Defining Victory In Iraq

[Kathianne]

From Michael Totten, who's spent considerable time there:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/17921


Defining “Victory” in Iraq
Michael J. Totten - 07.26.2008 - 8:28 AM

As recently as the first half of 2007, the idea of an American victory in Iraq seemed like a fantasy to just about everyone, including me. General David Petraeus surged additional troops to Iraq, however, and he transformed the joint American-Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy into what nearly all observers now acknowledge is a remarkable and unexpected success. Few bothers to argue otherwise anymore. What remains ambiguous and contested is the definition of an American victory.

It’s slightly tricky for a couple of reasons. Pinpointing the exact date when a counterinsurgency ends – not just in Iraq, but any counterinsurgency – is impossible. There are no final battles. There can’t be. And if we don’t know when the war is over, it can be difficult to figure out what over even means in the first place. So how will we know if we’ve won?

Part of the problem here is that the war in Iraq is usually thought of as a single war in Iraq. But there have been at least three wars in Iraq since 2003 – the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party regime, the civil war between Sunni and Shia militias, and the insurgencies against government and international forces waged by a constellation of guerrilla and terrorist groups. All three wars are distinct from each other, and two of the three are already over.

The war against Saddam Hussein and his government ended when the regime was overthrown and what remained of its army was disbanded. You might say it didn’t officially end until he was captured in December of 2003, but he effectively lost when he was demoted from absolute dictator to fugitive. No matter what else might happen, Saddam Hussein will never be considered victorious.

The civil war between Sunni and Shia militias likewise is over. We know that now because we can look back in hindsight. Not one single person was killed in ethno-sectarian conflict in May or June of this year. That particular conflict had been winding down since December of 2006 when the monthly casualties began freefalling in an almost straight line from a high of more than 2,000 a month down to nothing. Nobody won that war. It’s just over.

Casualties from insurgent warfare haven’t slacked off as completely, but they have almost slacked off as completely. If all violent trends continue in their current downward directions, this war, too, will taper off to non-existence or relative insignificance. We’ll know in hindsight, too, when that war finally is over after no has been killed by insurgents for a few months.

What looks now like the last gasp dying gasp of the various anti-Iraqi insurgencies is all that remains of these various wars in Iraq. If attacks against the Iraqi government and multinational forces drop off to zero or near zero, it ought to go without saying that the insurgent groups will have lost and the counterinsurgents will have won.

Whether these wars were worth fighting or not may be debated forever. Determining the winners and losers, though, is short and obvious work as long as the three conflicts are properly understood to be separate.

[Kathianne]

Seems AP agrees:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzxqARN0Huv38n5pgDfdBRwuoiZgD925HT7G0


Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

By ROBERT BURNS and ROBERT H. REID – 14 hours ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.

Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government....

...Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support...

...Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring — now a quiet though not fully secure district.

Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago...

...Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Anyone could rekindle widespread fighting.

But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military's hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.

Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006...

...Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.

In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.

Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.

The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying....

...Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency — a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust....

[retiredman]

to suggest that the civil war between sunnis and shiites is OVER because they have been no skirmishes lately under the presence of the occupying surge forces is, IMHO, absurd.

[Kathianne]

to suggest that the civil war between sunnis and shiites is OVER because they have been no skirmishes lately under the presence of the occupying surge forces is, IMHO, absurd.

Of course it is, that would mean you were wrong.

[avatar4321]

to suggest that the civil war between sunnis and shiites is OVER because they have been no skirmishes lately under the presence of the occupying surge forces is, IMHO, absurd.

to suggest that there is a civil war when there are no skirmishes seems a bit absurd to me. In order for their to be a war, conflict has to exist.

[retiredman]

to suggest that there is a civil war when there are no skirmishes seems a bit absurd to me. In order for their to be a war, conflict has to exist.

to suggest that conflict does not exist between sunnis and shiites in Iraq is to ignore a millenium worth of history to the contrary.

[Kathianne]

to suggest that conflict does not exist between sunnis and shiites in Iraq is to ignore a millenium worth of history to the contrary.

At what point does the lack of conflict render it a moot point?

[retiredman]

At what point does the lack of conflict render it a moot point?

several years after we have left. A conflict which has sustained itself for tens of centuries, should not be considered "finished" in relatively instantaneous bits of time,

[Kathianne]

several years after we have left. A conflict which has sustained itself for tens of centuries, should not be considered "finished" in relatively instantaneous bits of time,

Interesting and on point. Problem is, is negates what you've been posting for over a year. Notice Sadr is ensconced in Iran, not Iraq? With him out of the pic, which has been the case nearly since the beginning of the surge, Iraqis seem to want peace. You on the other hand are arguing that the US leave, so Iran and Sadr can reestablish the hate of the millenia. Great deal there, MSM.

[actsnoblemartin]

I have a question for you, as you are a sincere patriot, and have knowledge on the subject :salute:

please tell me why other muslims countries havent been taken over by al queda or acended into civil war.

I know lebanon did, because or arafat, and iran was taken over by extremists but i was born in 1980, so i dont know much more then that.

Thank you


to suggest that the civil war between sunnis and shiites is OVER because they have been no skirmishes lately under the presence of the occupying surge forces is, IMHO, absurd.

[April15]

to suggest that the civil war between sunnis and shiites is OVER because they have been no skirmishes lately under the presence of the occupying surge forces is, IMHO, absurd.Quite right!

[actsnoblemartin]

Quite right!

I find that my heart hopes that the muslims of iraq will get along peacefully after we leave, but my head says fat chance

[actsnoblemartin]

excellent analysis from a bright and witty poster


to suggest that conflict does not exist between sunnis and shiites in Iraq is to ignore a millenium worth of history to the contrary.

[retiredman]

I have a question for you, as you are a sincere patriot, and have knowledge on the subject :salute:

please tell me why other muslims countries havent been taken over by al queda or acended into civil war.

I know lebanon did, because or arafat, and iran was taken over by extremists but i was born in 1980, so i dont know much more then that.

Thank you



al qaeda has nothing to do with lebanon. Hezbollah does. Iran has nothing to do with al qaeda whatsoever.

Iraq is unique in that it was cobbled together by victorious europeans at the end of WWI without regard to the enmity that existed between the two sects in that region. It was a recipe for civil war at some point in the future from the day the lines were drawn.

[retiredman]

Interesting and on point. Problem is, is negates what you've been posting for over a year. Notice Sadr is ensconced in Iran, not Iraq? With him out of the pic, which has been the case nearly since the beginning of the surge, Iraqis seem to want peace. You on the other hand are arguing that the US leave, so Iran and Sadr can reestablish the hate of the millenia. Great deal there, MSM.

Sadr can come back to Iraq whenever he wants to and he weilds considerable clout even in absentia. Shiites in Iraq are quite capable of remembering the millenium long fight with the sunnis without Sadr's immediate presence.

[Kathianne]

Sadr can come back to Iraq whenever he wants to and he weilds considerable clout even in absentia. Shiites in Iraq are quite capable of remembering the millenium long fight with the sunnis without Sadr's immediate presence.

Right, which is why he's remained in Iran, while trying to rally his 'followers' which haven't been doing his bidding.

[retiredman]

Right, which is why he's remained in Iran, while trying to rally his 'followers' which haven't been doing his bidding.

again... he can come back whenever he wants to, and I imagine he might very well want to the moment we're gone.

[Kathianne]

again... he can come back whenever he wants to, and I imagine he might very well want to the moment we're gone.

So certainly we should get out of Dodge and leave that path open. Sheesh.

[retiredman]

So certainly we should get out of Dodge and leave that path open. Sheesh.

no... of course we should stay there for the next 100 years. sheesh.

[actsnoblemartin]

in all fairness wasnt that comment taken out of context?


no... of course we should stay there for the next 100 years. sheesh.

[Kathianne]

no... of course we should stay there for the next 100 years. sheesh.

For such a strong advocate of democracy, you have so little tolerance. One would assume with your education, you knew what that '100 years' meant, but alas, party over reality. Great patriot.

[retiredman]

For such a strong advocate of democracy, you have so little tolerance. One would assume with your education, you knew what that '100 years' meant, but alas, party over reality. Great patriot.

hmmm what does "100 years" mean? I guess it would be silly for me to think that it meant something akin to "a long long time"?

I think that being in Iraq is a mistake. I think that whenever we leave - one year from now or a hundred years from now - sunnis and shiites will start killing one another again. I would think that, for as many times as I have stated that opinion, that you would have been able to comprehend it.

[Kathianne]

hmmm what does "100 years" mean? I guess it would be silly for me to think that it meant something akin to "a long long time"?

I think that being in Iraq is a mistake. I think that whenever we leave - one year from now or a hundred years from now - sunnis and shiites will start killing one another again. I would think that, for as many times as I have stated that opinion, that you would have been able to comprehend it.

I on the other hand, hope that there was a deeper secularism than you. For some reason I think it's possible that the desire to improve the lives of their children, both Sunni and Shiite, will lead to a different outcome.

It's funny that the 'liberals' are so adamant against change, while so many conservatives seem to think the better of men.

[Yurt]

al qaeda has nothing to do with lebanon. Hezbollah does. Iran has nothing to do with al qaeda whatsoever.

Iraq is unique in that it was cobbled together by victorious europeans at the end of WWI without regard to the enmity that existed between the two sects in that region. It was a recipe for civil war at some point in the future from the day the lines were drawn.

:link:

the enemy of my enemy....

don't be so sure, but i guess you were personally there 200 years ago and met many people so you must of course know, probably spent time talking soon to be AQ folks and sharing warm fuzzy stories...

[retiredman]

I on the other hand, hope that there was a deeper secularism than you. For some reason I think it's possible that the desire to improve the lives of their children, both Sunni and Shiite, will lead to a different outcome.

It's funny that the 'liberals' are so adamant against change, while so many conservatives seem to think the better of men.


physician, heal thyself.

it is not our business to cram jeffersonian democracy - or the lyrics to Kumbaya - down the throats of the Iraqi people at gunpoint.

For some reason, I think that your hopeful vision of what might be possible in Iraq is unrealistic and reflects a total lack of understanding as to the depth of the enmity that exists there.

[Gaffer]

:link:

the enemy of my enemy....

don't be so sure, but i guess you were personally there 200 years ago and met many people so you must of course know, probably spent time talking soon to be AQ folks and sharing warm fuzzy stories...

I have repeated that phrase to him so many times and he just ignores it. He is determined that he is right about the arabs and nothing is going to change his mind, even if its thrown in his face and shoved down his throat.

Since the only thing the arabs seem to understand is a rifle shoved down their throats then perhaps that is the best way to get them to accept Jeffersonian Democracy. Take them out of the middle ages at the point of a gun. Them changing their ways gives us more security.

It's time for a serious game of cowboys and muslims.

[retiredman]

I have repeated that phrase to him so many times and he just ignores it. He is determined that he is right about the arabs and nothing is going to change his mind, even if its thrown in his face and shoved down his throat.

Since the only thing the arabs seem to understand is a rifle shoved down their throats then perhaps that is the best way to get them to accept Jeffersonian Democracy. Take them out of the middle ages at the point of a gun. Them changing their ways gives us more security.

It's time for a serious game of cowboys and muslims.


and I have told you that the "enemy of my enemy" line only works when the enemy of your enemy does not happed to be an even MORE hated enemy... but yet you keep trotting it out. boring.

[Yurt]

I have repeated that phrase to him so many times and he just ignores it. He is determined that he is right about the arabs and nothing is going to change his mind, even if its thrown in his face and shoved down his throat.

Since the only thing the arabs seem to understand is a rifle shoved down their throats then perhaps that is the best way to get them to accept Jeffersonian Democracy. Take them out of the middle ages at the point of a gun. Them changing their ways gives us more security.

It's time for a serious game of cowboys and muslims.

good point, he was there like 200 years ago and knows better than us...afterall, american and middle eastern thinking has not changed since the 70s :laugh2:

they hate the great satan, and though they hate fellow muslims, they are muslims afterall and will side with them to kill the great infidel, the ungodly satan america

[retiredman]

good point, he was there like 200 years ago and knows better than us...afterall, american and middle eastern thinking has not changed since the 70s :laugh2:

they hate the great satan, and though they hate fellow muslims, they are muslims afterall and will side with them to kill the great infidel, the ungodly satan america


so you agree with gaffer that it is a good time for a game of cowboys and muslims?

how enlightened of you.

If you want to categorize all muslims as our enemies - as gaffer clearly does - and you think that killing them is the way to get them to want to stop killing us, are you willing to kill them all? And if so, why not start with those ragheaded muslim American citizens?

[Gaffer]

so you agree with gaffer that it is a good time for a game of cowboys and muslims?

how enlightened of you.

If you want to categorize all muslims as our enemies - as gaffer clearly does - and you think that killing them is the way to get them to want to stop killing us, are you willing to kill them all? And if so, why not start with those ragheaded muslim American citizens?

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to rectify the muslim problem. All I can do is sit back and watch them slowly take control through manipulating the laws and government. And watch the country handed over to them by the likes of you, who think they understand and tolerate them.

As for killing them to prevent them from killing us, well, it works. They can't very well kill us if they are dead.

[Yurt]

so you agree with gaffer that it is a good time for a game of cowboys and muslims?

how enlightened of you.

If you want to categorize all muslims as our enemies - as gaffer clearly does - and you think that killing them is the way to get them to want to stop killing us, are you willing to kill them all? And if so, why not start with those ragheaded muslim American citizens?

you little weasel, i never said that...stop putting words in my mouth and your question mark is BS as you conclude in the next sentence "how enlightened of you." go back to the pulpit and get on your knees and pray for help :)

[manu1959]

you little weasel, i never said that...stop putting words in my mouth and your question mark is BS as you conclude in the next sentence "how enlightened of you." go back to the pulpit and get on your knees and pray for help :)

the are no evil muslims in his eyes......only evil republicans.....

[Yurt]

the are no evil muslims in his eyes......only evil republicans.....

what about the infidel american soldiers

[5stringJeff]

what about the infidel american soldiers

In MFM's defense, I believe he used that word in the sense that, in the eyes of many Muslims, Americans are infidels. I've used that word about myself on several occasions. You came back and said that the word Muslims use to identify a non-believer was something else (kafir?), and you posted something about soldiers who used that word in a self-effacing manner on T-shirts. As I saw it, MFM used "infidel" the same way those soldiers use 'kafir' (or whatever that word is) - as a way that others would describe them, and not in a morally judging manner.

[retiredman]

In MFM's defense, I believe he used that word in the sense that, in the eyes of many Muslims, Americans are infidels. I've used that word about myself on several occasions. You came back and said that the word Muslims use to identify a non-believer was something else (kafir?), and you posted something about soldiers who used that word in a self-effacing manner on T-shirts. As I saw it, MFM used "infidel" the same way those soldiers use 'kafir' (or whatever that word is) - as a way that others would describe them, and not in a morally judging manner.

thank you Jeff.... I do not, nor should you, expect yurt or his butt buddy RSR to ever admit that. This has never been about debating issues for those two faggots, it has always been about gotcha bullshit stuff because they cannot stand up and defend their ridiculous positions.

[retiredman]

you little weasel, i never said that...stop putting words in my mouth and your question mark is BS as you conclude in the next sentence "how enlightened of you." go back to the pulpit and get on your knees and pray for help :)


so when you said "good point", you were lying?

why am I not surprised?

who here has EVER known a sheeny shyster lawyer to tell the truth?

[Yurt]

yeah thanks jeff, now mfm gets his rocks off calling me a faggot....

in my defense, i first said i thought he only used in the manner you described...however, his continued use of it and continued belligerent attitude toward kafir/kuffar vs infidel led me to believe that he truly means it. as my link also showed, the solders understand it to be derogatory, whereas mfm said it merely means non believer in islam.

so jeff, do you understand the term to be derogatory? mfm does not. would you welcome home the soldiers by saying, welcome home infidel?

[Yurt]

so when you said "good point", you were lying?

why am I not surprised?

who here has EVER known a sheeny shyster lawyer to tell the truth?

you don't even know which of his points i said good point to and you are calling me a liar....boooring

the point was about you and the enemy of my enemy....good point...you put words in my mouth, period. stop that nonsense preacher.

to expect rational debate without insults from you is a futile hope

[retiredman]

yeah thanks jeff, now mfm gets his rocks off calling me a faggot....

in my defense, i first said i thought he only used in the manner you described...however, his continued use of it and continued belligerent attitude toward kafir/kuffar vs infidel led me to believe that he truly means it. as my link also showed, the solders understand it to be derogatory, whereas mfm said it merely means non believer in islam.

so jeff, do you understand the term to be derogatory? mfm does not. would you welcome home the soldiers by saying, welcome home infidel?

there is a difference between something being derrogatory and something being congratulatory. I did not mean it as an insult, but all you have is bullshit stuff like this to make into BIG issues, when wiser men, like Jeff, call you on it, you run away.

pussy

[Yurt]

there is a difference between something being derrogatory and something being congratulatory. I did not mean it as an insult, but all you have is bullshit stuff like this to make into BIG issues, when wiser men, like Jeff, call you on it, you run away.

pussy

how did i run when i answered his post :poke:

jeff misunderstood that the soldiers consider derogatory

child

[retiredman]

how did i run when i answered his post :poke:

jeff misunderstood that the soldiers consider derogatory

child

what YOU willfully fail to acknowledge is that I did not mean i as derrogatory.

but then, what would you have to argue with me about?:lol:

[Yurt]

what YOU willfully fail to acknowledge is that I did not mean i as derrogatory.

but then, what would you have to argue with me about?:lol:

you shouldn't hit the sauce everyday drunkard..


i first said i thought he only used in the manner you described...however, his continued use of it and continued belligerent attitude toward kafir/kuffar vs infidel led me to believe that he truly means it

i did post previously that i thought the way you used the term was benign, however, when you persisted after i informed you that the term was inaccurate and that soldiers also understand the term to be derogatory (and its with ONE R not two) i believe you also mean it derogatory.

what is there to acknowledge past that? nothing, i clearly said that to jeff. you're drunk preacher.

[5stringJeff]

yeah thanks jeff, now mfm gets his rocks off calling me a faggot....

in my defense, i first said i thought he only used in the manner you described...however, his continued use of it and continued belligerent attitude toward kafir/kuffar vs infidel led me to believe that he truly means it. as my link also showed, the solders understand it to be derogatory, whereas mfm said it merely means non believer in islam.

so jeff, do you understand the term to be derogatory? mfm does not. would you welcome home the soldiers by saying, welcome home infidel?

Do I understand the word to be derogatory? Not necessarily. I would consider myself an infidel to any Muslim, just as I would consider any Muslim an infidel (as they do not believe in Christ). I see it as more of a 'status' than an insult. Now, if others see it as derogatory, I suppose one would have to take that into consideration before using the word. Obviously, the word "kafir" is more accurate when describing non-believers in Islam, so I suppose I'd use that word instead of "infidel."

[Yurt]

Do I understand the word to be derogatory? Not necessarily. I would consider myself an infidel to any Muslim, just as I would consider any Muslim an infidel (as they do not believe in Christ). I see it as more of a 'status' than an insult. Now, if others see it as derogatory, I suppose one would have to take that into consideration before using the word. Obviously, the word "kafir" is more accurate when describing non-believers in Islam, so I suppose I'd use that word instead of "infidel."

fair enough, that was my point....not what mfm claimed when he did his victory dance

[retiredman]

fair enough, that was my point....not what mfm claimed when he did his victory dance


I NEVER did any "victory dance"... I merely suggested that I had not used the word "infidel" as a derrogatory term.

But you need to make THAT the subect and focus of this thread because you know you have lost on substance.

keep spewing your righteous indignation....it really is all you have left.

[Yurt]

I NEVER did any "victory dance"... I merely suggested that I had not used the word "infidel" as a derrogatory term.

But you need to make THAT the subect and focus of this thread because you know you have lost on substance.

keep spewing your righteous indignation....it really is all you have left.

i've lost on nothing, nice try, you're the one who has to resort to insults. and yes you did, you jumped for joy and called me a faggot when jeff nearly sided with you, but as you see now, he did not actually agree wholeheartedly with YOUR point.

what to make of jeff's second reply, afterall, he is a far wiser man...

[Kathianne]

i've lost on nothing, nice try, you're the one who has to resort to insults. and yes you did, you jumped for joy and called me a faggot when jeff nearly sided with you, but as you see now, he did not actually agree wholeheartedly with YOUR point.

what to make of jeff's second reply, afterall, he is a far wiser man...

I don't understand why seemingly intelligent and well read grown men are having such squabbles. Do you all know about the ignore function? I highly recommend it.

[Yurt]

I don't understand why seemingly intelligent and well read grown men are having such squabbles. Do you all know about the ignore function? I highly recommend it.

i do try to have intelligent discussions with him, but he turns around and insults at every chance. and i don't like the ignore function. this is a board, some squabbling is to be expected in debates.


I do not, nor should you, expect yurt or his butt buddy RSR to ever admit that. This has never been about debating issues for those two faggots, it has always been about gotcha bullshit stuff because they cannot stand up and defend their ridiculous positions

[Kathianne]

i do try to have intelligent discussions with him, but he turns around and insults at every chance. and i don't like the ignore function. this is a board, some squabbling is to be expected in debates.


Leave the board-wide feud out of this thread. Thank you.I agree he has been rude, all of you have been repetitious. None of you are going to win.

What Jeff mentioned, that I highlighted is continuously derailing threads and really doesn't make the board look inviting to newcomers. We're just asking for a bit of cooperation. Certainly 'squabbles' are going to break out, they need not go on for weeks.