Thursday, July 17, 2008

Winning in Iraq

There's so much talk about 'wanting to win' or 'wanting to lose' in Iraq, it's starting to sound like so much partisan blather. We don't want to lose. That's ridiculous.

I think part of the problem is what 'winning' even is. It hasn't been spelled out, unless the benchmarks previously announced and fulfilling them and getting out is it. But all that has gone by the boards as the circumstances on the ground have shifted. We know there's not going to be a signing ceremony on a battleship somewhere, the enemy there with hat in hand. So what it looks like appears to be a matter of opinion.

Since John McCain has already announced -- well, two conflicting things -- that we will have "victory" by 2013 and that we could be there 100 years, it seems to be his opinion that we will win, since that's appears to be the primary definition of "victory." I don't believe he has defined what that is precisely, although we've seen that the definition of things usually isn't key, just the perception of things. The Bush administration has done it like this, lie enough until the lie is accepted as truth.

As for myself, just a random guy sitting here, I've always felt we could and should "win," meaning prevail militarily, stabilize things, and get out. Look, Iraq has no army, navy, coast guard, air force. We're the King Kong of offense, they're a guy in a wheelchair with a peashooter. We "won" a long time ago, except we didn't seem to have a good strategy for stabilizing things. They let it go with all that "Stay the Course" nonsense, then they came up with the Genius Plan of sending more troops! OK, I know this is above my pay grade, but isn't that common sense? The more troops you have the more you can have your way? That could've been done earlier.

So we actually "won," but then we spent the meantime saying we haven't, because we kept moving the goalposts. If -- if -- we haven't won, we should have. It's crazy that it's taking so long with all the advantages we have.

Poor old Hitler.
We had a fierce nemesis in him, with an army, the works. And we were able to beat him in less time. If we were able to do that, what's the stinking hold-up in Iraq?

No comments: