Is it possible to win an "unjust" or an "immoral" war?

[kentuck]

Almost everyone admits that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, with the possible exception of John McCain, and that we invaded under false pretenses. Most say it was intentional false pretenses. With what we know now, it is difficult for anyone to justify the invasion of Iraq. It was a blunder. It was not necessary. It was criminal, in many people's minds.

Is it possible to "win" such a war? What is the best we can hope for in such a situation as the one we now find ourselves. Is there any way to leave Iraq with "honor"? Did we not lose this war the moment we decided to invade pre-emptively? John McCain says we can win this war.

[babylonsister]

1. No. What would be won? Is it justified to claim we won so some people

will feel comfortable with how their loved ones died? I don't know.

[sutz12]

2. I'm not sure you can win any war....

About the best you can do is survive.

:shrug:

[zonmoy]

3. who says they are in it to win.

the whole war on terror is designed to both destroy our democracy and create a perpetual war with an enemy that is by definition unbeatable.

[DesertFlower]

9. the "war on terror" is a joke.

to me a war on terror would not just be airline security, it would be securing the borders and our ports, and the cargo that goes on our planes unchecked.

instead he invaded a country. he knew he was going to invade iraq long before 9/11.

[TomInTib]

4. First of all, an idea cannot be killed with a gun.

And we started out by creating an idea that we refused to acknowledge any existence of, whatsoever.

"Aren't they all Muslims?"

Yeah, right, dumbass.

The only way we can maintain any semblance of "winning" is to stay forever.

[NOLALady]

5. We have as much of a chance of

winning the war on terror as we have of winning the war on drugs.

[Afje]

6. Iraq is an occupation disguised as a war

Occupations are not won. If that were possible, the Israelis would have won a long time ago. There is no way to "leave with honor". Honor was lost when we got in.

[JeffR]

7. The pResident declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003

So why the fuck are our forces still there?

This so-called war is not only unjust and immoral, it's a crime against humanity, and its perpetrators should be brought to The Hague for trial.

[Redstone]

8. No. And no, and no, and no. Your last two sentences sum it up perfectly.

Redstone

[bluedawg12]

10. Wars just end- no one wins. n/t

[Arctic Dave]

11. Win it with honor?

It's not about winning anything. It was about killing a lot of people to steal there oil. I'll put this way. Can you honorably break into someones home, brutally kill the family, rob them of all their possessions and decide to start living in the house? Take your time, think it over and get back to me.

[Jack_DeLeon]

12. Sure it is...

Morallity have little to do with who is victorious in a conflict.

China annexed Tibet, I doubt their actiosn were very just or moral yet they "won."

[TheWraith]

13. Yes. But that requires that you have a definition of victory.

Look, military force doesn't lay down for morality. Simple as that. If you've got a quarter million guys going up against fifteen thousand in open combat, the short stick guys are going to lose no matter how noble their cause may be.

However, winning in Iraq would require that we have some definition of victory, which would tell us what we need to do to achieve it. If it's ending all fighting and attacks on US troops, we'd pretty much need to start massively depopulating the country, because unless you break the spirit of the people, you lose a popular insurgency. There's always going to be new enemies minted, that's just the way it works. The only way occupiers win is if the population is unwilling or unable to fight back--see, for instance, Tibet--or if the occupiers kill everyone. See the Khans.

Now, if "winning" is extracting ourselves without making the situation massively worse, well, there are precious few ways to do that too. But they're arguably all less unpalatable than the long-term fallout from any kind of war of occupation.

[dysfunctional press]

14. of course it is.

it's also possible to lose one- ask the native americans.

[aquart]

15. Did you ever hear "Might makes right"?

What do you consider winning? I am one of those who agree we lost the second we decided to invade a non-belligerent nation. BUT...morals aside, had we gone in with the revolting but honest intention of taking the oil and holding the land, what would have been necessary? The Iraqis don't like invaders. Their history is clear. They are also thousands of years skilled in dirty and vicious fighting. How many of them would we have had to kill? Liebensraum is a failed Nazi policy of killing the native population and moving in your own. How many would we have to kill and how much would it cost?

Frankly, I've only ever seen one end: we exhaust ourselves, militarily and financially, and China or India or Russia walks in as the honest broker and negotiates contracts for everything we've tried to steal, giving appropriate bribes...and we are too weak and broken to do a damn thing about it.

We cannot take the Caspian basin Oil by warfare. The geography alone spits in our face. But we will be allowed to destroy ourselves for the benefit of others we do not intend to benefit.

So morals be damned. It was a stupid idea.

[Norrin Radd]

16. kr