Question #2 for all Candidates

As the others have stated, a definition of "victory" is required.

After all, Saddam Hussein has been removed from power, tried and hung for his crimes, and official hostilities with the government of Iraq are not being undertaken. Given those circumstances I would say "victory" under a minor part of the initial premise for invasion has already happened.

If you mean "victory" as in the complete and utter surrender of all insurgents/resistance fighters/jihadists (pick your own term as you see fit) then, to be honest, I think you are misguided as its not going to happen.

The lid has been opened on a hornets nest and only the Iraqi people, on their own, are going to be able to determine how their country moves forward. No amount of intervention by the US will help - in fact it is quite the opposite, our presence there destabilizes the issues by adding an outside element and adds to the cause of the fanatics. In that case "victory" is job done (Saddam gone) and home for the armed forces personnel.

You condemed my fellow candidates for giving you political answers, but you asked an open ended and undefined political question.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Do you support a victory in Iraq?

A simple yes or no will do.

Absolutely, Yes!

As President, I will be only too happy to define clear and public goals for victory, as well as outline my plan to achieve it. I have briefly outlined it in my candidacy thread (linked in my sig), but if you'd prefer I can expound upon it here.

Certainly. I don't think that America pulling out and being viewed by the rest of the world as being weak when the going gets tough is an option.

You have choosen to not define victory.

If victory to you is a functioning Iraq democracy where the various factions all participate in a peaceful manor, then I don't think that victory will be achieved.

If you define victory as toppleing Saddam regime, they we have achieved victory and should pack up and go home.

If you expect a somewhat stable government that is able to control the popluation we may get there.

Personally, I think that we should set some bench marks for the Iraq government and if they cannot live up to the benchmarks, I don't see why we should stay there any longer.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Certainly. I don't think that America pulling out and being viewed by the rest of the world as being weak when the going gets tough is an option.

Not that I give a damn about global opinion, but it appears that you must think that staying in Iraq and being viewed by the rest of the world as stupid is a more desirable option.

The United States of America is the most powerful nation on earth whether we stay in or get out of Iraq. This fact is not dependent on the global perception of our country. It is now in the best interest of the most powerful nation on earth to leave Iraq which we should do without weighing the opinions of foreign countries. The American electorate have given their opinion loudly & clearly in the November elections and it is about time that somebody started listening to the American people. It is their opinion that should matter most.

Nobody has defeated the United States of America and nobody has weakened the United States. Any damage that has been done to our great country has been self inflicted and continuing to shoot ourselves in the foot because of pride or machismo is a ridiculous proposition. Bringing the troops home now is the only intelligent course of action.

A case can certainly be made that we owe something to the Iraqi people for the death & damage caused by the stupidity of the current administration, but until we stop the bleeding by withdrawing all American forces it is impossible to put a value on any debt that we would owe.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by df1]

Yes, I support a victory. In my mind victory is achieving goals that sets the Iraqi PEOPLE on the right path. Almost every single person here knows that a democracy in Iraq is a lost cause. What if instead of pushing a government that doesn't work, we take matters into our own hands and start making stuff. Give people, money, jobs and homes. Make good on the promises we gave those people. We bombed the crap out of them under false pretenses and now everyone is saying get out while we can. I guarantee you that if you start giving these people the houses they want and not "losing" millions of dollars, then you will probably see a turn around in violence. You never see a person who's well off fighting the people that helped him. An old proverb,"don't bite the hand that feeds you." So basically my stand is stop working toward a government. It's not gonna happen. Help the people and the people will help you.


[edit on 8-3-2007 by truttseeker]

YES!



[edit on 8-3-2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by RRconservative
No need to over analyze.

If you want victory for the US in Iraq. Say So.

If you want defeat for the US in Iraq. Say So.


This is the problem that affects politicians. They are asked a direct question, and instead of answering it, they go into spin mode.

I was hoping it would be a little different here.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"...

What is a US victory in Iraq?

That's a direct question, why can't you answer it?

Why don't you find out who Pyrrhus was, then tell us if you still want a victory...

Or try this...

Do you want a victory in Iraq that will strengthen the Iranian regime's resistance to US policy, guarantee Iranian possession of the bomb, cost 10,000 dead US servicemen and women and create such a budget deficit that your as-yet-unborn grandchildren will still be paying for it in 30 years?

A simple yes or no will suffice...

Or how about...

Do you want a victory in Iraq that will require the return of the draft, a 30% cut to education, a 60% cut to health, a 30% price hike for fuel (every five years!) a 20 % decrease in naval surface forces, a 60% decrease in naval sub-surface forces, a 60% decrease in NASA, a 25% increase in electricity bills, an end to FarmAid...

How about this...

Find Iraq on a world map. Now find the nearest nation allied (not friendly) with the US. Now find the nearest nation directly opposed to the US. Now find the nearest nuetral nation. Make a fourth category titled "friendly, but not allied and of no actual help in Iraq". Now, make a list of all nations within a 1,000 kilometre radius and place them in one of those four categories and tell me which category has the highest number. Which has the highest number in average closest proximity to Iraq? Which has the highest number in average distance FROM Iraq?

Now write a five thousand word essay entitled What I learned from completing this exercise...

Originally posted by RRconservative
Do you support a victory in Iraq?

A simple yes or no will do.

Maybe a simple yes or no will do it for you...but how is it a relevant question at this point in time? Now that the enemy (Saddam Hussein) is long gone?

Have we not won? Did we not get rid of both the despot and his two heirs?

WHAT exactly constitutes a victory in war? Overcoming the enemy?

The concerns about Iraq are no longer about war but about resolution following war....

Absolutely! The status quo has to go. Victory can only come when we take the war seriously. A 20,000 troop surge is a joke! If the current administration was serious, they would get a minimum of 200,000 troops in that country and run constant sweeps of suspected terrorist havens. This half-assed attempt at "victory" is a shame and would not go un-addresed in my administration.

Yes, I support victory in Iraq. No, I don't think we'll get it.

I do not support playing into the strategy of our enemies by throwing lives and money into a bottomless pit. We caused this problem and we have an obligation to try and fix it, but we can't destroy ourselves trying.

I would provide funding to accelerate the training of Iraqi troops by sending them out of Iraq to NATO nations to recieve the best possible training at the greatest possible rate, as those troops became available they would take over police duties in Iraq immediately and US forces would be moved out of the higher risk areas and into a safer but still vital role in securing Iraq's borders, and I would engage in strong diplomacy with Russia and China- key supporters of Iran- offering them the incentives and disincentives that are necessary to make them pull Iran's leash and get Iran out of that conflict. Finally I would attempt to decrease the animosity between average Iraqis and the US by declaring our intent to leave, by truly acknowledging the sovreignty of the Iraqi government by giving them the option to void agreements made during our occupation, and by providing additional funding for major public works projects to be done entirely by Iraqis in low-risk areas of the country, providing both jobs and a sense of national pride.

I believe we need to give the government of Iraq a fighting chance because we created this mess, but at a certain point they will have to sink or swim.

If they swim, then we got lucky, and then we will truly have to "wage peace". I find it ironic that people talk about winning the peace when people are still being exploded in the streets of Baghdad; that sounds like a war to me if anything ever did. When that stops however, we are going to have to assemble a network of economic and diplomatic support for Iraq that focuses on relations with neighbors like Turkey and Kuwait and gives the Iraqi people the "soft power" to choose their own destiny despite the pressure which Iran and Syria can bring to bear.

If they sink, Iraq will become a totalitarian state run by Shia extremists who hate us and who are subject to influence from Iran. I acknowledge that possibility and am prepared to address it effectively without another war. What we see in Iraq today did not happen over night. It is the product of 28 years of short-sighted, unprincipled middle east policy making. If a new dictator rises we go right back to square one, and it could easily take at least 30 years of wise, principled policy making to get a good result. I am prepared to begin that slow, painstaking process if that's what it comes to, because I AM NOT prepared to be responsible for 4 years of escalating violence and another 3000+ dead Americans and hundreds of billions in damage to our economy. If I were to do that I would literally be doing more to hurt America than Osama Bin Laden.