2,000 mark reached... but who won the war?

[rubicond]

Today I read on the BBC that the 2,000th US soldier has been killed in Iraq. I wonder if anybody is celebrating?

Anyway, my real question is: how would one determine who won the war? Sooner or later the US will leave Iraq. How can one determine whether they won the war or they lost it? Some US people say that the US didn't actually lose the Vietnam war because the war went on for another few years before the north won against the south (and not against the US military). Of course Saddam won't come back, does this mean that the US won the war? Or they can only be considered the winners if a pro-US government will still be there in 5, 10, 20, 50 years?

Your thoughts?

[Vulcanl]

Rubicond,

I have seen your past posts and think that you are kind of wacky.  I will attempt to engage you on this topic, just don't go off the deep end on me.

Technically the situation in Iraq is not a war.  The USA is an occupying force facing an insurgency.

To address the spirit of your post, the USA cannot win.  I say this because we are 'damned if we do and damned if we don't' in this situation.  No matter the outcome some significant bloc in the World will have a problem with how we manage it.  The best we can hope for is for some semblance of stability as we gradually transfer control to whatever entity manages to edge out some form of coalition government.

Clearly the US will need to get out at some point but this will not happen until some kind of order is restored.

This WILL take a while, perhaps a decade or more

[T2K]

I think this was a fairly phrased question.

My answer:  If the current Iraqi system and constitution survives the US withdrawal for 10 years.  Not a scientific answer, but the most succinct I can come up with.

[Joseph27]

Not a good situation at all - it was better having Suddam Hussein there however now that he isnt well we had better hope this constitution holds.  

2000 dead Americans is not a good thing but they are soldiers sent there to do a job - if they didnt want to be there they should have applied to Walmart instead.  

America's motives in Iraq are highly questionable - I would suggest that things will coast along for the 2 or 3 years - around 3000 americans will die and a new administration may start to look at tangible solutions to make Iraq a viable state.  The acceptance of the constitution does nothing to guarantee security but its a step in the right direction.  

In time Iraq may work out - in which all the pain will have been worth it - doesnt justify the war - and without invasion Suddam Hussein could have just as easily been assinated  

[rubicond]

Vulcanl, your argument that the war in Iraq is not a war is like the argument I once came across on another board. Some kid said that the US didn't lose the Vietnam war because it was a conflict, not a war  

Yes, the US is 'damned if we do and damned if we don't'. The only way not to be damned is not to start an unjustifiable war in the first place, as 90% of the world's inhabitants wanted... Now it's a bit late, and there is no easy way out, so you are, indeed, 'damned if we do and damned if we don't'.

T2K, I wonder if the American population themselves will think this too?

Joseph, you didn't address my question.

I do feel sorry for the 2,000 idiots who died while promoting the interests of Bush and his friends, but I feel oh so much more sorry for the tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilisans who died because of this war they didn't want, started by a president they didn't vote for.

Funny war, where you can't just drop bombs from a plane and then the occupied populations accepts whatever you impose on them...

I hope it's a trend!  

[so what]

Rubicond,

If you read the BBC, may I presume you watch newspapers as well?

[rubicond]

What?  

Check this out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/

[Vulcanl]

Rubicond/Joseph,

The fact that tens of thousands have died (on both sides) as a result of this conflict  are truly a tragedy.  The blase manner by which you dismiss the deaths of these soldiers in particular is sad.  The majority of these young people join the armed services to give themselves some kind of opportunity at a better life - they basically have nowhere else to go.  I feel this adds to the tragedy.  

It is incredible to me that the US continually bears so much criticism as to our foreign policy.  Just yesterday a World leader endorsed the elimination of an entire nation and I do not see the outrage directed at this leader/country.

Everything is relative...the USA is not the bad guy here

[kleverkljogs]

Here are the two clearest winners I could find.

The company that gave Cheney a $20m gift just before he took office
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-stockquoteChart

and the company that named an oil tanker after Condi Rice
http://ir.exxonmobil.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115024&p=irol-stockchart

Now there's an amazing coincidence huh?

Of course such stock price gains aren't easily achieved, the price can often be high, costing as much as an arm and a leg in some cases.
http://www.theconnection.org/content/2005/04/12/0413saleh173.jpg

[Joseph27]

There are some good articles in the Nov/Dec copy of Foreign Affairs (Just got my copy this morning) - one i especially thought stood out was on 'blow back' revised.  What the US did in Afghanistan in the 1980's ultimately lead to 9/11 -  what will be future ramifications of what the US is doing in Iraq?

This goes into the initial question of this post - how will we know who has won?  Even if the US is able to secure a peace and democracy in the Mid East - the army of foreign fighters currently in Iraq arent going to vanish.  This isnt like fighting a nation to nation conflict - they can just decomission soldiers -  these guys are in it for life - they arent going away.  

How then do we ensure that in 10 years - we dont have constanting bombings across cities of the US, UK, Aus and so on?

[rubicond]

Vulcanl, as I say, I do feel sorry for these 2,000 idiots. I do realise that they joined the US army to give themselves some kind of opportunity at a better life, but then, shoulnd't they have tried to change US society to have better opportunities at home? Can poor people in the US only give themselves some kind of opportunity at a better life by going overseas and kill innocent people to protect the interests of US corporations? But I guess I am a European, so I am bound not to understand this kind of reasoning...

Yes, it's incredible that the US continually bears so much criticism for its foreign policy. I mean, supporting terrorism in central America, replacing democracies with dictatorships in south America and Asia, teaching south American military personnel how to torture civilians, union leaders, politicians...  Why would anybody criticise that?

No, the USA is not the bad guy here. It went to Iraq because Saddam didn't want to give them the WMD he had. The arrogant brat actually said he didn't have any, and so did the UN, France, Germany, Russia, China...

[Vulcanl]

The decisions made in the late 1970s/early 1980s leading to blowback described by Joseph27, as well as all of the instances cited by you Rubicon were made as part of an overall strategy to combat the spread of communism as practiced by the Soviet Union.  Some very bad things happened to many people as a result.  But let's assume for a moment that the USA had not pursued this overall strategy - would MORE people have suffered as a result under the tyranny of communism?  I have to believe that the lesser of two evils was the USA winning that particular battle.  Without question we are paying the price of just simply withdrawing from Afghanistan and dropping them like a hot potato the second our goals there were achieved.  As for the less well off in America changing things at home, they simply too busy putting food on the table to direct their energies to full participation in the process

[Vulcanl]

Joseph27,

I have arrived at the conclusion that we are currently in the midst of a holy war (that gets hot every few hundred years or so) between the followers of Islam and the Judeo/Christian World.  As a result I do not believe that we will have resolution to the current situation in the middle east in our lifetimes.  We can therefore expect continued terrorist attacks all over World for some time to come

[rubicond]

Vulcanl, I am unsure how supporting a group of terrorists who killed civilians after Nicaragua had (for the first time ever) a democratically elected government helped 'to combat the spread of communism' (as you call it).

I am also unsure how organising and supporting the Chile military to overthrow the democratically elected government of Allende helped 'to combat the spread of communism'.

I am also unsure how supporting fascist dictatorships (from the Filippines to Greece, and from Indonesia to Guatemala helped 'to combat the spread of communism'.

Or was 'to combat the spread of communism' just an excuse for a whole bunch of criminal acts aimed at promoting and protecting the market for US corporations?

Perhaps you can enlighten me?

[kleverkljogs]

Here's a cheat sheet for ya Vulcan.

Just to help you make sure you don't skip over any of the US' enlightened and benevolent (and definitely not the bad guy) foreign policy initiatives.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

[This message has been edited by kleverkljogs (edited 29-10-2005).]