Eugene Robinson: The Iraq war leaves a fog of ambiguity

[cal04]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2010083003774.html

Now that the Iraq war is over -- for U.S. combat troops, at least -- only one thing is clear about the outcome: We didn't win.

We didn't lose, either, in the sense of being defeated. But wars no longer end with surrender ceremonies and ticker-tape parades. They end in a fog of ambiguity, and it's easier to discern what's been sacrificed than what's been gained. So it is after seven years of fighting in Iraq, and so it will be after at least 10 years -- probably more, before we're done -- in Afghanistan.

George W. Bush elected to send U.S. forces to invade and occupy Iraq, even though there was no urgent reason to do so. I won't rehash all the arguments about what was suspected, reported or "confirmed" about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction that provided the Bush administration's justification for war. But even if Bush and his aides believed in their hearts that Saddam Hussein was actively seeking to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, they had no reason to believe that the United States or its allies faced an imminent or even proximate threat.

(snip)
Just as we've left the future of Iraq to the Iraqis, in the end we'll leave the future of Afghanistan to the Afghans. Does anyone believe otherwise? If not, then how many more Americans must die before we accept the ambiguous result -- we won't really lose, but we won't really win -- that we know looms in the fog?

[MichiganVote]

1. Ambiguity is another word for bullshit.

[Demeter]

2. I rec your post

there is no ambiguity. We had to destroy Iraq for the Saudis, the Israelis, the PNACers and the Oil Companies.

And amazingly enough, none of them got what they wanted, complete capitulation of the Iraqi people. Yet.

And we have another people with good reason to hate our guts for the rest of human existence on the planet, and beyond.

[Amonester]

3. better editorial than the usual MIC BS, but strongly disagree with

the BS "we won't really lose" because, losing even just one of them: http://antiwar.com/casualties/

for imperialist oil con men's bloated pension plans (not to mention many corrupt pols) was a big lost from the git go.

not to mention also the destruction of a country that never ever had any plans to attack the almigthy bloated military

they really think we're all idiots (like them...)

[bemildred]

4. "Lose" means failed to win, did not achieve the goal. Nothing ambiguous about it.

Winners win. Loser talk about how ambiguous the outcome appears to be in the light of what we know now in the modern context of post-war international relations ...