RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,152273,00.html

Sadly, a lot of sense is made in this article. I'd like to think that in some way the author had missed his mark, but I don't see where.

Then again, we may never have truly looked upon Iraq as a nation to get involved in solely to benefit Iraqis. If we accept this, then look again at the situation inside Iraq we may see a different scene entirely.

In this scenario it really would not matter that Sunni was killing Shiite, nor would it matter that the Maliki government has no teeth in its own nation. All that would matter is, will the eventual outcome benefit Americans.

Well, if we decide that we can never reach some sort of agreement with the Iranians and that we must continue fighting to overwhelm them as we have thought for decades and believe that we can defeat them before going broke, then the mere prospect of war with the Shiite population may be a good thing.

Personally, I believe that it is a pipedream either way. The anymosities created during the Saddam era and since the invasion began are not simply going to die down because we are willing to stay there and wait them out. Neither is it true that our withdrawal would somehow guarantee that all we have done in Iraq was for nothing. For that matter it isn't even true that Iranian involvement in Iraq would necessarily mark the end of all possible positive outcomes for America.

We put ourselves in certain positions by choice. Sometimes we feel that we don't have any choice, but that is typically not truthful.

At this point I think that their is one good way to look at Iraq, and that is as a magnet for regional involvement capable of leading us to new trade relations and increased regional stability, from which we may all benefit.

Noone ever said that you had to love your trade partners, or the people you agree to make peace with for the good of all.

I have a lot of respect for the author, but I'd say that I have immense respect for MG Kelly.

The author lays out some interesting assertions that are no doubt true at some level. Overall however, I'd have to say that I agree with MG Kelly's assessment.

"So no, we are not winning in Iraq. The only meaningful definition of "winning" is seeing the re-emergence of a real Iraqi state, and by that standard we are no closer to victory than we ever were." -William Lind

I'd have to say that this assertion in particular is false. Winning can be defined in many ways, that's obvious. But according to the widely accepted "fundamental principles of warfare" we are winning the fight. The establishment of an Iraqi state? Come on now, no one really expected this to happen right away did they? I didn't think so. Once again, it takes time to establish a working government, most especially in a country with competing sects of Islam, competing social classes, Islamo-fascist terrorists, and the like. It doesn't take a Masters in History from princeton to see that.

"Nor can I see anything on the horizon that could move us closer to such a victory, other than a complete American withdrawal, which begins to look as unlikely under Hillary as under George. All we see on the horizon of Anbar province, sadly, is another mirage." -William Lind

Spoken like a true defeatist. Or perhaps it's because he wouldn't really know the first thing about "victory", as many Americans don't. It is obvious that he has never served in the military. From the sounds of it he may have never played sports.

Here's the bottom line: We are winning. Simply because it's taking time to get the country stable doesn't mean we are loosing. The United States has many enemies, it always has. Those enemies will seek to undermind US interests whenever and wherever possible. Victory is not on the horizen Mr. Lind, because it is already upon us.

Stay in the fight till the battle is won. Retreat is for the enemy.
Americans fight no matter what lies in their path. They fight until they win.
If you want to give up, move to Iran. I'm sure they'd welcome you with open arms.

Not so fast William, and by the way, would you mind not to tear everything down ? Instead you could provide yourself some solutions, or at least some proposals. I see you only criticizing, but I see no achievable ideas coming from you, it's that what you get paid for ?

To say "we win" while in a positive development is equally justified as the voices of "we lose" as there were negative ones. Would it be a bad thing for you, if at least I consider the words of your friend John brighter than yours ? I feel your articles are negatively biased, I do remember your words "brutalizing of Iraqi people" in your last one. How wars have to be fought in your opinion ? Pushing pink cotton balls ?

It's a good idea to open ones eyes for reality, but it's an equal good idea to stop that defeatism, looks like you have a problem with the second.

Don't want to be negative myself, and your final words gave me some gratification. Seems you also got it, under Hillary Iraq involvement will not change. And thanks showing your attitude.

Quote W. Lind:
"Nor can I see anything on the horizon that could move us closer to such a victory, other than a complete American withdrawal, which begins to look as unlikely under Hillary as under George."

This politican as always sound good, but not being in the service, sees war from a safe distance. He is right about the disconnect between the people & the govt of Iraq tho, But the war will not be won in Bagdad, but in the streets of every town in Iraq, when the people either get tired or feel secure in rooting out all terrorists in the midst. Iraq as a nation does not and has never existed. The Brits & french totally ignored tirbes & religion when the broke up the Ottoman Empire and just lumped people together by drawing lines on a map. The only thing that ever held Iraq together was dictators or Military strongmen. It will take time to teach the country political frredom, hell it took the US 10 years to come up with a working form of govt. What idiot but a politican would expect to the work in 2-4 yrs in a foreign country that never experinced it before?

quote:

Originally posted by lovatscot:
This politican as always sound good, but not being in the service, sees war from a safe distance. He is right about the disconnect between the people & the govt of Iraq tho, But the war will not be won in Bagdad, but in the streets of every town in Iraq, when the people either get tired or feel secure in rooting out all terrorists in the midst. Iraq as a nation does not and has never existed. The Brits & french totally ignored tirbes & religion when the broke up the Ottoman Empire and just lumped people together by drawing lines on a map. The only thing that ever held Iraq together was dictators or Military strongmen. It will take time to teach the country political frredom, hell it took the US 10 years to come up with a working form of govt. What idiot but a politican would expect to the work in 2-4 yrs in a foreign country that never experinced it before?

OH well said, The article is well written however, it definitely comes from a purely academic point of view. As I have said in another post, most of this generation of leaders and critics seem to be in the computer age of point and click with immediate results. You never get immediate results in this arena it takes time, education and a committment that most people don't want to provide.

quote:

Originally posted by retiredandproud:

quote:

Originally posted by lovatscot:
This politican as always sound good, but not being in the service, sees war from a safe distance. He is right about the disconnect between the people & the govt of Iraq tho, But the war will not be won in Bagdad, but in the streets of every town in Iraq, when the people either get tired or feel secure in rooting out all terrorists in the midst. Iraq as a nation does not and has never existed. The Brits & french totally ignored tirbes & religion when the broke up the Ottoman Empire and just lumped people together by drawing lines on a map. The only thing that ever held Iraq together was dictators or Military strongmen. It will take time to teach the country political frredom, hell it took the US 10 years to come up with a working form of govt. What idiot but a politican would expect to the work in 2-4 yrs in a foreign country that never experinced it before?

OH well said, The article is well written however, it definitely comes from a purely academic point of view. As I have said in another post, most of this generation of leaders and critics seem to be in the computer age of point and click with immediate results. You never get immediate results in this arena it takes time, education and a committment that most people don't want to provide.

It definetly does take time to win a war, but winning never comes without sacrifice and in this instance we've found certain leaders excessively unwilling to give ground when it became clear that their strategy for victory was not just taking time but was also taking us in the wrong direction.