Who believes USA/UK will prevail in Iraq?

[NeilC]

Who believes that the USA and UK will prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Seems to me that things are going from bad to worse and that we will end up having to pull out under some pretend victory whilst the Islamists end up in either partial or total control.

[gumboot]

Who believes that the USA and UK will prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Seems to me that things are going from bad to worse and that we will end up having to pull out under some pretend victory whilst the Islamists end up in either partial or total control.


There's a lot of factors here...

Frankly, I think the US will turn-tail out of Iraq and leave it to fall apart.

But does that mean they CAN'T "prevail"? I don't think so. I think they could. I just don't think the civilian population wants to, or cares.

As for Afghanistan... it's a bit different. There's a lot of countries in Afghanistan. There's some nasty bits, but I know the province our guys are looking after is doing rather well, all things considered.

Frankly, I think the "west" is CAPABLE to success in both endeavours. I just don't think the west WANTS to succeed.

Running away has become an American tradition since Korea...;)

-Andrew

[NeilC]

Re: the UK's involvement - you have to wonder how long any government can continue to spend £millions and use up 100+ soldiers lives on a project that the majority of the population are against, if polls are to believed.

[shuize]

There's a lot of factors here...

Frankly, I think the US will turn-tail out of Iraq and leave it to fall apart.

If that happens, there's not a doubt in my mind the very same people that called for the U.S. to leave now will be the very first ones to blame the U.S. for leaving.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I believe it will be another example of history repeating itself. I'm not talking about Vietnam, I'm talking about the war of 1812. That's when a young US decided to invade Canada. The root cause of this invasion was that Britain was exercising impressment on the high seas. That is to say Britain would board ships on the high seas, typically American ships, and take any crew they deemed British to help fight the war with France (Napolean). The US thought they could easily take Canada and would be greeted as "liberators" in Ontario, since many of the recent "Ontarians" were indeed American and immigrated for the cheap land and low taxes.

After 2 years of many deaths and destruction the US and Britain signed a peace treaty that was "status quo ante bellum". To quote Talking Heads, "same as it ever was". Nothing was gained by this invasion but the anger and entrenchment of Canadians and the huge losses of both American and Canadians along the border.

Unless the US can install a secular government in Iraq (not unlike Saddam), there will be no gains realized.

Charlie (burning down the [white]house) Monoxide

[Mishka Zaznaykin]

Every cloud has a silver lining. Read the article by Matthew Parris entitled "Why I Will Be Rooting For A George Bush Election Victory."

[Cleon]

Could you clarify what you mean by "prevail?"

Nobody's been real clear on that, least of all Bush.

[Apollyon]

Prevailing in Iraq is ultimately up to the Iraqis, not the US or UK.

[zenith-nadir]

Prevailing in Iraq is ultimately up to the Iraqis, not the US or UK.Exactly.

The Americans and British can lead the horse - (Iraq) - to water but they can't make him drink. So if shiites and sunnis wanna open a 10th century can of woop-a$$ on each other due to religious/ideological differences then America and Britain can't do a thing about it but sit back and watch. Meanwhile scores of Iraqis die needlessly in sunni-shiite violence every day.

[Crossbow]

The USA and UK lost the Iraq War before it started.

The pre-war pretexts were based on lies,
there were no substantive allies and international lined up to support the war,
there were not enough military forces installed to maintain post-war security,
the indigenous post-war people were defectors who were not supported by the Iraqi populous, and now
there has been little done to cut the outside sources of supplies that is supporting the insurgency.

[chulbert]

I think we'll achieve some modified, neutered form of success, but nothing like what we wanted originally. In my amatuer and naive survey of history, you can't deliver democracy to a country; the people of a country have to stand up and take it for themselves when they're ready. To that end, we were doomed before we started.

[Apollyon]

The USA and UK lost the Iraq War before it started.

The pre-war pretexts were based on lies,
there were no substantive allies and international lined up to support the war,
there were not enough military forces installed to maintain post-war security,
the indigenous post-war people were defectors who were not supported by the Iraqi populous, and now
there has been little done to cut the outside sources of supplies that is supporting the insurgency.
Apparently it will be very painful for certain people if Iraq succeeds despite all that.

[Mephisto]

The USA and UK lost the Iraq War before it started.

The pre-war pretexts were based on lies,
there were no substantive allies and international lined up to support the war,
there were not enough military forces installed to maintain post-war security,
the indigenous post-war people were defectors who were not supported by the Iraqi populous, and now
there has been little done to cut the outside sources of supplies that is supporting the insurgency.

Well why should anyone listen to YOU? If you don't have a solution to the problem and all you can do is point to all the many, many things that have been done to cause the problem, you're not helping anything! ;)

(edited to add) I think we'll win the war in Iraq in spite of everything. It'll be primarily because of the courage and determination of our soldiers, but future conservative generations will put the "Win Spin" no matter what the outcome. Still, it always pays to look on the bright side in any war. The Vietnam war is a perfect example - we technically lost the war although we never lost a major battle or confrontation. The bright side is that we learned to never again deploy troops into a country we have no right entering for the purpose of spreading Democracy - too bad it cost us 59,000 lives to learn that lesson.

[Apollyon]

Well why should anyone listen to YOU? If you don't have a solution to the problem and all you can do is point to all the many, many things that have been done to cause the problem, you're not helping anything! ;)
People might have listened the first ten times or even the first hundred times. After the bazillionth time folks tend to plug their ears, close their minds, and seriously wonder if maybe there's something a bit askew with certain a group of people who seem stuck on repeating that similar refrain over and over, ad naseum.

[Crossbow]

Apparently it will be very painful for certain people if Iraq succeeds despite all that.

True enough!

A successful invasion and occupation of Iraq could be painful to a large number of people. Of course, if I won millions and millions dollars via the lottery, then I expect that such an event would be painful to a large number of people as well.

As for me, I expect that the one event is about as likely as the other.

[HeavyAaron]

I think we'll achieve some modified, neutered form of success, but nothing like what we wanted originally. In my amatuer and naive survey of history, you can't deliver democracy to a country; the people of a country have to stand up and take it for themselves when they're ready. To that end, we were doomed before we started.

I'd say Japan is a stunning counter example for you.

Aaron

ETA: I actually generally believe your sentiment. I think soviegn nations are responsible for "choosing" their own government. But that's a matter of principle, not of practice as it seems to be for you.

[Upchurch]

As I said somewhere else, you cannot force Democracy on a people by a foreign power at the point of a gun and expect it to succeed. At that point, it's hard to even call it "Democracy".

So, what does "prevail" mean in this situation? I don't think any government the US puts into place in Iraq will not survive the removal of US enforcement of that government. Is that "not prevailing"?

[Apollyon]

True enough!

A successful invasion and occupation of Iraq could be painful to a large number of people. Of course, if I won millions and millions dollars via the lottery, then I expect that such an event would be painful to a large number of people as well.

As for me, I expect that the one event is about as likely as the other.
If you win the lottery there will always be the bitter haters. Myself and many others would applaud your luck though and give you a hearty congratualtions.

[Mephisto]

People might have listened the first ten times or even the first hundred times. After the bazillionth time folks tend to plug their ears, close their minds, and seriously wonder if maybe there's something a bit askew with certain a group of people who seem stuck on repeating that similar refrain over and over, ad naseum.

Yet the problem remains the same. You believe we went into Iraq to spread Democracy and liberate the Iraqi people. We don't believe that was the reason, nor do we believe that is what is happening in Iraq now. Can you please provide a link that will prove that a western-style Democracy is spreading in Iraq?

You complain about us being "stuck on repeating a refrain over and over," but you've yet to prove our "refrain" isn't justified by providing proof that things are going as planned in Iraq.

[Apollyon]

Yet the problem remains the same.
Yes, it does. You seem to think you know what I believe and that is a problem because you are so frequently wrong.

You believe we went into Iraq to spread Democracy and liberate the Iraqi people.
No, that's not what I believe.

We don't believe that was the reason, nor do we believe that is what is happening in Iraq now. Can you please provide a link that will prove that a western-style Democracy is spreading in Iraq?
Who said that Iraq will have a "Western-style" democracy?

Why do you so frequently caveat your statements in here to attempt to steer the discussion to places nobody else but you are going?

You complain about us being "stuck on repeating a refrain over and over," but you've yet to prove our "refrain" isn't justified by providing proof that things are going as planned in Iraq.
Your refrain doesn't have to anything to do with being justified. Your refrain is water under the bridge. It's a rehashing of a past that cannot be changed. It's time to move on and begin to look forward instead of dwelling on a past that you're angry about because it didn't get your stamp of approval. Self-righteous indignation only goes so far and the left has thoroughly sucked that well dry.

[Major Billy]

Frankly, I think the US will turn-tail out of Iraq and leave it to fall apart. -AndrewYou mean like we did in in 1975 when Dick Cheny was WH chief of staff and Don Rumsfeld was Sec'ty of Defense?

[Upchurch]

I don't think any government the US puts into place in Iraq will not survive the removal of US enforcement of that government.
er... compensating for double negatives:

"I don't think any government the US puts into place in Iraq will survive the removal of US enforcement of that government."

[Azure]

As I said somewhere else, you cannot force Democracy on a people by a foreign power at the point of a gun and expect it to succeed. At that point, it's hard to even call it "Democracy".

So, what does "prevail" mean in this situation? I don't think any government the US puts into place in Iraq will not survive the removal of US enforcement of that government. Is that "not prevailing"?

In other words, the burden of sucess lies upon the Iraqi's hands, as to whether or not the US/UK will suceed.

I agree 100%. :D

[Cleon]

Nobody has yet explained what is meant by "prevailing."

[KelvinG]

Nobody has yet explained what is meant by "prevailing."

Wouldn't prevailing mean establishing a stable, western style democracy where human rights are honored, and violence is largely subdued. With minimal military presence from the US/coalition.

As to whether that's actually possible is a whole other story.

But, that's what I've always felt is meant by "prevailing."

[Mephisto]

Your refrain doesn't have to anything to do with being justified. Your refrain is water under the bridge. It's a rehashing of a past that cannot be changed. It's time to move on and begin to look forward instead of dwelling on a past that you're angry about because it didn't get your stamp of approval. Self-righteous indignation only goes so far and the left has thoroughly sucked that well dry.

And this is beginning to sound like the mantra from the Right.

The fact that we f*cked up grandly is in the past, why don't you concentrate on a way to fix what we've done, or just shut up.

[Mephisto]

If that happens, there's not a doubt in my mind the very same people that called for the U.S. to leave now will be the very first ones to blame the U.S. for leaving.

And your doubt is well supported by the past (only history will tell, remember). Not many people remember, but all those hippies who were against the Vietnam war came out right after it was over to blame Nixon for leaving. There were protests in every major city and all the hippies were shouting . . . , "Why did you let us lose in Vietnam? Now we'll be fighting Communism in California!"

www.factsRforidiots.com

[Mephisto]

Wouldn't prevailing mean establishing a stable, western style democracy where human rights are honored, and violence is largely subdued. With minimal military presence from the US/coalition.

As to whether that's actually possible is a whole other story.

But, that's what I've always felt is meant by "prevailing."

I think that's been updated since the war has been going so badly and the approval rating's have dropped. Prevailing now means, . . . getting the American public to stay the course while we figger out what the Hell we're doing.

[KelvinG]

I think that's been updated since the war has been going so badly and the approval rating's have dropped. Prevailing now means, . . . getting the American public to stay the course while we figger out what the Hell we're doing.

Yes, I expect the goals for success are not nearly as lofty as they once were.
It seems like now the only real goal you hear about is preventing a civil war from breaking out. I mean, that's a good goal to have, but it makes one wonder if total success (as defined by my take on what prevailing means) is at all possible.

[Mephisto]

Yes, I expect the goals for success are not nearly as lofty as they once were.
It seems like now the only real goal you hear about is preventing a civil war from breaking out. I mean, that's a good goal to have, but it makes one wonder if total success (as defined by my take on what prevailing means) is at all possible.

Sorry I let your post past unanswered, Kelvin. I just now saw it.

I think the goals for success are constantly being moved, and it was evident from the beginning that we were going to be in Iraq for a very long time. First we were there find WMD then to oust Saddam, then we were there until the Iraqi people drafted their Constitution, then until their first elections, the until one more round of elections, then until Saddam was brought to trial . . . and so on and on and on.

This is almost exactly like Joseph Heller's Catch-22, and I'm pretty sure our soldiers (who have performed every task ungraciously thrown at them) are getting a little tired of the excuses coming from the White House. A good many of them are Reservists who were never thrown into full-scale war previously. How long would Vietnam have lasted if Reservists had to fight the war? How long would George Bush have stayed in the Reserves if there were a chance he'd be sent into combat? ;)

[Ziggurat]

How long would George Bush have stayed in the Reserves if there were a chance he'd be sent into combat? ;)

Hard question to answer, especially since he wasn't in the Air Force Reserve Command (ie, the "Reserves"), but in the Texas Air National Guard (ie, the "Guard").

[gnome]

And your doubt is well supported by the past (only history will tell, remember). Not many people remember, but all those hippies who were against the Vietnam war came out right after it was over to blame Nixon for leaving. There were protests in every major city and all the hippies were shouting . . . , "Why did you let us lose in Vietnam? Now we'll be fighting Communism in California!"

www.factsRforidiots.com (http://www.factsRforidiots.com)

Are you sure it was the same people protesting?

[Darth Rotor]

Wouldn't prevailing mean establishing a stable, western style democracy where human rights are honored, and violence is largely subdued. With minimal military presence from the US/coalition.

As to whether that's actually possible is a whole other story.

But, that's what I've always felt is meant by "prevailing."
Why not a reasonably stable, Iraqi style democracy, whatever that looks like? How about one like Italy, where PM's rise fall about once every year or so on an emotionally charged issue that causes a vote of no confidence?

The constitutional republics of Europe and the US, and Japan, are all subtly different. Let the Iraqi's craft their own style. That is what our Stability and Security Operations, the official military name for what US forces have been doing in this phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom, are aimed at: providing enough stability and security to let Iraq grow an Iraqi Democracy. Or so the Pol Mil guys told me . . .

"Human rights are honored?"

That's entirely up to the political continuum after the US disengages. US is still bickering about civil rights 200+ years after our nation's birth. Let the Iraqi water come to its own level on that one. I don't care if their women wear burkas, I Really Don't!

DR