Victory would be “As we successfully train 10,000 Iraqi’s and they’ve been actively supporting security for 3 months, then 10,000 US soldiers get sent home. (Or back to Afghanistan where Pres. Bush screwed up yet again.)”

You’re never going to get any definition of “victory” out of the Republicans in power, because then they’d have to hold themselves accountable to their own statements. As long as they can claim “victory is what we claim it to be, not anything that can be measured” then they could crap in a hat and wear it around and say “See! We’re winning!”

It’s just so sad that the elected Republican officials obviously hate our American soldiers so much they would rather the soldiers get killed for oil and permanent bases rather than set any definable standards for themselves.

I really can’t see how leaving iraq right now would serve us or the Iraqi government any good. Turning Iraq over to Terrorists would be lethal for us in the future. Staying in Iraq and working with their new government seems to be the best choice, but that is obvious.

Comment by Jerad — June 19, 2006 @ 5:06 pm

Jerad, most leftwingers actually agree with you, America can’t just leave Iraq after smashing it, the question isn’t “Does America stay in Iraq or does America leave?” Its how does America reach the point where it can leave? How does America go about stabilising Iraq, in the most economically viable manner, and then get out of there?

How does America put leaving Iraq on the horizon? So far the “Stay the course” mob has not shown that they have a strategy for doing this. All they have shown is that they are really good at making enemies out of neutrals. Gitmo, you how if I was an insurgent I would treat that sort of shit? I would go to the US and accuse the mildly pro-American guys in my village of being insurgents against America. The house get searched, invariably a gun gets found (in a civil war, you want to protect your family) and they get carted off to Gitmo, meanwhile a friend of mine goes around saying that this is what America is doing to all Arabs. Propoganda win, those guys gets taken out of circulation, and plus the US is willing to pay me for it.

We want an end-game, a point at which America can leave, rather then a growing insurgency against America and anybody associated with it. To do this, you need to capture the hearts of the people, and to do that you need to change direction. You need to show real empathy, to refresh your soldiers more often so that they don’t end up going bezerk and killing whole families, you need to have the soldiers understand how they would feel if America had been invaded by Iraq. You also need them to understand, that no dictator however vile, has zero in the way of a support base.

And in America, you need to lead by example, by open debate and less demonisation. People aren’t going to listen to you if you call them rag-heads. They aren’t going to listen to you about the seperation of Church and state, when your own state is being run by people bent on getting rid of it. They aren’t going to follow what you say, they are going to follow what you do, so you had better do good. America for years, has done good, and it needs to understand the power of doing good before it loses what little remains of its reputation for doing good.

I really can’t see how leaving iraq right now would serve us or the Iraqi government any good.

You need to learn to think outside the box. In this case, think outside the oil barrel.

She insists calumny and mendacity is truth!

She claims that her over turned arguments cannot be refuted!

Next she’ll be claiming that up is down and day is nIght!

We will not be able to effectively stabilize Iraq, until we can have an honest debate about what is transpiring on the ground. Yes the insurgency my be close to being done in Iraq, but Al Qaeda is not done, nor is the insurgency all of the violence in Iraq.

Funny story, last night my brother in law was defiling my household with his right wing filth. He actually thinks that speaking out against Bush in any manner is speaking out against America. I reminded him that Bush is not America and got this robot malfunction look that he was not comprehending what I just said. Anyhow the subject of eroding civil rights came up and I mentioned the presidents statement about AlQueda hating our freedoms (which he agreed with 100%) and therefore by definition anyone who limits our rights and freedoms is helping Al Queda, which he did not agree with. In times like these you have to limit freedoms was his response and then he wanted to know what freedoms I was talking about. I mentioned freedom of the press and freedom of political expression. The first words out of his mouth were “well, under president Clinton…” I laughed in his face and said he needed a new boogie man. He said what do you mean and I answered that every time logic escapes a right-winger they tote out Clintons name. I got the same blank does not compute look, so I left the room.

Why is the left so invested in our defeat in Iraq?

Comment by milbog
What left are you talking about? Marxists? Anarchists? Christian Democrats? So far, the only ones I know want a defeat in Iraq are Iraqi insurgency and, believe me, nobody is as far from the left as they are.
You really need to find a good book about economical and political ideology.

this is the strategy.

Torture, kill and murder to keep the land unstable while keeping America and Americans compliant with fear and the distant promise of cheap oil. The strategy is not to win, it is to win for the Republicans, who have more then demonstrated a lack of any morality or personal responsibility with their repeated mantra of “Bill Clinton” and “”Loony Left.” Meanwhile, so long as the people are lulled by the frequent fact that it is the “libruls” who are trying to defend their rights, turn the constitution into a “goddamn piece of paper.”

The strategy is to sponsor people like Ann Coulter to keep up the hate, so that nobody ever thinks clearly about what is going on. The strategy is to keep the bards silent while the treasury gets looted. The aim is not an American victory, its a Republican one. It is not the people of America who the Republicans serve, but multinational corporate interests. This is what K Street was all about, and that scandal isn’t over yet.

And you know what? Its working.

We embaced defeat the day it was realized that no WMD were to be found in Iraq. An unjustifiable war is unwinnable and the justification went up in smoke and mirrors a long time ago.

Dems got to hammer that into the thick skulls of the warmongers.

Back in WWII Ike let Monty set the plan for the break out from Normandy, or at least have a pretty good say in the plan. Monty’s version failed miserably and Ike adapted to a new plan, or rather shifted the emphasis of her plan south. When the front stabilized at the German border Ike allowed Monty to have a say in the plans. Monty’s plan led to a disaster at Arnhem. Yet if Ike was Bush he would have continued to slug it out with the Germans outside Caen rather than changing plans and end running the south end of the German lines. If Ike was Bush in Holland he would have continued to pound the northern end of the German lines rather than probing until he found a suitable Rhine crossing. Adaptability is a key facet of leadership. What some call Bush’s resolve I call ignorant stubbornness. Ignorant because he should have the best information available yet he continues to stay the course set for him by an elitist think tank. That’s why Bush and republicans are embracing defeat. That and the belief that changing your mind is an admission that you made a mistake. When in fact with warfare it is more an admission that you recognize that facts and circumstances have changed and the plan needs adapting.

Murtha’s plan to withdraw “over the horizon” but not so far that we could not still influence things is financially responsible and it will allow us to see who the people of Iraq truly want to lead them. If civil war breaks out, oops it already has, but lets pretend. If it breaks out and the country partitions into three elements Shiite, Sunni & Kurd, is that such a bad thing? One argument is that if we withdraw those people will be slaughtered. Well, 1) they already are being slaughtered and 2) we have had three years to build an army and police force yet stability is nowhere to be found. Perhaps since our trainees and associates are being killed by the score, we might be the problem. I know in the minds of MA and her/his/it’s ilk that is blasphemy to admit that we might be the problem, but we may just be it. Is it in our best interests to have the Shiites take over and run the place? I doubt it too much Iranian influence and we don’t really want to create another terrorist haven, oops, too late on that one.

So what exactly is wrong with stepping over the horizon and seeing what happens? If Iraq develops into a dreaded terror state then our rested and refitted armed forces can move in and disassemble the government fairly quickly and easily. We have had ships in the Persian gulf for 20+ years now, so our ability to project airpower is always there. And we can pre-position supplies and equipment in Diego Garcia, Kuwait the UAE and several other locations similar to how we pre-positioned gear in Europe for the last 50 years. With the pieces in place it would not be difficult to re-establish a new government. What is difficult to do, and we have seen it now with Iraq, Afghanistan and for the Israelis in Lebanon, is to establish a government supported by outside powers not accepted as legitimate by the populace of the invaded country.

To simply say someone such as Murtha is embracing defeat without any logical argument to back it up is astoundingly partisan and shortsighted. When I say Bush and his minions embrace defeat it is because they can see that their way is not working, yet the refuse to change course. Heck Bush says no timetables because the Iraqi’s don’t want time tables and this is right after the Iraqi’s ask for a time table. I’m sure glad it’s not just the American people he ignores. Bush talks about the progress being made in Iraq yet flies in to the country in total secrecy meets briefly and flies out before anyone realizes he was there. Seems to me that even with 130,000 us troops and anywhere from 10,000 – 240,000 Iraqi troops (depends on who you read) that there just might be a major security problem in a city that wrong wingers are saying is safer than Washington DC. Where is the progress, and remind me exactly what the plan is again?

I noticed that you ignored the fact that it was Dick Cheney that said we shouldn’t march into Iraq. Best to just ignore the facts eh?