What does "Victory in Iraq" mean?

[dug_down_deep]

I keep seeing people talking about victory in Iraq, but I can't say that I have a clue what it is we're trying to win. Can anyone tell me?

[ravenscape]

Apparently we're trying to win ashes and rubble.

[Richard]

Apparently we're trying to win ashes and rubble.

Sad, but true.

[Matty]

Apparently we're trying to win ashes and rubble.

Dont forget corpses. As many corpses as you can eat. eeeww.


Actually i think we're trying to win the hearts and minds of the iraqui people.
What better way than by throwing their pet puppies off cliffs i ask ya.

[kennethamy]

I keep seeing people talking about victory in Iraq, but I can't say that I have a clue what it is we're trying to win. Can anyone tell me?

The defeat of the the insurgency; a (somewhat) democratic government which would be at peace with its neigbors, and with the rest of the world, I would have thought that would be obvious.

[laughing dog]

The defeat of the the insurgency; a (somewhat) democratic government which would be at peace with its neigbors, and with the rest of the world, I would have thought that would be obvious. The fantasies of some are not obvious realities to others.

[kennethamy]

The fantasies of some are not obvious realities to others.

But DDD said he did not know what "victory in Iraq" meant. I just pointed out what it obviously meant. Whether it is achievable, as I think it is, is a different issue.

"I will teach you differences" King Lear Shakespeare.

[laughing dog]

But DDD said he did not know what "victory in Iraq" meant. I just pointed out what it obviously meant. Given the ever-changing reasons for our invasion of Iraq, and that our President declared victory years ago, DDD's question is relevant.

[dug_down_deep]

The defeat of the the insurgency; a (somewhat) democratic government which would be at peace with its neigbors, and with the rest of the world, I would have thought that would be obvious.
The defeat of the insurgency

But that is just another way of saying 'victory in Iraq'. How would such a defeat/victory be determined? By what measure?

Also, Iraq is currently at peace with its neighbors, and has a somewhat democratic government. So we're done there, right?

Does this boil down to level of violence? If so, then what do we deem an acceptable level of violence so that we might declare ourselves victors?

[dug_down_deep]

My true concern is that there is no measure, and therefore we will never achieve victory and never leave. Or only leave when it becomes rhetorically advantageous to do so -- like some savvy politician decides that we won (under his/her watch, of course). I am concerned about shifting goal posts, and snipe-hunting, and propaganda, and false views of reality.

[kennethamy]

The defeat of the insurgency

But that is just another way of saying 'victory in Iraq'. How would such a defeat/victory be determined? By what measure?

Also, Iraq is currently at peace with its neighbors, and has a somewhat democratic government. So we're done there, right?

Does this boil down to level of violence? If so, then what do we deem an acceptable level of violence so that we might declare ourselves victors?

So, DDD, it is, at least, an exaggeration for you to say that you have "no clue" what winning in Iraq would mean. You do know pretty well. You are (so far as I can see) alleging that there is no exact way of telling. But that is setting the standard too high. There have been insurgencies before in history, and it wasn't all that hard to tell when they were defeated. To name but two: there was the Philippine insurgency early in the 20th century, and the insurgency in on the Malayan peninsular put down by the British in the 1950's. It was quite clear when victory in those two cases was achieved. I cannot tell you exactly how many bombings there can be before we think the violence is at acceptable level. But why should you demand that? Would the number 11 a year satisfy you? Is a number what you are looking for? And it is not a matter of "declaring" victory. It is a matter of when the conditions are established so that a civil government can function in a normal way. There can be no precision of the sort you demand. And, clearly, this has to be gradual, and there will inevitably be "ups' and "downs". How could anyone reasonably expect more than a gradual lessening of violence, coupled with a gradual belief on the part of the civil population that normal life is possible.

There is no simple answer. But why should anyone think that there is one?

[dug_down_deep]

So, DDD, it is, at least, an exaggeration for you to say that you have "no clue" what winning in Iraq would mean. You do know pretty well. You are (so far as I can see) alleging that there is no exact way of telling.
I'm thinking that there's not even a ballpark specified. Am I wrong? Maybe. But the very fact that as a moderately informed citizen I don't know what the objective is, means that as a citizen I can be swayed by arguments that hinge on whether we are winning or losing in Iraq, since the target is not clear.

Let's say that the level of violence in Iraq two months ago had reached acceptable maximums. (And btw, I am not the one who invented this idea of level of violence, which implies a quantity.) Should we have begun packing up our stuff to leave then? If not -- if the level of violence must be sustainable, then what is the qualitative measure for determining whether or not it is sustainable?

I have asked what the target is. If I see you or anyone else supply that target, then I will go on to ask what evidence you have that the U.S. military command (including the President) shares that target.

And it is not a matter of "declaring" victory. It is a matter of when the conditions are established so that a civil government can function in a normal way. There can be no precision of the sort you demand. And, clearly, this has to be gradual, and there will inevitably be "ups' and "downs". How could anyone reasonably expect more than a gradual lessening of violence, coupled with a gradual belief on the part of the civil population that normal life is possible.
But clearly it is indeed a matter of declaring victory, as those who wish us to maintain our presence in Iraq suggest that we must not "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory". And if they are using these words, then these words must mean something. What do they mean? If they mean that the civilian population feels that normal life is possible, then how do you measure that belief? With a poll?

There is no simple answer. But why should anyone think that there is one?
I ask for no simple answer. I ask for an answer. Words used without understanding of their meaning are words that mean nothing. If I am to make decisions as an elector and constituent, then I have to know what it is I am deciding upon.

[kennethamy]

I'm thinking that there's not even a ballpark specified. Am I wrong? Maybe. But the very fact that as a moderately informed citizen I don't know what the objective is, means that as a citizen I can be swayed by arguments that hinge on whether we are winning or losing in Iraq, since the target is not clear.

Let's say that the level of violence in Iraq two months ago had reached acceptable maximums. (And btw, I am not the one who invented this idea of level of violence, which implies a quantity.) Should we have begun packing up our stuff to leave then? If not -- if the level of violence must be sustainable, then what is the qualitative measure for determining whether or not it is sustainable?

I have asked what the target is. If I see you or anyone else supply that target, then I will go on to ask what evidence you have that the U.S. military command (including the President) shares that target.


But clearly it is indeed a matter of declaring victory, as those who wish us to maintain our presence in Iraq suggest that we must not "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory". And if they are using these words, then these words must mean something. What do they mean? If they mean that the civilian population feels that normal life is possible, then how do you measure that belief? With a poll?


I ask for no simple answer. I ask for an answer. Words used without understanding of their meaning are words that mean nothing. If I am to make decisions as an elector and constituent, then I have to know what it is I am deciding upon.

Let's say that the level of violence in Iraq two months ago had reached acceptable maximums. (And btw, I am not the one who invented this idea of level of violence, which implies a quantity.) Should we have begun packing up our stuff to leave then? If not -- if the level of violence must be sustainable, then what is the qualitative measure for determining whether or not it is sustainable?

1. Of course not. It is very likely that we shall have to stay there for a considerable time to bolster the Iraqi security forces, and to make sure that the insurgency does not arise again. We have been in Korea since 1950. We have been in Bosnia and in Kosovo for 6 years in order to make sure the violence doesn't start up again. What would make you think we would not have to do the same in Iraq? Not ever Obama realistically think we are going to "pack up" any time in the foreseeable future.

2. Whether the (low) level of violence is sustainable depends on the circumstances. There is no general measure (what is a qualitative measure?) of whether it is. It would have to depend on the intelligence we receive about whether the terrorists are revving up again, and the judgment of the people who are in charge of such things. Neither you nor I have any training or much understanding of these matters. Why should you think we do? We have a representative democracy, and those we elect appoint those who make such judgments. If you don't trust our elected leaders to make good appointments, toss them out next election. That's how it works. How should I know the answer to your question. I guess we can do some research on the Web if we are interested.

We can see how the civilians are acting. Are they returning to their homes? Are they opening up their shops and businesses? Are the children going to school? Is normal life returning and going on? Why is that so hard to observe?
Fortunately, some of that is starting to happen now. To run out now would be obviously idiotic. Not even Obama would do it.

[dug_down_deep]

1. Of course not. It is very likely that we shall have to stay there for a considerable time to bolster the Iraqi security forces, and to make sure that the insurgency does not arise again. We have been in Korea since 1950. We have been in Bosnia and in Kosovo for 6 years in order to make sure the violence doesn't start up again. What would make you think we would not have to do the same in Iraq? Not ever Obama realistically think we are going to "pack up" any time in the foreseeable future.
You're telling me this as though I had said something that it directly addressed. I don't see how it does. Obviously a small multinational force will likely serve as peacekeepers for some time to come. But this will happen after victory, correct? So it is not relevant in determining when victory has been achieved.

2. Whether the (low) level of violence is sustainable depends on the circumstances. There is no general measure (what is a qualitative measure?) of whether it is. It would have to depend on the intelligence we receive about whether the terrorists are revving up again, and the judgment of the people who are in charge of such things. Neither you nor I have any training or much understanding of these matters. Why should you think we do? We have a representative democracy, and those we elect appoint those who make such judgments. If you don't trust our elected leaders to make good appointments, toss them out next election. That's how it works. How should I know the answer to your question. I guess we can do some research on the Web if we are interested.
So the meaning of victory in Iraq is a mystery to you as well. But you seem to rely on the judgment of military men in determining foreign policy. Why? I thought we were to rely on our elected leaders for that.

We can see how the civilians are acting. Are they returning to their homes? Are they opening up their shops and businesses? Are the children going to school? Is normal life returning and going on? Why is that so hard to observe?
You asked before what qualitative measures were. Now you've presented a few. That is not hard to observe, I suppose. And furthermore, since you've made the assumption that this is not going on, I will counter with the assumption that it is. Life is normal enough. Let's leave, and perhaps it will be even more normal.

Fortunately, some of that is starting to happen now. To run out now would be obviously idiotic. Not even Obama would do it.
Obviously idiotic means as much as victory in Iraq, which is to say nothing.

Why would withdrawing forces now be a bad idea?

[kennethamy]

So the meaning of victory in Iraq is a mystery to you as well. But you seem to rely on the judgment of military men in determining foreign policy. Why? I thought we were to rely on our elected leaders for that.


You asked before what qualitative measures were. Now you've presented a few. That is not hard to observe, I suppose. And furthermore, since you've made the assumption that this is not going on, I will counter with the assumption that it is. Life is normal enough. Let's leave, and perhaps it will be even more normal.


Obviously idiotic means as much as victory in Iraq, which is to say nothing.

Why would withdrawing forces now be a bad idea?

So the meaning of victory in Iraq is a mystery to you as well. But you seem to rely on the judgment of military men in determining foreign policy. Why? I thought we were to rely on our elected leaders for that.

Not at all. But I think that there are no set measurements of the criteria for measuring victory in Iraq. But I certainly know what those criteria would be. As I mentioned: the sharp lowering or the incidence of killing by the insurgents; the return to normal life by the population; the restoration of the rule of law by the government. No mystery at all. Unless, of course, you insist on some kind of exact measurement where there can be none. Of course, I will rely on the judgment of those who are trained in these matters to say when these criteria are being met. What would you do?

But life is not normal enough at all. There is still killing going on. And (for instance) the Mahdi Army is still intact, and, today, broke its truce, so that the Iraqi army attacked them. And, sections of the country outside of Baghdad have not yet been pacified.

It would be foolish to leave Iraq, particularly when we are making progress toward the goal of getting rid of the insurgents. That is what I meant by "obviously idiotic".

Withdrawing the forces now would be a bad idea because the country has not been pacified. The life of the population is not yet back to normal. And the government is still very fluid. And, of course, it would be to surrender all the gains that we have won at such a cost.

[laughing dog]

And, of course, it would be to surrender all the gains that we have won at such a cost. And if continuing is just more cost without much (if any) gain?

[kennethamy]

And if continuing is just more cost without much (if any) gain?

But there is no reason to believe that is true.

[laughing dog]

But there is no reason to believe that is true.
There is every reason to believe it is a distinct possibility, unless, of course, you are assuming that we are going to be there for the next 60 years or so. That sectarian hatred will take at least a generation to eliminate.

[kennethamy]

There is every reason to believe it is a distinct possibility, unless, of course, you are assuming that we are going to be there for the next 60 years or so. That sectarian hatred will take at least a generation to eliminate.

Well, even a distinct possibility is not a probability. And suppose it does take 60 years (which I don't suppose). We have had troops in Korea for nearly that long. And it was worth it to us, and to the South Korean people. I think you probably talk too much to people with whom you agree. Remember, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." John Stuart Mill

[laughing dog]

Well, even a distinct possibility is not a probability. And suppose it does take 60 years (which I don't suppose). We have had troops in Korea for nearly that long. You are comparing South Korea with Iraq? Let's see, we invaded Iraq but not South Korea. The Iraqis want us gone, and the South Koreans did not. The Iraqis faced no external threats, while South Korea did and does. There is sectarian discord and hatred within Iraq but not in South Korea. Iraq is infected with some vicious Islamists, and there is nothinkg at all like that in South Korea. Iraq is basically divided into three distinct groups (Sunnis, Shias and the Kurds), while South Korea is basically homogenous. I'd say your comparison is about as useful as the rest of your pro-war mongering "rationales".



I think you probably talk too much to people with whom you agree. Remember, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." John Stuart Mill You have no idea to whom I talk. I will give you marks for being consistently wrong.

[The 800# Gorilla]

Dog, chill. He knows not of what he speaks. He is young and needs to learn of the world.

[kennethamy]

You are comparing South Korea with Iraq? Let's see, we invaded Iraq but not South Korea. The Iraqis want us gone, and the South Koreans did not. The Iraqis faced no external threats, while South Korea did and does. There is sectarian discord and hatred within Iraq but not in South Korea. Iraq is infected with some vicious Islamists, and there is nothinkg at all like that in South Korea. Iraq is basically divided into three distinct groups (Sunnis, Shias and the Kurds), while South Korea is basically homogenous. I'd say your comparison is about as useful as the rest of your pro-war mongering "rationales".




Your post has to do with whether invading Iraq was right or wrong. It has nothing to do with whether we should not remain in Iraq. Keep your eye on the ball.

[laughing dog]

Your post has to do with whether invading Iraq was right or wrong. It has nothing to do with whether we should not remain in Iraq. Keep your eye on the ball.
You used South Korea as an example for why we should stay in Iraq. My post showed that so little similarity between the two situations that the example was absurd. That logic was not terribly subtle, so please try to read with comprehension before you post.

[kennethamy]

You used South Korea as an example for why we should stay in Iraq. My post showed that so little similarity between the two situations that the example was absurd. That logic was not terribly subtle, so please try to read with comprehension before you post.

I did not argue that since we should stay in S. Korea, therefore, we should stay in Iraq. That would be an idiotic argument. (And, indeed, I don't know whether we should stay in S. Korea). What I said is that is that it is not crazy that we should have troops somewhere for a long time, since we have had troops in S. Korea for a long time. Try to read more carefully, and not project your views.

[laughing dog]

I did not argue that since we should stay in S. Korea, therefore, we should stay in Iraq. That would be an idiotic argument. Your point being?

What I said is that is that it is not crazy that we should have troops somewhere for a long time, since we have had troops in S. Korea for a long time. That is justifying the projected length of stay in Iraq because it worked in S. Korea. That justification/rationale does not work because the situation in Iraq is more than sufficiently different than the one in S. Korea.

I suggest you take your own advice and then some: try to read more carefully, think a bit, and not project your views.

[cape_royds]

Victory in a war depends on the object of the war.

What was the object of the Iraq War?

Since I believe that the US and other coalition governments have never been forthright about their war aims, I'll explore some of the possibilities, beginning with the officially announced intentions:

1. Stop Iraqi deployment of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

I guess this was achieved, however the invasion of Iraq has been conclusively shown to have been unnecessary to achieve this object.

2. Depose and slay Saddam Hussein.

If this was the object of the war, it has been achieved. Whether the achievement was worth the price would be a separate debate.

3. Create a democratic Iraq to stand as an example to neighbouring Arab countries in the Middle East.

Utter failure. Nobody--absolutely nobody--in the Middle East regards Iraq as an example of anything other than of the manifold dangers of a foreign invasion.

4. Create a stable government in Iraq.

Failure. Any stability will merely be the stability of desolation.

5. Create a friendly (to the invaders) government in Iraq.

Possible, but it will be neither democratic nor stable. A substantial foreign garrison will be required for a protracted period of time, to maintain a friendly client regime in Iraq. I think this is kennethamy's definition of victory.

6. Establish control of a large portion of the world's proven petroleum reserves.

Partly achieved. The USA now controls Iraq's petroleum resources in a negative sense: they can prevent Iraq from selling oil, in a way which they could not with the pre-invasion sanctions system. However, the USA has not yet been able to exploit Iraq's petroleum resources for the invaders' benefit.

7. Make a bloody example of any country or people who defy the will of the USA.

Mission accomplished. The sight of Iraq's corpses, ruins, and refugees has certainly increased fear of the USA worldwide. Such fear can be valuable to an empire. After all, it would take some pretty brave souls to decide to resist the USA, having seen the slaughter and devastation in Iraq. If anybody didn't already know the price of challenging the US will, they know now. This is "war as a form of didactic theatre."


In summary:

--If the invasion of Iraq was intended for the security of other nations, it was unnecessary.

--If the invasion of Iraq was intended for the benefit of the Iraqis or other Arabs, it has been an utter failure.

--If the invasion of Iraq was intended to secure future access to Iraqi petroleum, it may eventually prove successful.

--If the invasion of Iraq was intended to serve as the pretext for the indefinite military occupation of that strategically valuable country, it has been quite successful.

--If the invasion of Iraq was intended to prove the will of America and some of its allies to crush one of their prominent opponents in the developing world, it has been very successful indeed.


So I think that an assessment of "victory in Iraq" depends on how one assesses the imperial nature of the intentions of the invading power.

[dug_down_deep]

I agree with most of that, CR (and great post, BTW), but I don't see what the evidence is for believing that the U.S. will some day have access to the oil, or that there is any success to be claimed in regard to oil at all.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

The defeat of the the insurgency;

Might actually be possible.

a (somewhat) democratic government which would be at peace with its neigbors, and with the rest of the world,

Those are either/or propositions. Friendly to all neighbors includes Israel, and if they are friendly with them, then the rest of their neighbors will not be. If they are friendly with everyone else, then they will not be with Israel, due to simple politics.

I would have thought that would be obvious.

Obviously not possible.

[kennethamy]

Your point being?

That is justifying the projected length of stay in Iraq because it worked in S. Korea. That justification/rationale does not work because the situation in Iraq is more than sufficiently different than the one in S. Korea.



No it isn't. It is pointing out that we may sometimes have to keep troops in places, because there are occasions when it may be necessary. What makes you think that I am arguing that the circumstances in Iraq are like those in Korea? There may be entirely different reasons for keeping troops in Iraq, than those we had in Korea.

You really do have narrow vision.

[laughing dog]

What makes you think that I am arguing that the circumstances in Iraq are like those in Korea? Because you used S. Korea as an example for keeping troops in a region for 60 years +. But the situations are not parallel in any sense other than our troops are there.


There may be entirely different reasons for keeping troops in Iraq, than those we had in Korea. You have not lost your knack for pointing out the patently obvious.


You really do have narrow vision. As opposed to abject blindness to reality?

[ninewands]

I keep seeing people talking about victory in Iraq,
... and other mythological events?
but I can't say that I have a clue what it is we're trying to win.
Neither does the Commander-in-Chief ... that's why we are now officially caught in a quagmire.
Can anyone tell me?
The only way I could see that we could have won the war in Iraq was never to have gone there. IMHO it was pre-destined that if we removed Saddam the country would fall apart.

[dug_down_deep]

I heard a reporter on Charlie Rose say that the generals are trying not to use the word 'victory' any more, since its meaning is ambiguous and it's inflammatory in the sense of feeding into the 'invader' perception. The generals are now talking about 'successes in Iraq'. Somebody let the demagogues know.

[kennethamy]

I heard a reporter on Charlie Rose say that the generals are trying not to use the word 'victory' any more, since its meaning is ambiguous and it's inflammatory in the sense of feeding into the 'invader' perception. The generals are now talking about 'successes in Iraq'. Somebody let the demagogues know.

I don't think it makes any substantial difference. Why do you. The change is just to appease those who are interested only in semantics (which is to say, trivial verbal distinctions) If, as the President pointed out, we cannot expect that the terrorists will sign an official surrender, but will eventually be either killed or scattered, then, it might be that success rather than victory is the the appropriate term. If the terrorists are killed or scattered that's good enough, isn't it. Or, do you demand an official surrender?

[perfessor]

I don't think it makes any substantial difference. Why do you. The change is just to appease those who are interested only in semantics (which is to say, trivial verbal distinctions) If, as the President pointed out, we cannot expect that the terrorists will sign an official surrender, but will eventually be either killed or scattered, then, it might be that success rather than victory is the the appropriate term. If the terrorists are killed or scattered that's good enough, isn't it. Or, do you demand an official surrender?
Interesting - you start by calling it a semantic quibble, and then go into the reasons why the terms "victory" and "success" actually mean different things. It seems to me that the quoted generals perhaps realize that victory is not possible; they hope that success still is.

In any case, it seems you are defining victory (or success, whichever) as "the terrorists are killed or scattered." It sorta makes me wonder why we went into Iraq in the first place - we could have killed or scattered them in Afghanistan just as well.

[dug_down_deep]

I don't think it makes any substantial difference. Why do you. The change is just to appease those who are interested only in semantics (which is to say, trivial verbal distinctions)
Ambiguous, the cited general said. That is not a concession to semantics, it's an acknowledgment that the word victory is not appropriate.

If, as the President pointed out, we cannot expect that the terrorists will sign an official surrender, but will eventually be either killed or scattered, then, it might be that success rather than victory is the the appropriate term. If the terrorists are killed or scattered that's good enough, isn't it. Or, do you demand an official surrender?
I don't expect that killing or scattering the terrorists in Iraq means they'll be killed or scattered elsewhere in the world. In fact, they seem to be scattering to new safe havens in Pakistan, and scattering themselves more widely. And the killing does nothing, if our actions in Iraq and elsewhere only serve to aid recruitment of new members.