Would losing in Iraq be such a bad thing?

[rtalman]

A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html) claims that overall,
11% of Americans think the world would be better off if the U.S. lost the war in Iraq.

A couple of questions come to mind:

I have yet to hear a satisfactory definition of winning in Iraq. How would we define losing? Just leaving without achieving our nebulous win? Actually signing articles of surrender to AQ?

If we 'lost', how would the world be better off? How would America be worse off?

We lost in Vietnam, and no abyss opened up and swallowed the U.S.A. It seems the main reason to stay at this point is the philosophy of General Patton:

When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. Now, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.

[madurobob]

I have yet to hear a satisfactory definition of winning in Iraq. How would we define losing?

Well thats the rub, now isn't it. If we get to define it, we can simply declare victory and leave. I guess one of the problems is there is no-one to surrender to us - that'd make it a lot easier.

This is exactly why the current administration has resisted setting clear and definable goals and a timetable for those goals being met. Because not meeting them would then be equated with defeat. But, if you can pass that off on the next administration - well then its those sorry bastards who surrendered and everything would have been just fine if we'd just stayed the course.

Of course, we might be able to get Iran to surrender, maybe that will help?

Perhaps I'm just a bit cynical...

[JoeEllison]

The whole "win/lose" thing is stupid right-wing framing. We're not at war with anyone in Iraq, we're meddling in their civil war. So, there's no such thing as a "win" for America in this situation.

[rtalman]

The whole "win/lose" thing is stupid right-wing framing. We're not at war with anyone in Iraq, we're meddling in their civil war. So, there's no such thing as a "win" for America in this situation.Then change the terms to 'success' and 'failure' if it pleases you.

How would the world be better off if we failed to achieve our poorly defined metrics? How would the U.S. be worse off?

[Darth Rotor]

A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html) claims that overall,
11% of Americans think the world would be better off if the U.S. lost the war in Iraq.

A couple of questions come to mind:

I have yet to hear a satisfactory definition of winning in Iraq. How would we define losing? Just leaving without achieving our nebulous win? Actually signing articles of surrender to AQ?

If we 'lost', how would the world be better off? How would America be worse off?

We lost in Vietnam, and no abyss opened up and swallowed the U.S.A. It seems the main reason to stay at this point is the philosophy of General Patton:
If you consider losing as not achieving your aims, then at the moment, the US has not won yet, and maybe cannot win, if the aims include establishing a Western style republican government in Iraq, with Iraq defined as the nation state bounded by the borders when Saddam was last seen as the president of Iraq.

Examining such victory conditions, how much of a loss is the establishment of an autonomous, or free/independent, Kurdish state? It's a loss insofar as retaining Iraq within the lines on the map from Balfour's day, but how critical is that? Yugoslavia is no longer in the lines from that era, and neither is the British Mandate in Palestine. Are those wins, losses, or something else?

Czechoslovakia isn't in that old shape either, but is the new form of the Czech and Slovak republics a loss?

If the aim is to create a democratic domino effect, where Iraq grows into a parliamentary and constitutional republic, and then acts as a catalyst for similar changes in neighboring states, which American allies in the Persian Gulf region have bought into those war aims?

So far, such matters look all to frequently as hope used for a method, not a well linked strategy between military means and diplomatic and economic aims.

Sun Tzu once remarked that in order to defeat one's enemy, one should find out and frustrate, or nullify, his plan. If the plan is untenable, or weakly structured, it's not hard to defeat it. If the plan was solely to remove Saddam, that's long since been done, so on the face of it, there was more to the plan than that. Having achieved that intermediate aim, what other aims must be achieved to consider the larger aim a success? If an element of that is a multinational effort to coach Iraq as a cohesive whole into that democratic model, it too is in poor shape.

The first year of the US in Iraq saw a series of attack along coalition seams, with the result of a number of coalition members dropping out by mid 2005. That part of the plan continues to erode, at least in the short term. Some months ago a British chief of military staff indicated a 2007/2008 end date to the UK's participation. That prediction seems to be on track for coming true.

To better answer your question, does it matter if the US loses, as in being unable to achieve the suggested larger aim? What is the expected outcome of the US leaving in the near term with such broad aims unachieved?

Likely outcomes, but not slam dunks, are increased Iranian influence in Iraq. Is that compatible with American strategic aims? Saudi aims? Jordanian aims? Gulf State aims? I don't think so, unless Iran liberalizes a bit politically. Not betting the rent money on that one, no. :p

Likewise, is the devolution of Iraq into two or three smaller, and internally stable, states (similar to how Yugoslavia broke up) an end state more likely to enhance regional stability, or to undermine it? The regional allies of the US have a significant security interest in the answers to that, and don't at the moment appear to like what the odds are if the US takes the "awe, screw it" course of action, takes its ball, and goes home. It may not be traumatic to America to "let 'em play," but the allies in the Gulf look to have a more dire problem to deal with.

As of this writing, the stew is still cooking. If abandoning allies in that region is good American policy, then the answers change.

We're not at war with anyone in Iraq, we're meddling in their civil war
Joe, while I generally agree, the non Iraqi Islamists in Iraq represent an enemy to both America, and a number of the factions within in Iraq, so even that isn't as cut and dried as we might like it to be.

DR

[marksman]

At this point, I would define "winning" as "leaving Iraq less dangerous to American political, military and economic interests that it likely would have been had we not invaded" and "losing" as "leaving Iraq more dangerous to American political, military and economic interests that it likely would have been had we not invaded."

From that definition I don't think winning is a reasonable possibility. The goal then is to minimize the cost of losing and I'm not sure how to do that either.

[rtalman]

At this point, I would define "winning" as "leaving Iraq less dangerous to American political, military and economic interests that it likely would have been had we not invaded" and "losing" as "leaving Iraq more dangerous to American political, military and economic interests that it likely would have been had we not invaded."

From that definition I don't think winning is a reasonable possibility. The goal then is to minimize the cost of losing and I'm not sure how to do that either.How do you empirically measure your definition of winning?

[JoeEllison]

Then change the terms to 'success' and 'failure' if it pleases you.

How would the world be better off if we failed to achieve our poorly defined metrics? How would the U.S. be worse off?
You're missing the point: IT ISN'T ABOUT US.

[JoeEllison]

At this point, I would define "winning" as "leaving Iraq less dangerous to American political, military and economic interests that it likely would have been had we not invaded" and "losing" as "leaving Iraq more dangerous to American political, military and economic interests that it likely would have been had we not invaded."

From that definition I don't think winning is a reasonable possibility. The goal then is to minimize the cost of losing and I'm not sure how to do that either.

What's odd is that Iraq was no threat to America or its interests.

[JoeEllison]

Joe, while I generally agree, the non Iraqi Islamists in Iraq represent an enemy to both America, and a number of the factions within in Iraq, so even that isn't as cut and dried as we might like it to be.

DR

That's a tiny faction, and one that gets its strength from our presence there.

[The Painter]

You're missing the point: IT ISN'T ABOUT US.

Finally, you’re right. It’s about them The Iraqis. What happens to them when we just pull out? How many die in a blood bath?

[JoeEllison]

Finally, you’re right. It’s about them The Iraqis. What happens to them when we just pull out? How many die in a blood bath?

I don't know. How many are dying right now, in the current bloodbath? Why do you think it would be any better if the cowards in the White House get their way and we don't pull out? Our presence created and is fueling the bloodbath.

[rtalman]

You're missing the point: IT ISN'T ABOUT US.You are missing the point of the OP. It is about a U.S. Poll and what it means.

[plumjam]

I have yet to hear a satisfactory definition of winning in Iraq.

having military bases there until the oil runs out

[Darth Rotor]

I don't know. How many are dying right now, in the current bloodbath? Why do you think it would be any better if the cowards in the White House get their way and we don't pull out? Our presence created and is fueling the bloodbath.
An alternative take on that is that US presence is suppressing a larger blood bath than is currently going on. You can't find out if you are right or wrong on that unless you pull out, and if the bloodier comes to pass, you are in no position to counter it. With a peak at former Yugoslavia as a possible example of un mitigated civil strife, one might be on good grounds to take that position, particularly as Saudi Arabia and Iran both have serious dogs in the fight, and reasons to fuel competing factions. See also the Mozambique civil war, lasting about 19 years, 1975-1994, as a similar mess fueled by outside factions feeding internal factions.

Tar baby for fifty, Achmed. :(

DR

[JoeEllison]

An alternative take on that is that US presence is suppressing a larger blood bath than is currently going on. You can't find out if you are right or wrong on that unless you pull out, and if the bloodier comes to pass, you are in no position to counter it.

...and none of this has much of anything to do with the topic, does it?

[JoeEllison]

You are missing the point of the OP. It is about a U.S. Poll and what it means.

The "point" of the OP is wrong on a foundational level. That's the problem.

[rtalman]

The "point" of the OP is wrong on a foundational level. That's the problem.So the poll did not have a "Planet X" option. It is still there, and better than 1 in 10 Americans think the world would be better off if we "lost" (I interpret that as "GTFO"). I think (aside from the regional squabbles pointed out by DR) "losing" would make no major difference to the world at large, and would make little difference to majority of the U.S.

I would just like to hear other opinions than my own.

[The Painter]

I don't know. How many are dying right now, in the current bloodbath? Why do you think it would be any better if the cowards in the White House get their way and we don't pull out? Our presence created and is fueling the bloodbath.

The Democrats aren't going to pull us out either. The top 3 candidates will not commit to pulling out before 2013. Almost 6 years from now. Are they now cowards also.

Our presence created a bloodbath? By that logic, our existence created terrorism. I don't think so.

[JoeEllison]

The Democrats aren't going to pull us out either. The top 3 candidates will not commit to pulling out before 2013. Almost 6 years from now. Are they now cowards also.

Our presence created a bloodbath? By that logic, our existence created terrorism. I don't think so.

Nice try.

What good has our presence done for the Iraqi people? We've destroyed their infrastructure, disbanded their army, created terrorism in their country where it didn't previously exist, and kicked off a civil war.

So, how do you intend to solve those problems?

[corplinx]

I saw that poll and I believe its crap.

10 percent more democrats think losing is good over republicans and independents. However , these people are still a small minority in all 3 groups. I would expect people who think this way to say they are democrats on a phone poll since the democrat party is the kinda-sorta-anti-war party.

[Madalch]

That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war.
So Patten didn't know much about the War of 1812, either?

[rtalman]

[/font]So Patten didn't know much about the War of 1812, either?
Bah, that one was a draw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent

[Elind]

So, there's no such thing as a "win" for America in this situation.

That sounds like an absolute that you hold.

Strange, since almost anyone, including diehard opponents to the war, would be able to come up with win scenarios whether they believed they were realistic or not.

[marksman]

How do you empirically measure your definition of winning?

I don't think you can. That's one reason it's such a difficult issue

[Elind]

I don't think you can. That's one reason it's such a difficult issue

What's difficult about it? When the bulk of the population start killing the killers instead of leaving it to others, then one has won to a fair degree. Are you one of those who thinks Arabs are incapable of civilization? (I admit I have my doubts too, however)

[Oliver]

So the poll did not have a "Planet X" option. It is still there, and better than 1 in 10 Americans think the world would be better off if we "lost" (I interpret that as "GTFO"). I think (aside from the regional squabbles pointed out by DR) "losing" would make no major difference to the world at large, and would make little difference to majority of the U.S.

I would just like to hear other opinions than my own.


I'm watching Fox right now and I don't trust ANY poll they
quote or made up, listening to the crap they report...

What would be a success in Iraq? Less than 5,000 dead
soldiers - and less than a million dead civilians? :boggled:

There is no win - the whole thing is a bloody mess, and
Cheney predicted exactly that ... a decade ago. The US
already lost. The question rather is: When will they wake
up to reality?

[marksman]

What's difficult about it?
The question as how one can empriacally measure winning.

I don't think there is an empirical measurement. It's going to be a judgment call as to whether AMerican interests were better served by invading Iraq or not invading Iraq.

Are you one of those who thinks Arabs are incapable of civilization?
No. Nor am I someone who asks non sequiturs.

[Gurdur]

What's difficult about it? When the bulk of the population start killing the killers instead of leaving it to others, then one has won to a fair degree. Are you one of those who thinks Arabs are incapable of civilization? (I admit I have my doubts too, however)


I think you need to inject more racist clichés into your posts. Gives them more of a semblance of substance.

BTW, Elind, once you've finished your SOP posturing, go away and find out who re-introduced the writings of many of the classical Greeks to the West, and find out the origins of the word algebra. Learn something for once. Don't come back till then.

[Schneibster]

I think Darth's right. We're stuck. We can't very well walk away and leave Saudi Arabia and Turkey holding the bag, with all that oil at stake. Turkey is a very close ally; they are a member of NATO, and of the EU. That could change. Then there's Kuwait, and Jordan, and Syria, and of course, Iran. From a petropolitical (heh) standpoint, you can see why we can't afford to leave. We MUST leave a stable political situation in Iraq, capable of defending its interests. Whether that turns out to be three states, or a single integrated state, will probably be largely up to the Iraqis.

ETA: I guess my criteria for "winning" and "losing" are pretty apparent. I don't like the US having its hand forced by what these idiots have done, but I see little choice. Nuclear weapons, and attacking Iran, are simply not options in this situation. The depth of foolishness, from a purely strategic point of view, of what these people have done, will not be apparent until the next decade, I believe.

[Daylight]

Actually, pulling out is the only way to improve the situation. There is no other choice, just no one in the current US government has the balls/brains to do it. Staying will make things worse for both the US and the Region in question. Plus, if you continue to stay you have to go into Iran, which the US can no longer afford the losses that would occur all across the board.

[a_unique_person]

You're missing the point: IT ISN'T ABOUT US.

:clap:

[Oliver]

What's odd is that Iraq was no threat to America or its interests.


Of course it is about US - and therefore it isn't "Odd" at all.
It's about expanding global political influence in Regions that
don't literally obey to the US. At least this seems to be the
main argument from the Neocons.

Now there may be a chance that they succeed in a very
long run - but it wasn't worth the effort since it's heavily
damaging the US-Reputation in the world and therefore,
putting national security at stake.

But maybe someone in here is able to erase my conclusion
that there is some very huge stupidity going on since decades
concerning US-Foreign Politics.

[Elind]

The question as how one can empriacally measure winning.

I don't think there is an empirical measurement. It's going to be a judgment call as to whether AMerican interests were better served by invading Iraq or not invading Iraq.


Yes. I agree empirical is pointless in this case. I guess I didn't take the question seriously in a literal sense.

[Elind]

I think you need to inject more racist clichés into your posts. Gives them more of a semblance of substance.

BTW, Elind, once you've finished your SOP posturing, go away and find out who re-introduced the writings of many of the classical Greeks to the West, and find out the origins of the word algebra. Learn something for once. Don't come back till then.

Giving orders are we?:rolleyes:

I don't know what racist has to do with it. Most Arabs are Caucasian, like me.

They have a tribal based societies, not to mention grounded in theocracy. Are you going to give me any examples of Arab states that have any semblance of what we call a free and modern society, in spite of the wealth they theoretically have?

Their supposed days of glory were either before Islam, or are distorted after. They were conquerors of the sort that you like to dismiss regularly today, and they eventually got kicked out of the Europe they ruled, and have been nursing their wounded pride ever since.

[Popinjay]

What's odd is that Iraq was no threat to America or its interests.

Michael Moore is that you?


"Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait."

[Zbu]

I'm agreeing with Joe Ellison in this thread. Winning or Losing in Iraq is a Republican frame of mind. In essence, there is nothing to win: the only way we can honestly say that we 'won' something is to put a Saddam clone in there to restore 'order' that was beneficial to the United States. And in doing so, we have wasted our time and several thousand innocent lives on a pathetic display of power by one of the worst people ever put in power on the face of this giant blue and green sphere.

However, I do have a solution. Put George W. Bush in Baghdad in that big fancy building he helped build and which is now falling apart due to poor design. Put him there until he can figure out how to make this work. Or rather, just brick the doors shut so he has to stay there so he can be informed exactly what he has done while we pull out and wait for things to settle. Then maybe something constructive can get done.

[Beerina]

It seems the main reason to stay at this point is the philosophy of General Patton:Now, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.

I'm guessing General Patton isn't a big fan of Michigan State last Saturday night*. :eek:






* See, apparently a number of State players were seen smiling and yukking it up on the field on TV immediately after their overtime (and embarassing) loss to Eastern Michigan University.

[Beerina]

What's odd is that Iraq was no threat to America or its interests.

Not true. No WMDs were found, but paying the families of successful suicide bombers against Israel is definitely against US interests because seeing Israel successful is in US interests, as defined by both Republican and Democrat election winners in both the presidency and Congress for the past 40+ years. For one example.

I understand what you're saying, but "No WMDS found" isn't the same as "no threat to US interests". Perhaps you mean "no WMDs" or "no immediate terrorist threat...to the United States proper."

[Beerina]

The Democrats aren't going to pull us out either. The top 3 candidates will not commit to pulling out before 2013. Almost 6 years from now. Are they now cowards also.

Our presence created a bloodbath? By that logic, our existence created terrorism. I don't think so.

Anything beyond 4-5 years is a good, cowardly time for a president to make plans. It's beyond the next election, and by that time, they don't care.

Prior to the unexpected Internet boom, the Clinton administration had set the timetable to balance the budget to well beyond 8 years, i.e. the hard choices are the next guy's problem.

It's been going on before anyone here was born, and will go on long after everyone's grandkids are dead.

[Upchurch]

Would losing in Iraq be such a bad thing?
Yes. The real question is: Would staying in Iraq be better or worse than pulling out now.

(I say "worse")

[Darth Rotor]

Yes. The real question is: Would staying in Iraq be better or worse than pulling out now.

(I say "worse")
What are you willing to risk happening in the Persian Gulf? If you don't mind another regional war for a few years (the Iran Iraq war of 1980-88 was nasty, but the world is still turning) then a good policy choice is to step back, pick who we want to win, and let war by proxy commence.

Short term, the biggest problem is the CNN effect, which was introduced in the 1990's as a reminder that what used to be doable was going to be harder, politically, due to the Information campaign attendant to any policy, much less war.

Long term: my eight ball just went on strike, want's a pay raise. Yes, it was made in Detroit.

DR

[Upchurch]

What are you willing to risk happening in the Persian Gulf? If you don't mind another regional war for a few years (the Iran Iraq war of 1980-88 was nasty, but the world is still turning) then a good policy choice is to step back, pick who we want to win, and let war by proxy commence.
You say that as if all of that isn't a possibility if we don't step back (except for the "proxy" bit).

[Oliver]

Yes. The real question is: Would staying in Iraq be better or worse than pulling out now.

(I say "worse")


I say the War is lost. And leaving would be a catastrophe
for national security, Middle-Eastern stability and an even
bigger damaged reputation.

There is an old saying over here which basically says:
"You broke it, you fix it".