“McCain Says US Succeeding in Iraq As American Death Toll Hits 4,000“
» Breaking News
Gianna Michaels [Breaking Beauty]
6 Minnesota Teens - Including Brianna Broitzman & Ashton Larson - Accused Of Abusing Nursing Home Residents
After Gun Shot, Plaxico Burress Suspended By Giants For Rest Of Season
Florida Man Thomas Edward Lackie Arrested For Attacking Dad With Christmas Tree
Soldiers Join Military To Avoid Weak Economy
The “National Greatness” conservatives see every death as intestinal fortitude of dear leader
I’m not a historian, but I believe that over the years several wars have been won even when lots of soldiers are killed on the side of the victor.
That’s true, Scratch, but if you look closer at those wars, many of those “victories” were based on forcing the surrender an enemy, securing a piece of land, or some other clearly-defined goal. World War II, to pick one example, resulted in a lot of deaths even of Allied soldiers, but finally Germany and Japan surrendered and everyone knew the war was over.
Have we determined yet what constitutes “victory” in Bush and Cheney’s Excellent Adventure?
He’s right, the Iraq was has been successful on most fronts from the Bush/Cheney prospective. Oil is over $100/barrel, their corporate buddies have looted tens of billions of dollars from the US treasury, they have built up the executive branch powers, stripped US citizens of civil rights, and covered a multitude of crimes. All that at the cost of a few dead US soldiers and a lot of dead Iraqis.
Excellent point and questions, Michael. I would say we have won when there is no longer a group of Iraqis able to kill other Iraqis at will. Others would probably say different. At any rate, we have a ways to go yet.
“I would say we have won when there is no longer a group of Iraqis able to kill other Iraqis at will.”
This is way too vague. Iraqis will always be able to kill each other at will, just as, right now, Americans are able to kill each other at will — if they felt so radically compelled. The difference is that Americans, like 99.9% of them, don’t see a reason to kill at will those who are politically, religiously, ethnically etc. different from them. There are groups of Iraqis, on the other hand, who believe that violence is necessary to maintain either political, religious or ethnic dominance or else simple political, religious and ethnic survival. This isn’t some kind of uniquely Iraqi trait. It’s human nature when one self-identified group of humans feels seriously, physically threatened and disenfranchised by another. We can keep troops in Iraq for decades and it won’t change the dynamic in Iraq until the Iraqis themselves decide it’s in their best interest to put their weapons down and participate in a mutually agreed upon social, economic and political system that channels the natural tensions of Iraqi society away from violence and towards constructive, civic participation. The point being is that an American military presence alone cannot force the Iraqis into political agreement. And we are a lot further away from that happening than simply controlling the violence.
“I would say we have won when there is no longer a group of Iraqis able to kill other Iraqis at will.”
So how will we know when that has been achieved? Especially since, you know, that goal has never been achieved in human history?
I see that you’ve bought into to McSame’s 100 years strategy for Iraq. Sad.
Fafaroo and Enlightened Liberal…
I hardly disagree with you at all. But I would point out that we would likely have much of the same stuff going on here in the U.S. if we didn’t have a strong apparatus to maintain law and order. And that is the goal for Iraq.
I disagree that we’d have a similar situation in the U.S. For the most part (some kooks notwithstanding), people in this country seem to be OK with the idea of coexisting with people of different religions, colors, or (for lack of a better word) tribal identities. Clearly, the same tolerance levels don’t exist in Iraq. I’m not sure what will solve that in Iraq, but it sure doesn’t look like the Bush doctrine of torching the hell out of the whole country is cutting it.
It is a good goal for Iraq. What makes you think we can help them implement it, when (a) they don’t trust us and (b) we keep giving them reasons not to trust us?
Our presence taints Iraq’s attempts to stand on its own and smacks of the same sort of imperial thought Britain once felt about India–that the place would go completely to seed without our help.
It’s arrogance. Iraqis have existed as a people for hundreds of years before Americans had the idea of tossing off King George III. They’ve earned the right to self-determine. They might have self-determined a long time ago, except we kept giving their local thug-in-chief the power to keep them under his boot heel.
We ain’t leavin’ ’till the shootin’ stops.
“But I would point out that we would likely have much of the same stuff going on here in the U.S. if we didn’t have a strong apparatus to maintain law and order.”
Wow. Do all conservatives have such a bleak view of the social fabric in this country? It would actually explain a lot. Still, I can imagine the howls of conservative anger from the right if Obama said the exact same thing from a podium. “Is he threatening us with a race riot?” they’d foam.
Following on what Michael says, we have a system of government that people 1) by and large have faith in 2) gives average citizens access to the levers of power, whether in the election booth or court 3) cultivates a culture of coexistence.
At the same time, yes, there is a strong apparatus to maintain law and order in this country but it only rarely ever reveals itself in the kind of way that would be required if we were all chomping at the bit to kill one another.
Back in 1992, when the LA riots broke out, I had the odd experience of living in a city under martial law with armed national guardsmen sandbagged in at every major intersection. It was a weird experience because i had never seen anything like it before in my life and I realized just how fast the state can crack down on civilians when it sees the need (albeit in this case several days after the violence had already begun to subside). But that kind of thing is a once in a generation kind of occurrence, if that, and requires a special set of circumstances to align along with a very specific trigger. In the case of the 1992 riots it was long standing economic and social neglect touched off by the Rodney King verdict.
But here’s the more revealing thing. Once the tensions were released and the military made its presence felt, order was quickly restored and I remember that in the aftermath it was like the entire city, black, white, asian, whatever, had agreed to be super extra nice and polite to each other. The kind of civi goodwill that makred everyday encounters in the days and weeks afterward was actually as inspiring as it was comforting. It was more than a return to order, it revealed a conscious, uncoordinated desire on the part of average citizens to heal the wounds of that crazy week and it started from the bottom up, at the office, at school, on the bus, at the grocery store.
That’s the kind of thing, obviously, that didn’t happen in Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. And it isn’t the kind of thing that a military presence can cultivate or enforce but it is essential to restoring order.
In this country, we don’t need, nor do we have, soldiers in the streets everyday, checking cars and searching houses. We don’t have normal police officers checking the cars and searching the homes of every citizen. If we did, how long do you think before we would start to resent the very forces who claimed to be protecting us?
The answer to that question is our fundamental problem in Iraq. As SpiderJ points out, our very presence their as enforcers of a system that most of the population hasn’t bought into or doesn’t feel invested in, is causing more problems than it’s solving.