Is the war on Iraq winnable?

[Zhade]

By which I mean, will the United States and other countries be able to contain the homegrown insurgency, hold full and transparent elections that leave a legitimate government in place, and leave within a few years?

My answer: no. We will cut and run, or be driven out. But I am open to debate. Let me have it.

EDIT: subject line did not like quotation marks around the word 'winnable'.

[Rowdyboy]

1. Sometime shortly after the Iraqi "election" that may be staged in

January, the new puppet government will ask us to leave, whereupon we will retreat to our 14 shiny new bases and hunker down while they fight it out. Massive civil war and national partition into at least three regions very likely in the next year.

[BootinUp]

2. No, but its the wrong question.

The right question is: Can we convince the Iraqis we are trying to help them instead of control them and their natural resources.

It may be too late already.

[NeoConsSuck]

10. Sure we can..

kick Halliburton and Kellog & Root out. Only award contracts to foreign countries. Or better yet, let the Iraqis choose who the contracts go to.

This will never happen, because we are there to control them and their natural resources.

[IronLionZion]

20. Let them bid for the contracts

Arab companies will probably do the reconstruction much cheaper and better than Halliburton.

For people who say they support free-enterprise, Republicans don't seem to follow it at all. They think cronyism, outsourcing, and reduction in competition is free enterprise...and some DUers do too.

[DebJ]

15. more people to convince besides just the Iraqi's, too..

[napi21]

3. It depends on what win means.

Is a win having a thriving democracy in Iraq? Then the answer is NO!
Is it eliminating bombings, and constant street fighting, having a leader of the country who doesn't kill everyone who disagrees with him, then the answer is MAYBE.

[da_chimperor]

4. I think it could be won . . .

maybe, in theory. A lot depends on how much Iraqis really do hate us, and how much credibility Al-Sistani has left with the Iraqi people. I think that if we were to completely throw away the transitional government and give control of things to ayatollah Al-Sistani and not engage in any military action without his permission, then things could change. I had a feeling that when gulf war II began that it would turn into something like it is today, and I was in favor of basically handing over thing whole country to the moderate clerics. Remember that Al-Sistani was the one who told Iraqis not to resist the Americans during the beginning of the war. The problem is that he can't be seen to be taking orders from the US military, or boom, there goes his credibility with some of the more radical sections of Iraqi society. That's what I think, but for all practical purposes I think it's impossible.

[Uzybone]

5. Winnable ? Of course

but using your definition....no its not. Not even close. We need a president who shows he is willing to use common sense when dealing with this problem.

[x84722]

23. The war is winnable, but it will take someone other than bush.

The war is winnable, but it will take someone other than bush.

[jpgray]

6. See my response to DuctapeFatwa

In its current form, no way.

[Djinn]

33. did I miss something jpgray?

is DuctapeFatwa back??

[DuctapeFatwa]

48. Not exactly, but I did reply to jpgray (link inside)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2445871

[Djinn]

51. come back we miss you!!!

[Zorbet55]

7. As long as we maintain a military presence,

the answer is No. Setting up permanent bases on Iraqi soil does not indicate that we want them to become stable and self-governing. It indicates that we plan to stay for some long time. Any nation with pride and dignity would not settle for this. They will fight us and between themselves forever unless we change the leadership and direction of our aims.

[punpirate]

8. We cannot simultaneously declare...

... that we invaded a sovereign country to put democracy in place and then manipulate the results to favor our own interests, which is precisely what we've done.

Having troops in the country to ensure the results we desire proves to the Iraqis and to the rest of the world that our intentions are not honorable--especially when those troops failed to do the most obvious thing initially--secure the country and preserve order. In fact, those troops and the U.S.-controlled provisional authority encouraged the breakdown of social order. The chaos created was seen by the administration as necessary to carry out an under-the-radar process of privatization of the country for the benefit U.S. corporations.

There is no way, in that context, that the war can be considered "winnable." It was lost the moment the Bush administration put its plans into motion, because the plans themselves were anti-democratic.

[Selwynn]

9. By that definition, no we can't win. (that's the right definition, imo)

[Disturbed]

11. Colonization

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm


I have been trying to figure out how the Neo Fascists ever thought that Iraq would be a "Democracy" when the three main groups are Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds living in fairly distinct areas of the country. Yes, I know there are exceptions to that but the areas are mainly distinct.

At this time these groups would like, for the most part to have the US and UK leave and not colonize Iraq and dictate how the country should be run and who controls the oil. None of the groups wants to be dominated by any of the others. I don't feel that that the US and UK can solve Iraq's problems. I don't feel that the upcoming elections will be solving any problems either because they will be in favor of US Puppet Govt. that is in place now.

Many people say that J. Kerry does not have a plan for Iraq. He has outlined a broad agenda but not a detailed one. I am not surprised about that because how could he have a plan when it is really not his place to dictate to Iraqis what they should do with their own country.

I have no idea what any solution to the Iraq debacle should be.

Anyone here have ideas?

[Zhade]

28. Here's a crazy idea: ASK THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

I know, I know, it's nuts, but hey, it's just crazy enough to work.

I doubt Imperial America would accept the answer, though.

[TahitiNut]

12. IMHO, it's no longer a question of 'win' (and it never was).

Never.

At one time it might have been a question of whether we'd be committing an illegal act in invading and occupying a sovereign nation based on a deliberate LIE.

It's now a question, for some, of "saving face". I personally don't think we have any "face" to save, but the appropriate course of action people take when they've committed a grievous wrong is to (1) feel and express contrition, and (2) make amends as edicted by some arbiter of justice.

In an ethical sense, it is no longer the role of the US to proclaim what it will do to make amends. It is solely the proper role of the US to comply, contritely, with the demands of an agreed-upon international arbiter. Anything short of that is an exacerbation of the wrongs committed and "obstruction of justice."

[Zhade]

25. Damn fine post, as are many in this thread.

Wow. Very, very good.

[TahitiNut]

39. Slante, m'luv!

:hi:

[necso]

13. There is a possible "solution"

that might be sold as "winning" and might leave a (more or less) stable state behind -- one not unduly hostile to the US and its allies. However, I can't see the point in discussing it here. (Actually I conceive of a modest range of solutions -- each increasingly less and less to our liking.)

Of course, I believe that the war is lost from the point of view of any kind of reasonable pre-war "objectives". It is just a question of trying to set realistic new objectives... and "deciding" that these are good enough.

Using the scenario that I have in mind, I can see our troops starting to leave within 6 months and being completely gone within 18 months.

But it wouldn't be easy and it will take a complete change in mindset... So chances are pretty much zero.

Oh, and I can't vote on the question in the way that you have asked it. It's CYA time in Iraq. And fighting a popular "insurgency" just won't do.

I know that coming up with a solution sounds rather preposterous, but it is all in the solution that you have in mind -- and how you sell it. The Iraqis do, after all, want us out and many are eager for a stable, orderly society under rule of law.

And as long as we are willing to pay the (entire) price, there is no way that we are going to be driven out of Iraq. We have the power to completely obliterate the Iraqis if it comes to that -- but what's the point? With a little help they will likely be willing to pump a lot of oil -- besides it's long past time that we realized that energy security (independence or near independence) is fundamental to national security.

Our mistake was getting dependent on volatile overseas resources in the first place... because sooner or later you will have to pay a heavy price (even fight) for them. Add the cost of the war to the cost of oil and then you begin to understand the magnitude of our folly.

"Liberal" democracy is a nice idea. But what business is it of ours to try to impose it on different cultures? In foreign policy we must pursue the National interest -- first, last and foremost -- and we must pursue our National interest with open eyes... and open minds.

[Cat Atomic]

14. You don't "win" an occupation.

You fight the population until you eventually have to admit they don't want you there, and then you leave.

[TahitiNut]

30. I agree. It's a lose-lose situation.

This is the conundrum we face. We have a fascist regime in place that is addicted to Zero-Sum Thinking. Everything is win-lose to these monsters. Well, LIFE is not a zero-sum game. Real human relations are either win-win or lose-lose. (Some might even say that's "God's Plan." All I really know at my core is that it's true - no matter how long it took me to find that out.)

These zero-sum thinkers would demonstrably prefer lose-lose outcomes to any outcome where an opponent (the "enemy"; the "other) 'wins' - no matter that they themselves win as well. In a very real sense, the more monstrous "suicide bombers" are the Busholini Regime.

The loss of human life and casualties we can "look forward to" is going to be horrific ... even more than we've seen so far.

[eridani]

50. Or until you obliterate half the population--

--and thereby make the other half willing to accept domination begrudgingly.

[x84722]

16. Abu Ghraib video

I found this on the internet:

It is a Funny, Anti-Bush video about Abu Ghraib.

Check it out:

Funny!

http://www.newnan-tutor.com/Abu_Ghraib_anti-Bush.wmv

[slojim240]

17. If we "win," what do we win?

And if we can determine what we win, what do we do with it?

[dansolo]

18. It could have been winnable

If the war was managed properly from the beginning, it is possible that it could have been "winnable". But now, the best that we can hope for is that Allawi becomes Saddam revisited, and maintains order by force. But that is most assuredly a loss, because I don't believe that Iraq will have a truly representative government as long as we are influencing it, and our influence will remain even after we end up withdrawing troops.

[Nikia]

19. No, for a couple of reasons

First of all, many Iraqis are upset about the U.S. occupation and will continue to be upset as long as we are there.
Another issue is that the various ethnic groups are not at peace with each other. Ethnic fighting in multiethnic countries is common when the dictatorship falls. It could become another Yugoslavia.

[K-W]

21. The US has already lost.

It is now a matter of when we realize it and cut our losses.

The US needs to accept its loss, and let the right people clean up our mess.

[x84722]

22. Lost what?

Oh, you're probably talking about billions of dollars and thousands of lives...

[haele]

24. Depends on what you mean by win...

What Shrub and his peeps think of as "winning" is the ability to use Iraq as a staging ground for future Mid-East operations and rule it as a form of "American Raj", no matter what stability for the local citizenry is like. Lives mean nothing to them, just profits and power.

What Kerry seems to be leaning towards could be similar to what NATO/Clinton did in Bosnia/Serbia/et all...sort of a UN sanctioned stabilization process based on setting up some sort of local democratic process.

The problem lies in whether or not one can accept the fact that Iraq will probably need to split into two or three seperate countries to stablize - IMO, the cultural range in many of the areas are still too unaccepting of "deviance" to allow for a stable, united, democratic Iraq - even with a parlimentary system.

Until all Iraqis want to take part in a single country, there will be no peace in democracy.

Personally, I think if Iraq is to remain a single nation, it would be better off with a Monarchy/Parliment system for a couple decades or so - if one can find a "benevolant" Monarchy that can woo the people, instead of a street thug like Saddam was, that is - until the individual cultural enclaves can get more comfortable with the idea of an overall secular democracy.

The American Revolution and creation of the United States was unique in the fact that we (the US) were a colony, with communities and cultures already somewhat interdependant for trade and prosperity. Our various communities and cultures were already practicing a form of political democracy - just to survive. Those of us who sat through American History in the old days remember that as the Colonies, (British and Spanish) we had recently survived a brutal decade of French and Indian wars as united Colonies, so the idea of a "United States" already had the seeds sown and could, with just a little aid, be harvested.

The majority of the cultural issues in Iraq have not gone through that sort of trial of fire yet - unless one considers the current Insurgancy as their version.

What they, as Iraqis need to win, is the ability to come together to rebuild their infrastructure and communities, without strings, without patronization and to bring themselves together as a viable country.

What we, as Americans need to win, is the ability to gracefully exit without many more casualties and leaving Iraq in chaos.

What the Middle East needs as a win - who knows? There's lots of players out there with their own motivations and needs; and I'm sure that the all countries surrounding Iraq would be just as happy to carve it up amongst themselves and absorb the well educated, previously secular society members as well as all that water and oil, to enrich their own little principalities.

Haele

[greatauntoftriplets]

26. No.

It never was.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

27. Partition or dictatorship: no other options. n/t

[Minstrel Boy]

29. Of the United States?

I agree.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

38. Pretty much everywhere--but I meant Iraq.

Dictatorship means the whole country will not submit to one set of laws except at gunpoint; so gunpoint is brought to bear. Sounds like the America I know.

[camero]

31. The battles are winnable, the war is not.

As occupiers, we will be pushed out eventually. That's not a win.

[ConsAreLiars]

32. No. The only "win" is to get out before we lose everything.

Only fascism can "win" a war of occupation, and if fascism wins there it will win here. And all of us lose.

[Carla in Ca]

34. Winnable is not an option, nobody wins at this game

[erniesam]

35. On the bright side

We won't win this war--but, at least, we now know who the real enemy is, their tactics, and their ambitions.

[Zhade]

36. Yeah - our own government.

Sobering, isn't it?

[fujiyama]

37. No it was lost

before it began.

This was the height of hubris and arrogance.

[goodhue]

40. Roadmap Out of Iraq Campaign

http://www.peaceintheprecincts.org/index.geni?mode=content&id=161

Secure UN Security Council Resolutions that provide for:

1. A new Security Council mandate that immediately places all foreign troops in Iraq within a defined UN peacekeeping mission. (International Cooperation)

2. Rotation of troop commitments to replace US troops by a specified date (end of 2004). (International Cooperation)

3. UN oversight of free elections. Power of elected government to eject foreign troops. (Human Rights and Rule of Law)

4. Reconstruction budgets under the control of Iraqis. (Economic Justice)

5. Power of elected government to renegotiate and dissolve any contracts brokered by the occupying power or its appointees. (Economic Justice)

6. Commits the US, UK and its “coalition of the willing” to provide long-term financial support for full Iraqi reconstruction. (International Cooperation and Rule of Law)

[hiphopnation]

41. I wish I could debate that point

but it's exactly the way I see things happening. It doesn't look good and it sure as hell won't be a cakewalk for President Kerry, but I think he's up to the challenge. :thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. It was lost the first moment a GI crossed the border.

ALL of the alleged reasons for the invasion and occupation are failures.

No WMD
No "terrorist connection"
No jubilant Iraqi nation welcoming the "liberators"
No democracy
No "domino effect" of other Middle Eastern countries happily overthrowing their governments and becoming democracies.
No safety for Israel

In fact, the situation in the ME and around the world has become much worse. We have created fertile ground for the Islamic extremists and effectively shut down the real groups that were looking for a way to liberalize their governments.

Now it's just a matter of time before we are thrown out of the entire Middle East and a host of other nations that have seen that our much vaunted military is useless against determined irregulars.

To borrow a phrase, we have "sown the whirlwind".

[leesa]

43. Winnable?? It's illegal and unethical. It should be stopped immediately.

Americans are such friggin cowboys!

[VOX]

44. No. The U.S. is occupying a country where its presence is not wanted

In fact, a U.S. presence is not wanted by the countries **surrounding** the occupied country.

The problem (created by the invading U.S.) is obvious.

[H2O Man]

45. Interesting question ....

I'm not convinced the the plan the Bush administration has acted upon ever included a "win" in terms that most people think of as a victory.

[rocktivity]

46. Bush will win the battles

But he lost the war before it started.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Dangerman]

47. Win what?

We invaded a defenseless country because of Bush's stupid excuse that its' former leader "tried to kill his daddy" and those damn non-existent WMDs and the link to Al-Qaeda. And then we placed an occupational government controlling the people's lives. To the Iraqi people, we're no better than Saddam. Us winning this "war"? Yeah, right!

[dave502d]

49. You said it all

Thank you.