15 03-09-2013, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dondilion

He is all over time and space making a lot of claims, comin to arguable conclusions and without investing sufficient effort on Iraq itself.

The surge worked because we were getting our ass kicked and it caused the kicking to cease so that we could withdraw with some dignity.

Did we win the war in Iraq.

First lets us define winning clearly.

IF we cannot, can we have a compromised definition?

Was the enemy completely vanquished/pacified; did the resulting government adopt a secular, plural democracy; and did this government become steadfast, long-term dependable allies of ours (and not an ally of another regional adversary)?

If you accept this definition, we struck out on three straight strikes.

JJIII · #16 03-09-2013, 12:01 PM

I first got worried when the Iraqi army put down their arms and uniforms and vanished. We went to the heart of the beast like a .700 Nitro Express and stopped the heart. Ever since, the carcass has been rotting and there are still pockets of corruption and stink. Our military performed like a well oiled machine. The leadership from back home... not so much. It became a game of Wack-a-Mole and throwing money around. If you have to buy a friend you don't have a very dependable friend.

Zeke · #17 03-09-2013, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII

If you have to buy a friend you don't have a very dependable friend.

If you have to use the military, they weren't a friend to begin with.

BlueStreak · #18 03-09-2013, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII

I first got worried when the Iraqi army put down their arms and uniforms and vanished. We went to the heart of the beast like a .700 Nitro Express and stopped the heart. Ever since, the carcass has been rotting and there are still pockets of corruption and stink. Our military performed like a well oiled machine. The leadership from back home... not so much. It became a game of Wack-a-Mole and throwing money around. If you have to buy a friend you don't have a very dependable friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke

If you have to use the military, they weren't a friend to begin with.

True

And

True.

Dave

Dondilion · #19 03-09-2013, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow

Was the enemy completely vanquished/pacified; did the resulting government adopt a secular, plural democracy; and did this government become steadfast, long-term dependable allies of ours (and not an ally of another regional adversary)?

If you accept this definition, we struck out on three straight strikes.

Reasonable!

However I have a personal unsubstantiated view of why we went into Iraq.

Israel, its diaspora and friends always wanted to defang, cripple any powerful entity in the ME region which is an enemy or potential one.

They knew the dislike of son Bush for Saddam and worked on Bush accordingly.
Not only did they worked on Bush but they worked on the America public.

From that perspective the war is a winner.

Nathanyou recent behaviour sort of add some weight to my belief.

Injecting himself in our election when he perceived that the president was not amenable to pressure.

Moreover the daily pressure being placed on the president by the friends of Israeli for the president to fall in line with the point of view and time table of Israel re Iran.

The public thrashing of any nominee who it is felt is not overtly sympathetic to Israeli.

More to come, please just watch the ever increasing PR and propaganda.

icenine · #20 03-09-2013, 07:40 PM

Israel had nothing to do with it.

It was the intersection of 9-11 and old fashioned jingoism more apt for the 19th Century British Empire than 2003. It was Bush's version of Kipling's White Man's Burden applied to a nation that was not nearly as strong as Saddam's successful propaganda machine made it look to be.Bush was trying to make Iraq into a sort of Canada of the Middle East. We did not even get an India out of it.

I am not saying Saddam was good. But he had nothing to do with 9-11. Whether Bush knew about the non-existence of WMDs or sincerely believed Saddam had them is the big question. I hope the latter was true.

We will know in about 20 years whether anything good came out of it. Unfortunately those who died there in the war will not have the satisfaction of being around to see how it went. That is the terrible thing about it all.