Seriously, I've been asking this question here on myLot as well as many other places for years now but nobody has ever answered me, in fact nobody ever seems to acknowledged that the question was asked, so I'm going to try again. How do you define "victory" for the U.S.A. in Iraq? While I'm at it, how do you define "defeat"? We're no really "at war" with Iraq, in fact they now have a democratic government that we helped put in place, right? Some reports have said al Qaeda in Iraq, the terrorists who showed up there after we did, have been all but totally defeated so who are we actually fighting there now anyway? I've heard we couldn't leave as long as the violence was so bad but lately I've heard how the violence has decreased dramatically and now we can't leave for that reason. Contrary to popular opinion here as a Democrat I can assure you I'm not rooting for us to "lose" but I don't know how we'd even know if that happened. Please, can someone here help me out - what is the actual definition of this elusive "victory" we're always hearing and reading about and how will we know when it's been attained?
Annie
[question posted by anniepa]responses and comments:
I do not know enough about the war to give you a good answer on this, and I don't think many people will feel that they do either. I'm sorry that no one wants to respond to your question, life is cruel. Haha, haha, jk. [powerbrokenape]
Well I am sorry I really don't think that I can answer you. Although I would love to. I feel the same way. I don't know if we know what we are still doing over there. And you made a good point about how we'd even know if we lost. Well I have to say that we have won in ways but we have lost in ways and if we keep staying over there we are losing. I don't know what they are trying to accomplish now. It has been 8 years and our military and military families need a break. [baileycows]
My answer probably isn't what you are looking for but...I think our victory is that Iraq is now a Democratic government... and our victory is also that we will continue to have a military presence over there... I believe we will have a base there on that side of the world for many years to come. I don't think anyone's been defeated except maybe the terrorist regime that was keeping those people hostage. [OreoCookie3]
There are also American military bases in the UK (for the best of reasons, no doubt!) [owlwings]
annie - I do not have an answer for you. But, I did want to respond and let you know that someone is reading your post and thinking about it. As far as I'm concerned, we should never have gone there in the first place. My limited knowledge on the subject makes me feel that we have another Viet Nam (which also was not a war) on our hands. Somebody just has to say bring the troops home, we're done. [bbjwlsn]
I would suppose victory is when the democratic government is in for good. It has not happened yet. Just because it is elected, does not mean it is in Iraq to stay. The US government has helped to bring in democracy in other countries where they do not have a tradition of democracy, but soon after they left, the prime minister or whoever it was decided to go back to the old ways and started acting as a strong man or another strong man took over and guess who got the blame for that, yes, the United States government. So supposing they withdrew now, and the democratic government got overthrown, or the prime minister started acting like a dictator, arresting his opponents, would you blame the United States president who happened to be Bush or the successor if it did not happen until his reign and would it depend on whether he is a republican or a democrat? [suspenseful]
Do you remember when the US was over in Kuwait under Bush Sr. to remove Sadam's army from occupying our ally's territory? Well the "war" from a technical stand point was an overwhelming "victory" since America had the best war machinery in the world anyway. The same applies with the more recent "War in Iraq" that was declared by Dubya. The rules of engagement worked like this, first the 9/11 disaster had to occur to create mass anger, then American people had to be told about weapons of mass destruction, to build fear in the minds of the world, and finally without any solid evidence needed, approval to go to war with a known dictator which had to be okayed by the U.N., this was only a formality to help offset the costs of a war that we the citizens ended up paying for anyway. No one ever questioned that the President was associated with wealthy oil tycoons that has always had an interest with the land in the Middle East, especially Iraq that sits on 65% of the world's oil supply. If you can remember, the war kept changing names "Operation Shock and Awe"... ..Awww ,the war was over too fast. Then there was "Operation Iraqi Freedom" simply based on the the fact that since the media coverage of the war is always available to be seen world-wide, it would be a great publicity stunt if the world saw that American troops as the "Good Guys". To answer your question with only my opinion, ultimately the true "victory" happened when Congress hesitantly approved the war and America took action against the U.N's wishes and began the occupation of Iraq which is disguised as the liberation of Iraq. The victory for who is now the question you should ask. According to what we can see from the liberal media, the enemy believes they are the "Good Guys" the "Good Guys" believe they are the righteous and all along the people controlling the almighty dollar are creating this classic screen play of "good versus evil" for the world to see and they will ultimately become the victors in all this once the occupancy of Iraq is completed. The price of fossil fuel will continue to rise and the majority of the world's oil reserves will be controlled by the US. Which is probably best fitted to the old saying, "He that has the most stuff wins". [mrghill]
I apologize for not being clear anniepa dear, I was only pointing out how funny it is that the US is fighting for a land that sits on 65% of the world's oil under the earth. If the US can gain control of that large supply from Iraq, we will no longer have to compete with China for a crude oil source. The war and the reason is only a front as you know the Bush's have a great financial interest in the oil industry and what better way to insure that they keep their wealth, but by making sure they keep their supplies continuous. I can only give you fragmented facts, you can choose to decide for yourself if it makes any sense. happy [mrghill]
You can't win a war that doesn't exist. We're not "technically" at war, so you can't win or lose there...not really. I mean what do we want from Iraq? What does our government want? Why are we still there if we've "won"? It's become this crazy conundrum really. Iraq's wanting us to leave soon...so does that mean we've won or does that just mean that the fact that winning and losing cannot be applied to this thing? [xParanoiax]
You seem to share my confusion! Apparently we can't have already won since the supporters of the war are saying if we want to leave that means we want to lose. Obviously, I'm missing something but I have no idea what! Annie [anniepa]
Annie..i'm answering this from an email so don't know what others have said, but i do know that actually the war isn't in Iraq as much as its in Afghanistan..thats where the Al Qaeda are able to cross into and thats where are soldiers aren't able to get them at cause they are being sneeky and having better hiding spots..and more than likely thats where Osama is being kept from us like car parts for the Middle East. Iraq is pretty much under control to a point and to the higher ups that means victory to them. [Rosekitty]
I agree, Afghanistan is where our focus should have been kept all these years but now the Taliban is back stronger than ever before and we need many more troops there. If the higher-ups consider Iraq to be enough under control to be a victory, why are we still there with no real end in sight, although Bush did budge a bit by agreeing to a time horizon, whatever that new buzzword is supposed to mean. Annie [anniepa]
I don't think we will ever have "victory" in the Middle East because most of us don't even know who our enemy is. You're right, we are not at war with Iraq. We are at war against Islamism, which is a war I don't believe will ever be won. People are far from religion which is fine if that's what they choose however being out of touch with religion keeps them ignorant to the fact that Islamism plans to take over the world. Here is an article that helped clear a lot up for me. http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5629 [WhatsHerName]
Another good article by the wise Daniel Pipes. http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4782 [WhatsHerName]
I haven't been on much so I didn't see your question til now Annie. I am up to try to answer this for you. I really don't like the word "victory" when applied to any war but especially one where we aren't attacked on our own soil. This is an effort for the US to help the Iraqi people with their lives. Now that I have said that, denouncers of this war will argue that it's about oil,or power or our own presidents arrogence. I don't think anyone should really believe it's about oil....the top two biggest importers of oil to the US are Mexico and Canada so that kills that theory. The next idea is that we want power. Well we are already the most powerful nation on this planet so what are you thinking we are trying to prove? That's ridiculous. As for an idiotic president; that is one that most will argue but the truth is most of the congressional people agreed to this war when it started so he didn't do it on his own. The truth is, President Bush has very little control if the rest of congress doesn't want him to. So having said that I would conclude that even though this is not a "victory" or "loss" it's about helping people. Most of us sitting here at our desks will never have to know what it's like to be the people of this country so I am not or are most of us, experts. I do know that it's a better place to live now than it was a couple of years ago. And that makes me smile...... [hornswaggled]
"I know that you really don't like President Bush so I can't help but think this isn't about the US at all...it's about your hatred of the man." Gee, what gave you the idea I don't like President Bush? It's not about my "hatred" of the man but the hatred of what he's done. "So let me ask you....do you think we should have been at Darfur? or perhaps some other place you think is less well off than Iraq or do you want us; the richest nation in the world to just set on our duffs and do nothing?" I'm not sure where we should or shouldn't go but I know there are way too many places in the world where there are ruthless leaders and/or where people are starving and where there is injustice for us to solve every problem that exists. "I don't think you really do know what you do want; but to get rid of Bush and all conservative Republicans with their ideas of war and no abortion,no tax raises and other things of the Republican party." I'll gladly admit I can't WAIT until Bush is gone and that I do disagree with most everything conservative Republicans stand for. "Before you do that though I would suggest that you talk to the soldiers that have been over there and really listen to what they are saying." I have spoken to soldiers that have been in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I know some who enlisted after 9/11 because they supported going after the terrorists but they don't see why we're in Iraq now and are ignoring Afghanistan. They don't all feel that way but they also don't all agree with everything that we're doing. "I think this war stinks too believe it or not. As a mother of a 23 yr old I hate war of any kind but I do believe we are doing good there or I would not be able to say that...." I certainly respect your point of view and I can understand your feelings about your son. I have two nephews serving in Afghanistan as I've said here, one who is currently home on leave. I have another nephew, the father of the one who is in Afghanistan at this moment (he's actually my great-nephew) who may be deployed to Iraq in a month or two. I can tell you the morale in Afghanistan isn't that great right now because these troops feel they've been thrown to the wolves since most concentration has been in Iraq these past few years. Again, I started this particular discussion to see what everyone would say about defining victory and it doesn't seem like anyone can do that. Annie [anniepa]
The way I would define victory in Iraq is that we helped rid the country of a murderous dictator and a lot of his henchmen - Saddam Hussein and company. I think that in itself says a lot. Now they have a democratic government but there are still many problems there - we have not been able to totally rid the country of Saddam supporters - if we don't then that could be somwhat classed as defeat. [us2owls]
Don't I still read reports of car bombings and killings in Iraq, I have not heard that the war against al Qaeda is finished, maybe I am behind times, I know they said that it is getting better and fewer bombings. To me victory would mean that the Iraqi people can live with out fear again, isn't that what we went there for. I believe we should bring the troops home when it is safe for the country. When we speak of a timed dead line. all it will do is al qaeda will sit back and wait till we leave. Our troops are there because they joined the armed services to fight for this country to keep us free and from another 911, bringing them home before we are finished would feel like a slap in the face to the ones that has died for what they believe in. Oh I'm sure there are a lot that didnt' want to go, should of thought about that before they inlisted. I think most join today to get a free education and never think about the possibility of war. Bu tI am proud of every one of them, if that is where my son wanted to go to fight for this country freedom, if we pull out before the job is done sooner or later we have to fight them on our soul, and I feel like if Obama gets elected it won't be long, because he has no idea how to handle it. VICTORY is when we finish the job we started for what ever reason [bdugas]
I agree that many of our troops joined the military following 9/11 because they wanted to help get those responsible. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and there were no terrorists there prior to our invasion. I think your answer is rather vague. The Iraqi people are living with more fear now than before we got there despite how evil Hussein was. You wrote, "VICTORY is when we finish the job we started for what ever reason" but what does that mean? When will our job be finished and how will we know? See, that still hasn't been answered at all. Annie [anniepa]
It's difficult to define because war isn't what it used to be. To put it crudely, war in the old days involved killing and killing and killing until you either killed everyone in the nation or they gave up and became your slaves. Now war has evolved over time in different ways, but the late 20th century is when everything got really fuzzy. Suddenly you weren't at war with a nation, you were at war with a dictator, and yet you loved every civilian in the nation and didn't want to hurt anyone that wasn't specifically military. Obviously not everyone wages war this way which is why terrorists still do it the old fashion way and kill civilians in shopping malls in Israel. They still play by the everyone is an enemy rules. By some criteria, Bush was right when he said we won the war years ago. Sadaam was defeated with vintage baseball bats so to speak. Iraq was an occupied nation. And we more or less ruled the place. Of course that wasn't enough for most people. People wanted to see our soldiers come home. Some think that this war won't be over until every soldier comes home. Many think that as long as there are soldiers in Iraq we are still at war. That's why McCain got so much heat when he said we should expect to have soldiers in Iraq for up to 100 years. If that meant war then people could say we are still at war with Germany, Japan, and Korea. If you want my opinion. Total victory would be that Iraq was a stable nation, with a government friendly towards the US. While the war is over, the stabilization is still underway. Violence has dropped considerably which tells me that things are going in the right direction. There's just no way to be sure exactly how long it will take for a full transition of security from the US to Iraqi security forces. That's why I think any timetables are a bit presumptuous and will likely disappoint people if we can't stick to them. [Taskr36]
I agree and would like to ad that the demand for a timetable is a sign of our times in that our society is so much faster than during wars of the past. We can heat our food in seconds and find information and news in seconds soon to be even faster. The war in Iraq has been called "our children's, children's war". People in our fast paced world wanted it until they found out it was going to take more than a week. They want it over and they want it over now, forgetting that we are an all volunteer military, they feel as if our troops for some reason shouldn't be fighting in war which is what they were trained for. They mostly look at the bad side because that is what the media flashes at them every second, day and night. Also in wars of past the enemy wore a uniform and didn't hide under womens skirts and strap bombs to children and use cars and airplanes as bombs. I can't for the life of me understand how/why people can possibly think we could set a time limit for a war against barbarians like these... [WhatsHerName]
Great question and the fact is there is no "victory." We are in a dispute over oil profits and the general population is gaining nothing from this war. Our gas prices are out of control. Our youth is dying overseas and for what? So a few politicians can line there pockets and we still suffer? The fact that we are even in Iraq is bogus as was our invasion of Afghanistan. Who's is next? Iran now?Our president has declared a war on "terror" where there are no defined enemies, no boundaries to abide by and he is responsible for more acts of terror than any of these nations combined. I suppose our "victory" would be to eliminate those in power in the middle east and siphon all oil production profits into Bush's pocket. We however will still lose in the end... [shamsta19]
Oil... right. We sure are lining our pockets now aren't we? If this war is over oil, why haven't we just rigged a nice big hose to funnel that oil into our country already? By your reckoning Bush was able to fabricate 9-11, so funneling oil directly into our country should be easy right? We're not making money off Iraq. We're losing a lot of money. We also lost money when we helped broker a deal to get all the yellowcake uranium we found out of Iraq and sold to Canada. Of course, I'm sure you'll say that never happened either. The liberal media doesn't want you to know that we found uranium in Iraq because that could be considered proof that they were attempting to build WMDs. [Taskr36]
Anniepa I will give you my two cents worth. Victory in Iraq will come when the Iraq Army and the government can function independently. Like Germany, Japan, Korea we will probably keep a military presence there to continue to train and advise the military. As you know Annie from other discussions, I know soldiers who have been on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In their discussions with the soldiers and civilians they came in contact with all felt that the US should stay until they were strong enough to take care of themselves. It is starting to happen in Iraq as the Army is taking over more of the security and police work. In Afghanistan they are coming along more slowly. In my opinion the reason is that with the Taliban in charge you had a ruthless dictorial government and now when they have some freedom the old warlords are trying to get power back. It will take longer in Afghanistan because the terrain just putting more troops on the ground will not make them more effective. There is a need for specialized troops to operate in such an area. The other problem is the lack of a defined border with its neighbors. While the US tries to respect the border the enemy does not and uses it to their advantage. Just as they use our value for human life and just treatment of prisoners while they feel free to violate the teachings of Islam by abusing, torturing and killing prisoners. [bobmnu]
What about the fact that the Iraqi Prime Minister wants us to leave? I also know of quite a few soldiers, I have two nephews currently in Afghanistan - actually, the one is home on leave at the moment - and they don't paint a very pleasant picture of what's going on. As for Iraq, how do we define when they can function independently? The answers are always rather vague, like Bush's "when they stand up we'll stand down". I still feel we should have stayed out of Iraq and focused all of our attention on Afghanistan then maybe we'd even have gotten BinLaden by now but instead we backed down when we supposedly had him cornered. I really hope we don't keep a presence there for years because this isn't Japan or Germany and these people want to kill us just because we're there. Also, you mentioned our value for human life and just treatment of prisoners be we do torture and if we had stayed above the fray and refused to torture just because "they did it first" maybe that would have done some good and what would it have harmed? It's been proven these methods rarely work so when we water-board someone all we're doing is making an advertisement for them to get more terror recruits. We can rejoice in the fact that things are slightly improved in Iraq but the cost for that is the worsened conditions in Afghanistan and I'll never change my mind that Bush dropped the ball on this and went into Iraq which had already been planned before 9/11 happened but he used that to get public support and sadly it worked for too many for too long. Annie [anniepa]
Victory will be when the whole Middle East had Democracy, but that will never happen, now will it? Honestly, the U.S.A. is going to be at war with Iraq until the end of time it seems. I do not like it, but I know how U.S. Government thinks, and they are not ready to get out of there until that whole part of the world is under a stable Democracy. If I were living in the Middle East, sadly, I would just give up and conform to Democracy before everything gets worse. [rogue13xmen13]
Good day... I'm not an american so I can't give you a direct answer whether america won or lost the war, however I can give you a my definition of victory and defeat. If the majority of the american people thinks that the outcome of Iraq today would equate or weigh more than the lost of lives, resources, pain and trauma then you've got a victory if not you've got defeat. It's not who's the last man standing but who gains the most at the end of a conflict. A draw is consider a defeat for the greater country and consider a victory for the lesser one. [blackmantra_x]
A democratic government successfully in place smells victory, the diminish of al Qaeda terrorists sounds victorious to me. I really am not sure whether this is the answer you are looking for because you already know that. You are not fighting anybody but keeping vigil and making sure that the al qaeda does not come back again. People there need to be assured that the streets are safe and they can do business or their daily duties without fear. If the US left that place now insecurity might come back. My country has been into chaos and I know how it feels when someone you thought is safegaurding has left............you feel that fear coming back again. Hope you get your answer soon from here. [kwenge]
The terrorists have not been defeated so long as there are still car bombings and suicide bombings and people being kidnapped and tortured and then beheaded while being videotaped. In my opinion it is not a matter of "winning" but rather of creating an environment in which the people of Iraq can live without terrorism and can create a train armed forces to protect themselves from any terrorists that might attempt to harm them. We are fortunate in our country that our exposure to war and terrorism on our homeland soil has been very limited, and if we do not work to extinguish terrorism there, we will be dealing with it in our own neighborhoods. [newtondak]
Victory in Iraq will be if we can get our butts out of there and still maintain a political relationship with the new government. We are pouring billions of dollars into a country in an attempt to rebuild the infrastructure. I truly believe that we are hoping to tap into the vast wealth of oil by our actions there. If America can claim that we toppled a dictator and set the foundation for a democratic republic all the while hoping to have lasting civil relations with a country in the Middle East, we can claim victory. If we have to run away in a hasty withdrawal, leaving the fledgling democracy in a state where genocide and an overall dismal view of what American military men and women did there, it will surely be viewed as a defeat. If after a withdrawal, we are not able to have a good relationship with the leaders of Iraq, because we either stayed too long, or left too soon, that too, will be viewed as a defeat. There is really no real answer as I'm sure you are keenly aware annie, but this is how I view the situation and the two possibilities when it comes to victory or defeat. [terribleturtle]
Annie, you just gave the best answer to your own question. I knew you were smart and on top of things, I have always admired that about you. You put things into a simple perspective that everyone, including dumbocrats and retardicans can easily understand. You ARE my favorite axis of evil. Well done annie, you deserve your own best response. TT [terribleturtle]
Remember reading about our Civil War? And about how we had to rebuild the places that were torn apart - literally - by war? After we have helped the Iraqi people become a democratic nation, we now have to help them rebuild the areas where damage was done (by us and by the extremists). I'm not sure there is ever total victory in any war. People have died, and that's never good. But under Saddam, so many (millions) died, so having him gone should help the country. By the way, there have been many articles (and books) lately about the weapons of mass destruction that WERE there (and disappeared over the borders before we arrived), plus articles about the components recently moved from Iraq that were intended to build more WMDs. There were massive amounts that had to be moved and stored somewhere we could trust. And much of it went to Canada, according to news articles I read. [kenzie45230]
this realy irritates me too, our men are dying for nothing, they dont want to be there no more , they dont want our men there any more and we want them home. i realy dont understand why we didnt pull out our troops a long time a go but i never understood why tony blair had to get involved in a war that wasnt his either [barbie84]
Hello anniepa, Victory for who? no such thing, how maney innocents oeple in Iraq had died and all those soliders dead for what? whose won? there no victory for anyone. I have no understanding of polictic but it that what I feel annieppa. Tamara [tamarafireheart]
Well said, Tamara! Victory for who indeed and I can't make myself believe all the deaths of our young men and women not to mention the Iraqi civilians were worth it. Annie [anniepa]
I will give my answer as straight forward as I can Annie in just a moment. But first, you and I have gone back and forth and butted heads on this for a long time now ( respectfully of course, lol). For the purpose of this particular thread, lets cast aside all the "we shouldn't have in the first place" or " we did it wrong", etc. All mute points now, there we are. Now how about getting out? I think we all agree we need to get out, EVERYONE thinks this including the administration you despise as well as Macain (no, he did NOT say we are staying there for 100 years, don't even go there in case you were thinking it). The issue is do we leave running in retreat with our tails between our legs? Or do we leave once a definable victory has been achieved? You CANNOT "end" a war, you either win it or lose it. Losing would be defined as us giving up after losing many lives and deciding we cannot win or achieve a stable Iraq and beating a retreat in defeat, leaving Iraq to the whims of the nations around it and the entities with in who would see our hard work AND the hard work of the Iraqi people undone. For every Iraqi who wants us out now, you have one who wants us to stay and finish. Sorry, this is a fact. BUT there isn't one Iraqi who doesn't want to see the day when eventually they have the reigns of their own nation entirely. Nor is there a politician in Washington or Baghdad who doesn't want the same thing. Now, as for victory. Victory would be achieving a set of defined goals. What are these goals? I believe they are as follows: A functioning central federal government that includes all ethnic representation. A drastic reduction in ethnic violence Regular local, provincial and national elections not plagued by terror A military that can stand completely on its own to defend Iraq from both outside threats as well as deal with radical elements and militia groups with in. Establishment of diplomatic relations and trade. The rebuilding of necessary public services and utilities or at least the ability of the local and provincial leaders to begin providing these things. Now there are a lot more details to all of this and we could go even further with goals but for the scope of this discussion I think this is far enough for now. Have we "won" yet? No. Are we winning? The answer is a very emphatic yes, its not pretty, but war is not a pretty thing. [xfahctor]
I thank you for giving an honest attempt at answering my question. I'm sure you can understand my frustration because nobody else has even tried but that's all I've read about here as well as on the news from many politicians is we can't leave until we've won but they've never said what that meant. I don't know if I'm relieved or more frustrated than ever at you answers, however, assuming that your answer is the same as our leaders would give, if they gave one. I realize there's no further point in batting it back and forth whether we should have gone there in the first place, it happened and much as I wish we could I know we can't turn back the clock. My fear remains that we really can't "win", there's no way we can meet all these goals because as long as we're there, there will be people who want to kill us. That in turn will lead to more Iraqis being killed, which will lead to more people wanting to kill us... That's my fear, it's a vicious cycle that will never end. It was such a mismanaged war from the beginning and I still remember so well how Joe Biden had said years ago how we had no exit strategy, no real plans beyond taking out Hussein. I'm sorry, I just broke the rules here and I promised myself I wouldn't but it's hard to discuss it without bringing up how we got to where we are today. All the comparisons to our military presence to this day in places like Germany and Japan don't cut it, in my opinion, because those countries are nothing like Iraq, the parts of the world they're in are nothing like the mid-east and there's no getting around that. I've maintained all along that all Muslims aren't bad and out to harm us but those that are have no fear of death and little respect for life, unlike any other enemy we've ever faced. You said we can't retreat with our tail between our legs but I honestly believe as long as we're there the hate is going to grow for Americans and other westerners. That's why I bristle at the war in Iraq being called the "War on Terror" because instead of fighting terror I think it's only breeding more and adding fertilizer to it to boot. With all the conditions you listed for us to meet before we can declare victory and come home it sounds like our own country and people are going to be neglected for a long time to come and I really have to wonder if it's worth the cost of those customized choppers. Annie [anniepa]
It all depends on your reason for being there on the cc yachts. If you wanted the U.S. there to "free" the Iraqis from Hussiem, then there is a victory now. but if you wanted the U.S. there to control the oil in that region , then it was failure from the beginning.I guess a true failure is when we finally leave, there are so many more people that hate , hate us that we made things worse and we are less safe. [sarahruthbeth22]
I'm not really sure either other than I guess it will be a victory when the soldiers all get to come home for good. I am not sure why they are still over there either other than they are supposed to be there to keep peace. I guess that isn't working, keeping peace, or they wouldn't be still getting killed. I am not sure who they are fighting anymore either. I just wish it was all over and the guys get to come home to their families and that this war thing would just end. I understand they had to go over there in the first place since 9/11 happened and it had to be stopped before they do anything like that again, but what are they accomplishing now, I am not so sure. [chrislotz]
except Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, despite whatever was claimed about Sadam and Bin Laden being the same person. [jend80]
There is a theory among political scientists and analysts of world affairs that the Iraqi invasion and the whole rhetoric about "rogue states" is a direct response to the fall of the Soviet Union. Klare (1995 Rogue Staes and Nuclear Outlaws: America's Search for a New Foreign Policy) is wearing caftan dresses and gives a reasonable summary of the theory: the collapse of the Cold War removed the sole enemy capable of providing justification for the maintenance of America's military-industrial complex, and it became more and more difficult for the American military to get Congressional support for their supply bills. The military was forced to find alternative threats as justification for not spending the military budget on silly things like civilian infrastructure and welfare, so they came up with "rogue States" theory, of which Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Liobya, and Syria were supposedly the most dangerous five (North Korea as the biggest threat.) The Iraq war, the later possibly more justified campaign in Afghanistan, the posturing over Iran's supposed nuclear weapon program (sound familiar?) and North Kore's program (which probably does exist and is of some concern) are the direct result of that search. The War on Terror has certainly given them a boost and carnival glassware. Now this may sound a cynical theory, but I don't think we can ignore it. Oil probably had some influence on the Iraq invasion, and all the other mooted "hidden" motives, but economics usually has a major impact on every war. Even the first set of anti-Muslim Crusades had strong economic motives behind it - Islam was far and away the most advanced and civilised culture of the time, and was economically far stronger than Christian Europe. So, what is victory? In this theory, it is the continued and even increased funding for America's war machine, and on events to date, the Penatgon has a victory. But to remain a victory it must continue to get its funding, which means finding and attacking more threats. Look out Iran and North Korea. Lash [grandpa_lash]