What's it mean to "win" in Iraq?

[NeilV]

In the thread started by Galaxy, he claimed that we have won in Iraq. Several people responded that he is wrong. (To be fair, he sort of argued with himself a little bit.)

I personally think we really have won from a military sense in Iraq. I think that we are defining "win" to require too much. Namely, that the Iraqis act like they are living in Iowa.

For you folks who think that we have not "won," what would it take for us to have won?

I sincerely don't view this as a rhetorical or "gotcha" type question. I just want to know what people envision happening before we "win" and can therefore go home.

ndvan

[dragonfly]

For you folks who think that we have not "won," what would it take for us to have won?


I don't think we could "win" because it's not really a war in the traditional sense of war. It's our cops (the good guys) going onto foreign soil to route out terrorists (the bad guys). Heck, we won't even het a handle on our own violent gangs over here. How would we like it if some military force from the Middle East came over here and started hunting down our violent criminals? If our goal is to democratize (is that a word?;)) the Middle East, it's not going to be won ever. If that region wants democracy, they will obtain it on their own, and will never value democracy if they do not do just that. It's kind of like the government giving handouts. When an individual or an entire population does not expend the energy and desire to "earn" something, for lack of a better word, they do not appreciate it, and will oftentimes grow to resent it. It has to do with the satisfaction of accomplishing something on your own that no amount of good will and charity can provide.

[mike haney]

i dont know about the U.S.A. but i think bush has got what he wanted- sadaam dead in revenge for bush senior, oil co's made in excess of 80 billion in after tax profits last year in the u.s.a. alone, haliburton made 10 billion in iraq, and bush is assured of a place in history, however bad his term is regarded. all in all,bush can well say "mission accomplished!"

[cow pollinater]

We have transitioned from an invading army into a police force. We no longer hold territory, we support the local government in holding territory. We invaded a dictatorship where fear and death were the upper hand and are now ready to hand it back to a new government that will almost without a doubt be better than the last.
I'd call that a win.

[George Fergusson]

For you folks who think that we have not "won," what would it take for us to have won?

In order to determine if we have won or not, we need to know what our goal was in attacking Iraq in the first place. Clearly, if we have achieved our goal then we have won the war. If we have not achieved our goal then we have not yet won the war.

What was our goal?

[cow pollinater]

The original thread leaves win open to personal interpretation. Drawing the Presidents reasons for war into the equation is a red hering.
I don't particularly trust that we went to war for the right reasons, but I do support the outcome.

[George Fergusson]

If our goal is to democratize (is that a word?;)) the Middle East, it's not going to be won ever.

It's a fine word, and right, it wasn't going to work and democratizing Iraq was not our goal anyways so we can stop patting ourselves on the back over arranging some (questionably) free elections. What was our goal?

We invaded a dictatorship where fear and death were the upper hand and are now ready to hand it back to a new government that will almost without a doubt be better than the last.
I'd call that a win.

I'd call that a bonus, but please don't tell me you think that our goal was to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his perverted sons.

What was our goal?

[tecumseh]

I largely agree with what dragonfly said... although the idea that we were going after terrorist in invading iraq is totally bogus.

my other brother george writes:
I'd call that a bonus, but please don't tell me you think that our goal was to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his perverted sons.

tecumseh replies: come on george get with the program... liberating people and installing democracy at the point of a gun is THE REASON we have been invading people since the mexican war.

as a word of warning I would suggest that any number of times a nation can win all the battles and lose a war.

if you looked at this conflict as a simply ledge of cost and benefits it is difficult to image how the US of A can actually come out a winner.

obviously past mistakes of similar proportion have not provided the 'learning moment' that some folks would hope for...

[NeilV]

Unless I'm mistaken, so far, nobody who claims we've not yet won has given me any more idea what needs to happen to "win."

[dragonfly]

Unless I'm mistaken, so far, nobody who claims we've not yet won has given me any more idea what needs to happen to "win."


I figured I was pretty clear in my opinion that it is not winnable.;) Because it's not really a war.

[Sundance]

Dragonfly said it well.......

You just don't "win" an occupation.

No matter how this occupation turns out it will be a loss for
our nation on nearly every front. Certainly for the Iraqi
peoples.

[Bodo]

Typical defeatist attitude.

We won the war. Now it's up the the Iraqis to take over their country and do something.

[George Fergusson]

Unless I'm mistaken, so far, nobody who claims we've not yet won has given me any more idea what needs to happen to "win."

You tell me what our goals were and I'll tell you if we have achieved them.

[carbide]

We've obviously won since all of our original goals have been obtained. Saddam is no longer in power, he didn't get to invade another country like he did Kuwait and his WMDs have not been used on one of his enemies.

[Barry Digman]

This article takes a position that there can be no "winning" when the war was, in fact, based on lies to begin with.

The editors of the New York Times opinion page asked McCain to rework his most recent submission. They demanded that he at least define what he means by "winning" in Iraq and what such a "victory" would look like on the ground. It is a welcome, if belated, arrival into the "reality-based community" on the part of the Times. (Of course, they still have David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, and William Kristol).

McCain is going to have some major editing work to do. He must not only declare that the "surge" was a great success, but he has to argue that it was such a magnificent "victory" that an American troop reduction might be in order (this comes after McCain denounced Obama repeatedly for making this same argument).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/why-john-mccains-surge-su_b_114416.html

[John F]

Our stated goals were:

Destroy Iraq's WMD. They didn't have any or (depending on what you want to call WMD) had very few. These are gone now or never existed. We have success with this.

Impose regime change. We killed all of the dictatorship. We have success with this.

It appears to me that we have won and can come home en masse.


Then some questions remain:
What is a proper use of military?
Do we have the right to limit technology in other nations?
Do we have the right to impose regime on other nations?
My answers:
Defense of our rights to life, liberty, and property.
No.
No.
So, have we won?
Militarily - yes.
Philosophically, morally, ethically - no. We lost when we set foot in Iraq; This cannot be won now.


You may have a different perspective. For example, if your answers to the questions are:
Defense and maintenance of military advantage.
Yes - to maintain military advantage and use as a bargaining chip in the international political arena.
Yes - to insure control of political, economic, and military strategic positions.
Then your may answer something along the lines:
Militarily - yes.
Philosophically, morally, ethically - no. This is a battle that we must continue to manage as the enemy is continually seeking weakness in wait for the oportunity to pounce and gain advantage. This can be won only with the total distruction of the enemy.

What sort of answer are you looking for?

[NeilV]

John,

My personal views about it are a lot like yours and several others. I think the war was a bad idea poorly executed. I was against it from the start and predicted pretty much what happened (although even I did not think we would find so little WMDs). I also think that the military, once sent to fight, pretty much kicked the you know what out of the Iraqi Army and totally "won" from a military standpoint. Its the following mess that is that problem, and, to me, that's really going to be up to the Iraqis to straighten out.

That being said, I'm not so much looking for an "answer" as trying to understand what other people think. I just know that if I started a post with "we obviously should pull out of Iraq," there would be people who would call me defeatist , unpatriotic, bed wetting liberal.

What I truly don't understand -- and would like an answer to -- is what the people who think we have "lost" if we go home now think is supposed to happen for us to have won? In other words, if you oppose pulling the troops out now, what do you want to happen before you think that will be acceptable?

I'm just trying to figure out what some people expect to eventually happen if we stick around and how long they figure it will take for whatever that is to actually happen.

ndvan

[dragonfly]

I'm just trying to figure out what some people expect to eventually happen if we stick around and how long they figure it will take for whatever that is to actually happen.

ndvan

I think we will have a "presence" there indefinitely for nation-building if nothing else.

[sqkcrk]

I'm just trying to figure out what some people expect to eventually happen if we stick around and how long they figure it will take for whatever that is to actually happen.
ndvan

We haven't won. I don't see a way that the idea of "winning", except the achievements of military objectives, even fits in regards to TWOT, as some call it.

What I expect to happen and what I would like to see happen are two, or more, different things.

I would love to see us out of Iraq and Afganistan and not invade Iran.

What I expect to see is that we will have a military presence in Iraq and Afganistan for a long time. Decades, if not longer.

[John F]

In other words, if you oppose pulling the troops out now, what do you want to happen before you think that will be acceptable?

I like this question. Of course it's corallary to, "why are we there?"; basically what I was asking in the other thread and what George is asking in this one.

I think many of us are looking for this answer. I suspect that a great number of folks that belong to the group you are really questioning fall into a few categories:

Closet imperialists that feel occupation for the sake of economic, political, and military advantage is a noble goal. For these folks there will never b a time to come home. Occupation is indefinate.
Buy into the "fighting them on their soil" as a security blanket against terrorist attacks at home. For these folks there will never be a time to come home. If "fighting them on their soil" is truely a blanket then we must continue to be on their soil in order to be safe.
Feel that they can/are freeing a people with an occupying force. I can't come to closer with this one as I can't see how you can know that the people will be free once you remove the occupation.
I'm sure there are more. It will be interesting to hear them.

[mike haney]

we will have a military presense there as long as friendly oil co's are pumping oil. if they get evicted or pump the place dry, we will view it like darfur- sad but not our problem. the bombings and hostilities amoungst the sects will likely NEVER cease. these people have fought each other for thousands of years and act like it is a requirement of life to hate a group and work to kill them.

[George Fergusson]

John,
What I truly don't understand -- and would like an answer to -- is what the people who think we have "lost" if we go home now think is supposed to happen for us to have won? In other words, if you oppose pulling the troops out now, what do you want to happen before you think that will be acceptable?


Well I figure we had everything to lose and nothing to win by attacking Iraq in the first place. So I have no idea what people might think we have yet to win, or might lose if we stay, or go, now, or later. It doesn't matter, the damage is done.

[NeilV]

I can't believe that nobody who thinks it would mean a "loss" to leave not has not responded. Anybody?????????????

[George Fergusson]

I can't believe that nobody who thinks it would mean a "loss" to leave not has not responded. Anybody?????????????

Well now it turns out that maybe it is becoming a "huge loss" to stay. Iraq has a $79 billion dollar budget surplus, thanks to "windfall" oil profits sitting in American banks. Meanwhile we're choking hard on a projected $500 billion budget deficit while we continue spend $10 billion a month to defend and reconstruct Iraq's busticated infrastructure.

Gee. That's enough to leave a bad taste in your mouth, don't you think? I wonder what's going to come of this. Think we can get the Iraqis to spend their own dollars on reconstructing their own war-torn country, and maybe cough up money to cover our occupation costs too? Maybe if we say please? Seems only fair doesn't it? Think our newly installed Iraqi government would go for that?

Obama Cites U.S. Deficit, Iraqi Surplus; McCain Touts Drilling

By Todd Shields

Aug. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama said the U.S. budget deficit and Iraqi surplus show the need for ``a new direction,'' while presidential rival John McCain touted drilling for offshore oil as part of a plan for energy independence.
....
Now the Iraqi government ``has a $79 billion budget surplus thanks to their windfall oil profits,'' Obama said. ``And while this Iraqi money sits in American banks, American taxpayers continue to spend $10 billion a month to defend and rebuild Iraq.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aaR57Z9n3SLo&refer=home

[George Fergusson]

Oh, this should be interesting. I'm surprised it took this long.

Iraq Should Use Its Oil Sales to Pay for Rebuilding, Levin Says

By Aliza Marcus

Aug. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. should stop paying for reconstruction projects in Iraq because the Baghdad government can fund the rebuilding from its sales of crude oil, two U.S. senators said.

Proposed legislation in the Senate would stop the U.S. from using any more taxpayer money to fund reconstruction projects in Iraq, Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a Michigan Democrat, said today on CNN's ``Late Edition'' program.

``It is an outrage. It is absolutely offensive that American taxpayers who are paying $130 a barrel for Iraqi oil, $4 a gallon at the pump for Iraqi gasoline, are also spending taxpayers' dollars to reconstruct Iraq,'' Levin said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=ans3XHizFktA

[Sundance]

Unfortunately it was our tax dollars as well that destroyed
the country.:( Hard to see where we win in this major
cluster screw up.

[Galaxy]

I can't believe that nobody who thinks it would mean a "loss" to leave not has not responded. Anybody?????????????Well, I wouldn't want you to be disappointed ndvan. Thus, the response.

There seems to be much ethical confusion over the Iraq War. The three articles I refer to below contain enough ethics to nourish even the most ethically challenged.

While we can, and have removed some troops because we have won the war, there are ethical reasons to maintain a force in Iraq. See:

The ethical case against withdrawal from Iraq: a matter urgently to consider (http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/165693115/)

I believe there is no contradiction between this view and the belief that discretionary war can, under certain conditions, be just. In so saying, I break with traditional just-war theory, which, to my mind, cannot offer satisfactory guidance when confronting the potential convergence of terrorism, rogue states, and WMD. The traditional view, in its most common modern interpretation, requires that force be used only as a last resort in responding to--or, more controversially, preempting--specific aggression. The threat posed by a regime such as Saddam's, by contrast, is general: There is no way of anticipating particular acts of aggression, or even of knowing at what point all measures short of war have failed to dispel the general danger. The traditional view, as I have outlined it, would thus rule out war in such a case (which is why many just-war theorists, probably a majority, have held the Iraq War to be unjust).

Yet I see no reason to think that a government can never be morally obligated to protect its citizens from such threats; nor do I think a government can always know which policies will offer adequate protection and which not; nor still do I think that, in cases where preventive war clearly seems to offer the best protection, it will be possible to demonstrate that the probability of success by other means is so low that a government is strictly compelled to wage war. More simply: The justification of war under conditions of great uncertainty cannot aspire to syllogistic precision. Grave but nonspecific dangers may present a government with a range of permissible action, including war; and while no particular action is obligatory, the government may nonetheless be obligated to choose one action or another as wisely as it can.

Even those conservatives who are generally hostile to "nation building" can admit the unique moral status of discretionary war with a minimum of damage to their principles. There is no contradiction between the following propositions: (1) In a war with a classic casus belli, we may say "to hell with them" upon the cessation of fighting; and (2) the Iraq War involved us in a special duty whose discharge requires our continuing presence in Iraq. For that matter, there is no contradiction between (1) the belief that the Iraq War, or the decision to occupy Iraq, was a strategic mistake and (2) the belief that strategic mistakes can create duties.

THE MIND OF MODERN LIBERALS
Of course, if anyone should need no convincing that withdrawal would be unethical, it is modern liberals. For it is they who, in their rhetoric, advocate the most sweeping ethics-based restrictions on the conduct of foreign policy. The record of modern liberalism is another story, as witness its penchant for defending tyrants, from totalizing ideologues such as Stalin and Mao to machete-wielding, "anti-colonialist" jungle thugs. Where war is concerned, however, liberal impulses are consistently pacifistic.

The post-Vietnam Left looks upon all war as morally suspect for the reason that it maims and kills innocent people. So deep does this feeling run in liberal bones that the Left has opposed using force even against regimes which flagrantly violate human rights, and even when overwhelming strategic reasons to topple these regimes have emerged. (The most obvious recent case is the adulteress- and homosexual-murdering Taliban.)
If liberals took their rhetoric seriously, the politicians aligned most closely with the pacifist Left--Nancy Pelosi being the paradigmatic example--would suffer insomnia each night as they contemplated the probable human cost of U.S. failure in Iraq. They would recognize that their moral opposition to starting this war--or even a universalized opposition to starting any war--is consistent with the view that there are compelling moral reasons to continue it. More: that if the war was unjust, we have a unique interest in minimizing its harms, just as one feels a special obligation of kindness toward a person one has offended.

The article below was posted before the war.

Peace in Our Time, Historical and Moral Justification For War With Iraq (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/844987/posts)
Dr. S
Posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 12:16:59 AM by Jmouse007 (http://freerepublic.com/~jmouse007/)

Historical Justification For War With Iraq
People talk about the "cost of war" but fail to discuss the cost of inaction. "Those who do not LEARN from history are bound to repeat it."

The nay-sayers, protesters and liberal media "talking heads" are screaming, "Not in our name", "Why should we go to war with Iraq?" "What is the justification for taking preemptive action?" "We must not upset the apple cart in the Middle East" The answer to all of these questions is simple: History teaches us we must take action before tens, hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans and people around the world die as a direct result of our inaction.
While teaching this Spring at a University in St. Petersburg, Russia I took the time to go to Piskaryovsoye Cemetery, a mass graveyard outside the city of St. Petersburg, Russia. I purposely went there as a visceral, visual reminder of what happens when people, leaders and nations of the world try to appease/make peace with or otherwise ignore madmen bent on world conquest and domination.

This site contains over 186 mass graves. I know because I took the time to count each of them and to solemnly ponder their contents. THERE ARE OVER 490,000 PEOPLE BURIED THERE! People just like you and I, people who once lived, breathed, love and dreamed of bright futures for themselves and their children. Over 900, 000 people died in the city of St. Petersburg alone (200, 000 just in Jan-Feb 1942) and MOST of them were civilians; women and children.

In Kiev, Ukraine I visited Babyar, another mass grave containing over 100,000 Jews killed in 30 days shortly after the Nazis conquered the city.

All of this happened because the leaders of the world, including Stalin, sought to appease a little madman who amassed weapons and an army in order to dominate his neighbors and the World, by the name of Adolph Hitler.

A week later I went to London and visited the Imperial War Museum. There, encased in glass I saw the actual Munich Pact letter signed by Hitler and Chamberlain in which Hitler "promised" in writing to end his aggression... promises always look good in writing. After the meeting Adolf Hitler said: "Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich."

Neville Chamberlain waved the letter before the English press and the world and said: "...My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." -- Neville Chamberlain, September 30, 1938.
Europe believed his hollow promises and went back to sleep. They tried to "contain" and "appease" Hitler, the exact same advice people who ignore reality are giving us today regarding Saddam... the result; HE ATTACKED THEM ANYWAY AND 80 MILLION PEOPLE DIED IN THE PROCESS... people like you and me, people like your children, your husbands, your wives, your grandparents. http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/844987/posts
Finally, we often hear the false canard that we went to war because of the oil. Even if true, there are solid ethical reasons to have done so.
February 21, 2003

A perfectly moral case for fighting for Iraq's oilfields

By Nicholas Boles

There is nothing like (self-) righteous indignation to give the Left the warm glow of a Ready Brek breakfast. And nothing gives them that feeling more completely than the idea that the only reason the United States wants a war with Iraq is oil. But like all the household gods that the Left cherishes, this too has feet of clay and a head full of nonsense ... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/thunderer/article885183.ece

[mike haney]

posting long quotes from web sites and posting links to sites that support your position, no matter how obscure or partisan serves only to prove you are computer literate. one could quote the members of the flat earth society and give linkes to opinion articles on thier web site, but i doubt anyones view would be changed as people would soon peg you as a loon and cease to take you seriously unless they were looking to bolster thier own ridgid view of the world.

[Galaxy]

posting long quotes from web sites and posting links to sites that support your position, no matter how obscure ...Maybe you should expand your horizons Mike. Have you ever heard of the Times of London or the National Review?

Alternatively, you might want to respond to the ideas in posts with cogent responses.

[Sundance]

On a serious note.......... Please keep "cut and paste"
quotes to a minimum. One or two lines are sufficient
as long as a link is provided. No sense in wasting
drive space when a link will send those interested
to it.

[Galaxy]

Thanks Sundance. My quotes were probably a bit excessive in length.

[John F]

Thanks Sundance. My quotes were probably a bit excessive in length.

Please condense your argument. (We already have your references)

[NeilV]

Galaxy,

I think your points are that: (1) you think going to war was a good idea; (2) you acknowldege that we have won militarily; and (3) you think a case can be made for staying around for awhile.

However, that is not still not saying that "If we leave now we are losers."

I know that I don't own this thread just because I started it. However, nobody's really answered my question. My point in starting this thread was that some people think that the issue is still whether our military wins or loses. Nobody has explained to me how that's true or why they think it or what they mean.

ndvan

[Galaxy]

My point in starting this thread was that some people think that the issue is still whether our military wins or loses. ndvanIt is obvious that it is better to win than lose. Although, there is no doubt that many (perhaps most) Democrats prefer a loss due to political and other reasons. They have spent the better part of the war telling us the war is lost. Now that the military, GWB, and the Iraqis have won the war, the Democrats and Libertarians want to re-define what constitutes winning (move the goal posts) so as to justify their defeatist attitudes.

[Barry Digman]

Now that the military, GWB, and the Iraqis have won the war,


So post a link to the website that has all the details of the gala event that's going to celebrate this glorious victory for the Motherland. Cite the speech wherein the President and his generals announced that we have won the war. When is the parade?


Again, all I hear are the hollow pronouncements that remind me of the Russians or the Chinese announcing another glorious wheat harvest while the peasants were dying by the millions from starvation. Pure, unsubstantiated propaganda. We haven't won a thing, and the emperor has no clothes.

[George Fergusson]

However, that is not still not saying that "If we leave now we are losers."

"To the victor go the spoils."

If we leave now, we lose the loot :)

[John F]

the Democrats and Libertarians want to re-define what constitutes winning (move the goal posts)

I think ndvan is asking where the goalposts are.

Does this mean that you can't distill your argument? Do you know the thesis that each of those authors has presented? Do they represent your moral compass? Does their perspective fit with your idea of justice?

How are we going to get intellectually involved with your perspective if you don't or can't express it?

Your normal mode of attacking people or groups just makes you sound like a person driven by hate.

[Galaxy]

Does this mean that you can't distill your argument? Given the length of many of your post, maybe your should consider your own advice.Do you know the thesis that each of those authors has presented? The answer is obviousDo they represent your moral compass? Does their perspective fit with your idea of justice?The answer is also obvious.


Your normal mode of attacking people or groups just makes you sound like a person driven by hate.I do attack ideas. But, there are some who cannot separate their ideas from themselves. Are you one of these? Maybe you should back off and ask yourself the following question:

Is describing someone as "a person driven by hate" directly attacking a person rather than his ideas?

So JohnF, if you really want to enter an intellectual discussion tell us why the ethical ideas clearly elucidated in the three articles I linked above are wrong.

By the way, if it is not obvious to you, I find the ethical arguments in the articles congruent with my own.

Since I made the post (here (http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=343367&postcount=27)), I have seen nothing from you guys but an attack on a person rather than a lucid discussion of ethical ideas.

As far as goalposts (what is winning) it is also obvious that "winning" has it's genesis in ethics. Evidently, no poster has picked up on this fact.

[Galaxy]

Galaxy,

I think your points are that: (1) you think going to war was a good idea; (2) you acknowldege that we have won militarily; and (3) you think a case can be made for staying around for awhile.

However, that is not still not saying that "If we leave now we are losers." ndvan Thanks ndvan for the only lucid reply to my post. I am not saying that if we withdraw some of our forces now we are losing. But certainly, if we had withdrawn last year or before as the Democrats wished we would have lost.

Now, since we have largely reached our goals in Iraq we can withdraw forces, but carefully and not on a fixed time table.

[dragonfly]

Now, since we have largely reached our goals in Iraq we can withdraw forces, but carefully and not on a fixed time table.

And what do we do when Iraq goes into a state of chaos? Go back in? Stay indefinitely?

[Galaxy]

And what do we do when Iraq goes into a state of chaos? Go back in? Stay indefinitely?We make that decision based on the information at that time. Given the problems with Iran, yes we should maintain a reduced force in Iraq for at least the next several years, say five years.

[John F]

Given the length of many of your post, maybe your should consider your own advice.

Point taken.

there are some who cannot separate their ideas from themselves. Are you one of these?

Point taken.

a lucid discussion of ethical ideas.

From your first author [The section you included]:

Clearly he is discussing the ethics of justice. Am I to assume this is your point Galaxy?

He posits that "discretionary war can, under certain conditions, be just." We should ask, under what condition? His response: "to my mind, [just-war theory] cannot offer satisfactory guidance when confronting the potential convergence of terrorism, rogue states, and WMD." In effect claiming that whenever this convergence happens that we as sane and reasonable humans should simply kill it. Fine. What is our standard of measure? How do we recognize terrorism/rogue states/WMD?

The section you presented seems to be appologist from a position of fear for being in the war in the first place and does not really fit with the title (which you made sure to include) If you picked this one section to show us of the whole, how am I to take it? Are you an appologist?

Would you like me to do the rest?

The second suggests, again in appologist fashion, that we did a great thing because we did not allow Saddam to do the things that Hitler, et al. have done. How can he possibly know that Saddam was headed in that direction?

The third suggests that booty is a fine reason to go conquer.

Clearly, you can see how I assume you are an imperialist or afraid. It is the obvious connection between what you've said and these articles.

[John F]

Given the problems with Iran, yes we should maintain a reduced force in Iraq for at least the next several years, say five years.

Then I pegged you and you refuse to admit it.

It is all about gaining and maintaining economic, political, and military advantage.

This is not the American philosophy of the founders.