Originally posted by Evil Genius
What would be your definition of a win?
Placing that in concrete terms isn't easy, considering how complex the situation is.
However, a victory would include an eradication of al Qaeda forces, or at least creating an environment that would make their operations less
difficult somewhere else and reduce factional fighting so that a functioning democracy can flourish.
These are not easy goals, but they are worth fighting for.
It is also important to remember that Iraq is a front in the war on terror, which must be won.
For awhile, I began to lose faith in the Iraq war myself, although I recognized the importance of seeing the job through.
But, now I can see more than ever that whether or not Saddam had WMDs, which he did an excellent job of convincing the world that he did, it is now
clear to me that deposing Saddam was an essential key toward accomplishing our goals of defeating al Qaeda in the Middle East.
It is hard to imagine how hard it might have been to fight the war in Afghanistan with Saddam in power in Iraq and who would have found every
opportunity to send missiles into Israel as he did in the first Gulf War and otherwise create mischief in anyway possible. Let us not forget the
almost nonstop shenanigans that he was up to during the Clinton administration in violation of UN sanctions and the number of air strikes Clinton
ordered against Iraq during that time.
I realize that my view of victory is full of holes. At this point, we can only speak of objectives and cannot imagine just how the future might
However, there is one thing we must all hold fast to if we want to prevail in this war.
Victory is absolutely possible until we are utterly defeated or as we did in Vietnam, simply throw up our hands and leave because the enemy turned our
streets and campuses into war zones.
I am reminded that after the the invasion of Europe in WWII, Eisenhower and Montgomery believed that the war would be over by Christmas.
They could not have been more wrong.
In fact, by the time Christmas rolled around, the Germans had created the bulge in the allied line along the Ardennes in Belgium and the toughest
combat of the war was yet to come.
The troops were poorly trained, winter uniforms had not been issued, food was in short supply, the weather was brutally cold to the point that allied
commanders called the weather their greatest enemy. Frostbite and trench foot caused almost as many casualties as the Germans. And on top of it all,
the allies were out numbered and out gunned.
At that point, if we had the population we have today connected by the internet, the war would have been called unwinnable and Roosevelt would be
nearly universally called a lunatic for not calling for an immediate withdrawal. Yet, somehow, the allies struggled on and two tank divisions were
finally brought in and the Germans were repulsed.
But, back to my original point. The thing that I objected to most in your original post was citing a story about the psychology of gambling as an
explanation for GW Bush's commitment to our efforts in Iraq.
It was flippant, mean-spirited, and irrelevant to the real life and death struggle that is taking place in Iraq today.
It implied without basis that Bush is acting out in some compulsive manner and completely out of touch with the goals and challenges of Iraq.
I know that you believe that these things are true, but to build your case on the basis of the article on gambling is academically dishonest or at the
very least, sophomoric.
It's just armchair psychology and cannot in any way be substantiated and smacks of just one more attempt to smear our president and our war effort by
any means necessary, no matter how irresponsible.
[edit on 2008/4/24 by GradyPhilpott]