VICTORY in IRAQ?? What is Victory?? Is there any substitute for VICTORY??

[voodooqueen]

Based on A4s' assertion, I would say "victory" is eminently possible and necessary, but "peace" is an absolute and can never truly be achieved. Except perhaps here:

And of course here:

I remember my ethics teacher at Seattle University saying that war and it's victories cannot fit into a school of ethics, that victory is measured by cost benefit analysis. So, if the benefit to us outweighs the cost then we have a victory--a longer lasting successful outcome would add weight to the benefit.

Hmmm, to me, babies do not represent peace; they are so often screamers. And we won't really know about death until it's too late. "To sleep, perchance to dream..."

At least we have the microcosmic peace of untracked powder snow, driving a beautiful car on an uninhabited road, flying a glider--or for some even golf.

 

[phrogpilot73]

m0tbaillie - stop thinking like a Westerner. They don't give a shit about country, nation-state, or any other way that we define ourselves in the west. They care about:

1. Family
2. Tribe

Once you (and everyone else in the world) starts to realize that, you will realize that yes, we can "win". However, winning can not and should not be based on who the enemy is, but what the strategic goal is. Is the strategic goal a loose collection of tribes that realize that we tried to help them? Perhaps. The problem is if we cut & run before we realize their priorities, then we will have lost without ever knowing what is winning.

Think about it this way - instead of the "United States of America", we should be aiming for the "United Tribes of Iraq". Think about it, SoCal has got a shitload of Mexicans, South Florida has a shitload of Cubans/dudes from the Carribean. I'd be willing to bet that the northern states have a shitload of Canadians. That's what we're dealing with in Iraq. A shitload of Tribes (States), that don't always agree.

We promised these people a better life. Therefore, we should stay until they ask us to leave.

 

[jt71582]

Golf = Peace?

"On my death bed, I'll achieve total consciousness. So I've got that goin' for me...which is nice"

/jack

 

[nittany03]

I remember my ethics teacher at Seattle University saying that war and it's victories cannot fit into a school of ethics, that victory is measured by cost benefit analysis. So, if the benefit to us outweighs the cost then we have a victory--a longer lasting successful outcome would add weight to the benefit.

This is typical leftist bullshit. You need to acquaint yourself with two phrases. Jus ad bellum (Declaring war ethically) and Jus in bello (Waging war ethically). By your teacher's argument, the ends justify the means, and we might as well just nuke a small city if if furthers our cause and the "cost" isn't too high. Absolute and utter academic elitist crap. He/she probably watched one too many Vietnam movies or thought that all the bullshit about Marines enjoying picking off little kids and the Air Force carpet bombing from FL250 is gospel truth. Ethics and the Rules of War are a VITAL, and I mean VITAL component of waging war, and is what separates us, civilized warriors, from the two-bit, mouth-breathing, goat-screwing, woman-hating, throat-slitting and video-making, religion-hijacking, mange-infested two-legged DOGS who call themselves al-Qaida.

I can't believe that crap is being taught in an institute of higher education.
:icon_rage:icon_rage:icon_rage

 

[raptor10]

Everyone always forgets Jus post bellum...

 

[raptor10]

Also... maybe we aren't winning:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87305/steven-simon/the-price-of-the-surge.html

 

[m0tbaillie]

m0tbaillie - stop thinking like a Westerner. They don't give a shit about country, nation-state, or any other way that we define ourselves in the west. They care about:

1. Family
2. Tribe

Once you (and everyone else in the world) starts to realize that, you will realize that yes, we can "win". However, winning can not and should not be based on who the enemy is, but what the strategic goal is. Is the strategic goal a loose collection of tribes that realize that we tried to help them? Perhaps. The problem is if we cut & run before we realize their priorities, then we will have lost without ever knowing what is winning.

Think about it this way - instead of the "United States of America", we should be aiming for the "United Tribes of Iraq".

Forgive me for saying so, but by your logic there exists a huge logic gap/double standard. That is, if we are to approach the situation with a more "basic", more "primative" tribal mentality, if you will, then why and how do we hope to instill a modern, fluid, working democracy in a country whose essential modus operandi for thousands of years has be sheer brute force, tribal conflict, and warlords/militias?

It seems almost as if you've just perfectly pinpointed the reason why we aren't seeing more immediate success in the country: there are highly complex regions and provinces swathed and patched with ethnic, religious, and political strife that is anywhere from decades to hundreds of years old (depending on the debacle-in-question) and here we are trying to stand up a democracy in the country after removing it's long-standing dictator whilst it teeters on the verge of civil war.

Sort of a sticky situation...wouldn't you agree?

BUT, anything is possible. Look at Turkey. It went from a war-torn empire occupied by multiple Western nations during/post-WWI to a full-fledged secular democratic nation about 4~ years (give or take, depending on how you outline events). Anything is possible.

But the difference, the most prevalent difference is that the Turks did them for themselves, there was no occupying force that drove them by force to restructure their country. The Iraqis only have to *want* to impose democracy and put the right people in the right place and, give a few years, it could happen. But I firmly believe that it can be noone bet them who does so, no foreign force is going to make them want to move any faster.

The money helps though.

 

[Hozer]

STEVEN SIMON is Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 1994 to 1999, he served on the National Security Council in positions including Senior Director for Transnational Threats.

Might give insight as to why he thinks the surge won't work long-term...

 

[Hozer]

BUT, anything is possible. Look at Turkey. It went from a war-torn empire occupied by multiple Western nations during/post-WWI to a full-fledged secular democratic nation about 4~ years (give or take, depending on how you outline events). Anything is possible

Don't forget to throw in a little armenian genocide...you know, those pesky folks who didn't want to assimilate...or so says Mustafa Kemal...

 

[wink]

Massive and unbridled corruption, lack of basic services throughout the country, unresolved territorial claims ..., government distrust ...

Sounds like the vast majority of sovereign nations in the world. By that measure we have just about gotten them ahead of the bell curve.

 

[m0tbaillie]

Don't forget to throw in a little armenian genocide...you know, those pesky folks who didn't want to assimilate...or so says Mustafa Kemal...

That's a completely separate and unrelated issue. It's one topic I really, really don't want to discuss because it always ends nastily, but I will say one thing: while what occurred is horrible and reprehensible, it was committed at a time when Turks were not only attempting to free themselves of Ottoman rule, but during a time when Turkey was occupied by the UK, Greece, France, Italy, Armenians, Georgians, and while it was ousting the Ottomans as well. Not a nice period in their history, but every country has black marks on their history...

 

[mmx1]

Also... maybe we aren't winning:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87305/steven-simon/the-price-of-the-surge.html

Or maybe it is:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=11535688

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11540858

 

[Flash]

Sounds like the vast majority of sovereign nations in the world. By that measure we have just about gotten them ahead of the bell curve.

Eh, not many countries are as bad as Iraq is nowadays, and they aren't in the middle of a war.

 

[Flash]

BUT, anything is possible. Look at Turkey. It went from a war-torn empire occupied by multiple Western nations during/post-WWI to a full-fledged secular democratic nation about 4~ years (give or take, depending on how you outline events). Anything is possible.

But the difference, the most prevalent difference is that the Turks did them for themselves, there was no occupying force that drove them by force to restructure their country.

Turkey became an largely ethnically and religously homogenous country in the meantime, due to its loss of its empire and expelling (and in some cases killing) its minorities, including Armenians and Greeks, during World War I and its immediate aftermath. They suppressed most of the remaining minorities, sometimes brutally.

The main remaining minority, the Kurds, have been fighting the government for years. And the current secular system is gradually being challenged by the ruling party. So all is not hunky-dorey in Turkey nowadays.

Don't forget to throw in a little armenian genocide...you know, those pesky folks who didn't want to assimilate...or so says Mustafa Kemal...

The genocide was done during the Ottoman rule, not Ataturk's.

 

[m0tbaillie]

Turkey became an largely ethnically and religously homogenous country in the meantime, due to its loss of its empire and expelling (and in some cases killing) its minorities, including Armenians and Greeks, during World War I and its immediate aftermath. They suppressed most of the remaining minorities, sometimes brutally.

With the notable exception of the Kurds and perhaps the Armenians, most of the "expelled minorities" you speak of either 1) fled during WWI/the Turkish War of Independence or 2) integrated (as many Kurds/Armenians have) themselves into the Turkish Republic. They didn't all scatter. There are quite a few Turks with Greek and Kurdish heritage in many major cities, and smatterings of Turks who identify, albeit quietly, as Armenian as well.

The main remaining minority, the Kurds, have been fighting the government for years. And the current secular system is gradually being challenged by the ruling party. So all is not hunky-dorey in Turkey nowadays.

The current secular system has been challenged by the ruling party since it came to power in 2003. Pretty much everything the government has proposed has been met with shrill contest by the majority of the populous and the military, and by the judiciary as well. The gov't's blatant antics, to me, are merely showing off and attempting to edge the toes of the military, who tends to react quite sternly and with secular discernment to just about everything the government spouts.