What If We Don't "Win?"

[NATO AIR]

a good question, given the efforts of traitors like howard dean and cindy sheehan to misinform the public, far too much of the media's continued opposition to progress in Iraq and the political opposition in congress undermining the war effort from a legislative perspective.

as well as the many failures (past and ongoing) of far too many in this administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601217.html

It's Not Whether You 'Win' or 'Lose' . . .
By Anne Applebaum

Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A25
In recent months it has become common practice to talk about what it will take to "win" -- or what it would mean to "lose" -- the war in Iraq. Recently the pace of that talk has accelerated. Just last week President Bush published a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," presumably a follow-up to the speech in which he talked of "defeating the enemy." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has also assured Congress that "we are not losing this war." Both were responding to politicians such as Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who worried out loud a few months ago that "we're losing in Iraq," as well as the experts who voice the opinion, as one did in Foreign Affairs, that "the ongoing war in Iraq is not one that the United States can win."
But what if all of this vocabulary -- winning, losing, victory, defeat -- is simply misplaced? There are, after all, wars that are not actually won or lost. There are wars that achieve some of their goals, that result only in partial solutions and that leave much business unfinished. There are wars that do not end with helicopters evacuating Americans from the embassy roof but that do not produce a victorious march into Berlin, either. There are wars that end ambivalently -- wars, for example, such as the one we fought in Korea.
I hasten to explain that the comparison between Iraq and Korea does not come from nowhere: It has been suggested, implicitly and explicitly, by the Bush administration itself. In a speech last year, Vice President Cheney spoke of Harry Truman, the president who took us into Korea, as a model of "the kind of leadership required to defend freedom in our time." Rumsfeld has also pointed out that Truman, like Bush, suffered from low popular approval because of the Korean War: "Back then a great many people questioned whether young Americans should face death and injury in Korea, thousands of miles from home, for a result that seemed uncertain at best. And today the answer is the Korean Peninsula."
Well, yes -- but actually it isn't all that clear that "the Korean Peninsula" really represents a slam-dunk victory, to use Bush administration terminology. Certainly in 1953, when the cease-fire was signed, no one thought so. More than 33,000 Americans died -- more than 15 times as many as have died so far in Iraq -- and more than 103,000 were wounded. Gen. Douglas MacArthur had defined "victory" as "the unification of the Korean Peninsula," but in fact the war merely preserved the status quo. The South Korean government was independent, but too weak to survive without an American military presence. Red China, as we then called it, was probably strengthened by the war, as was the tyrannical North Korean dictator, Kim Il Sung.
Fifty years later, the picture is indeed more nuanced: South Korea is a democracy, an economic success, and proof that it was right to fight communism and prevent it from spreading. And yet North Korea, which we didn't manage to push back, not only remains one of the world's most repressive and paranoid dictatorships but has also become a nuclear power that poses a continuing threat to its neighbors. Good things came out of the war. Bad things came out of the war as well.
Iraq is not Korea, of course, and the Middle East is not Asia. But it is perfectly possible that the two conflicts might eventually resemble one another in the ambivalence of their conclusions. Although both the administration and its antiwar opponents speak as if there must be an either/or solution for Iraq -- either democracy or Islamic fascism -- it is perfectly possible that we end up with both. We may indeed create the first truly democratic Arab regime, with independent media, real elections and a relatively liberal political culture. But we may also, simultaneously, strengthen al Qaeda and its radical Islamic allies, in Iraq and the entire region. We may create a more entrepreneurial, globally integrated Iraq that can inspire economic reform throughout the Middle East. We may also create a deep well of international anti-American resentment that hampers our ability to conduct everything from trade negotiations to counterintelligence for decades to come.
It is even possible, in the end, that we really will help bring into existence a new generation of democratic Arab reformers across the Middle East -- and that we will need to keep troops in the region for five decades to defend them. Would such an outcome mean the war was a "defeat"? Not necessarily. Would it mean the war was a "victory"? Not exactly. Can we, the nation that invented the Hollywood happy ending, live with such a conclusion? Hard to imagine, but we might not have a choice.
[email protected]

 

[Zhukov]

One side of the political spectrum has pined its future on a failure in Iraq.

As the possibility of that failure becomes more and more remote the emphasis has shifted to changing the definition of things like 'victory' and 'failure' so that when victory comes the left can continue to cover it's eyes and pretend it is not there. Can we, the left, twist the meaning of 'victory' so that when actual victory is achieved we can convincingly deny it? This article is an example of the begining of that.

Her comparison to Korea is inane. All Korea did was maintain the status quo? No. The Korean war restored the status quo as it was before the North Koreans invaded, from the low point where the communists controlled the vast majority of the peninsula. In the sense of freeing all of Korea the war was only half successfull, but in the sense of liberating the South Koreans it was most certainly a victory. But by saying 'maintained' the status quo she implies we started the war with the intent to liberate the whole peninsula. That was not the case. We went to defend the South Koreans, which we did. MacArthur wasn't even supposed to move as far North as he did.

How does that compare to Iraq? Restoring the status quo in Iraq as it was before the war would be Saddam Hussein, or someone like him, in power in Baghdad would it not? Does anyone realistically believe that will happen?

But then we get to the rub:

It is even possible, in the end, that we really will help bring into existence a new generation of democratic Arab reformers across the Middle East -- and that we will need to keep troops in the region for five decades to defend them.

So long as one troop remains in the region (as undoubtedly many will for some time), the left will continue to say, 'We've achieved nothing! Our troops are still there! How can you call that a victory?'

 

[theHawk]

We still have troops in Europe. Guess that whole WWII thing was a big quarmire.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Applebaum did not dwell on how the Iraqis themselves could influence whether the Iraq war is a "win" or a "lose". The Iraqis are doing everything they can to let the world know that they want to "win" and live in a democracy. Applebaum should ask the North Koreans if they think the Korean War just maintained the "status quo".

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh, no matter what, they will criticize. When we have victory, they will simply say things like "if we would have gotten an international coalition, we wouldnt have lost so many soldiers and we could have gotten the job done faster".

They truly know no shame.

 

[Psychoblues]

Applebaum certainly intimates her desire for an ongoing war. She further calls into question rather abstract, obscure and not as yet seen attitudes and circumstanses. Her article is pretty much for entertainment and a sense of perceived profit, don't you agree?

Psychoblues

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Did you say something?

Applebaum certainly intimates her desire for an ongoing war. She further calls into question rather abstract, obscure and not as yet seen attitudes and circumstanses. Her article is pretty much for entertainment and a sense of perceived profit, don't you agree?

Psychoblues

 

[Psychoblues]

Did you say something?

Sorry, you must have missed it. Please reread the post and responses and wipe from front to back. It will help you prevent further infection.

Psychoblues

 

[Hobbit]

Applebaum certainly intimates her desire for an ongoing war. She further calls into question rather abstract, obscure and not as yet seen attitudes and circumstanses. Her article is pretty much for entertainment and a sense of perceived profit, don't you agree?

Psychoblues

No

 

[Psychoblues]

No

OK. No what?

 

[Hobbit]

OK. No what?

You asked a yes or no question. I answered it. Is it really that hard for such an enlightened and educated veteran of 60 wars who was such a prodigy that he was not only in 1st grade at age 4 but remembers the political atmosphere back then to understand that concept?

 

[Psychoblues]

You were not in this converstation when I asked the question. I ask again of you, OK, No what?

You may make fun of my life and my military experience. Let me be a friend and warn you. You only exemplify your own ignorance and intolerance of the ideals of Americans that I have lived and learned to love by your belligerence. But, on the other hand, you go right on. Republicans will love you for it and Democrats will appreciate you more.

Psychoblues

You asked a yes or no question. I answered it. Is it really that hard for such an enlightened and educated veteran of 60 wars who was such a prodigy that he was not only in 1st grade at age 4 but remembers the political atmosphere back then to understand that concept?

 

[insein]

You were not in this converstation when I asked the question. I ask again of you, OK, No what?

You may make fun of my life and my military experience. Let me be a friend and warn you. You only exemplify your own ignorance and intolerance of the ideals of Americans that I have lived and learned to love by your belligerence. But, on the other hand, you go right on. Republicans will love you for it and Democrats will appreciate you more.

Psychoblues

Why is everything Dem vs Rep with you? This just leads me more to my opinion that your a troll trying to get a rise out of majority republican messageboard by making every issue a "Republicans are evil" thread. Go cry to someone who gives a damn about your pathetic life. I dont believe a damn word you say anymore. I bet your not even in the military and never have been.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Why is everything Dem vs Rep with you? This just leads me more to my opinion that your a troll trying to get a rise out of majority republican messageboard by making every issue a "Republicans are evil" thread. Go cry to someone who gives a damn about your pathetic life. I dont believe a damn word you say anymore. I bet your not even in the military and never have been.

I have come to that conclusion

I just read him as entertainment anymore.

NOBODY in this forum should allow him to do anything but make us laugh and smile. DONT take him serious at all. Its his ONLY goal, laugh at him and he will shrink.

If you get angry it pleases him

If you try to engage in intelligent conv. he ignores you

If you laugh and expose him, he shrinks at the sight of truth.

 

[Hobbit]

You were not in this converstation when I asked the question. I ask again of you, OK, No what?

You may make fun of my life and my military experience. Let me be a friend and warn you. You only exemplify your own ignorance and intolerance of the ideals of Americans that I have lived and learned to love by your belligerence. But, on the other hand, you go right on. Republicans will love you for it and Democrats will appreciate you more.

Psychoblues

I've known enough real people who have done a hell of a lot more for this country than you ever have to know a true patriot when I see one. I know more relatives with service medals than most people have living relatives. I know enough to know that you are a fraud. You will defame, lie, invent, insult, and ignore everything you have to to push your twisted, cowardly, anti-American agenda on us, but I can see right through you. Either war made you nuts, or you never fought to begin with, and every time somebody disagrees with you, you trumpet out your war record. So you supposedly fought in Vietnam...big...frickin'...deal. So did John Kerry, and I think he's a wussy, padering, penthouse, spoon-fed pretty boy who's completely out of touch with reality.

Every time you talk to me, you talk as though you're educating a 3-year-old. Well, I've seen quite a bit in my day, enough to know when some self-named big shot thinks he's a higher life form than everybody else, and until you come down out of your tower and talk to me like an intelligent human being, you get ZERO respect from me, so go condescend to somebody who cares.

 

[Psychoblues]

You are so full of shit, Hobbit. First off, you ain't never seen me, so I can only conclude you wouldn't know a patriot if you were hit by one. Subliminal meaning there oh ignorant one, get it? I didn't think so. You could've told me that YOU had done something for this country, but, you only KNOW some that have? On the other hand, you're fairly typical.

Secondly, there ain't nothing about me coward. I've proven myself, earned my stripes and defend my position. What are you other than a name-calling chicken shit with innuendo a mountain high? I'd suggest that you grow up, do some genuine fighting for your ideals and your country and wipe that silly smirk off your face.

I never knew that "Psychoblues" was naming myself as some sort of "big-shot". And your remarks are not condescending? If not plain ass ignorant?

Psychoblues

I've known enough real people who have done a hell of a lot more for this country than you ever have to know a true patriot when I see one. I know more relatives with service medals than most people have living relatives. I know enough to know that you are a fraud. You will defame, lie, invent, insult, and ignore everything you have to to push your twisted, cowardly, anti-American agenda on us, but I can see right through you. Either war made you nuts, or you never fought to begin with, and every time somebody disagrees with you, you trumpet out your war record. So you supposedly fought in Vietnam...big...frickin'...deal. So did John Kerry, and I think he's a wussy, padering, penthouse, spoon-fed pretty boy who's completely out of touch with reality.

Every time you talk to me, you talk as though you're educating a 3-year-old. Well, I've seen quite a bit in my day, enough to know when some self-named big shot thinks he's a higher life form than everybody else, and until you come down out of your tower and talk to me like an intelligent human being, you get ZERO respect from me, so go condescend to somebody who cares.

P.S. I apologize for making you feel like a 3 year old.

 

[Stephanie]

I have come to that conclusion

I just read him as entertainment anymore.

NOBODY in this forum should allow him to do anything but make us laugh and smile. DONT take him serious at all. Its his ONLY goal, laugh at him and he will shrink.

If you get angry it pleases him

If you try to engage in intelligent conv. he ignores you

If you laugh and expose him, he shrinks at the sight of truth.

 

[Adam's Apple]

So did John Kerry, and I think he's a wussy, padering, penthouse, spoon-fed pretty boy who's completely out of touch with reality.

This is totally off the subject, but John Kerry is no "pretty boy" by any means. :tng: My nickname for Kerry is "Lurch." Do you get my drift?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

This is totally off the subject, but John Kerry is no "pretty boy" by any means. :tng: My nickname for Kerry is "Lurch." Do you get my drift?

I think Hobbits characterization is part of the "show" he puts on. He knows how to dress and present himself, he is a lawyer after all. He practices all the right hand gestures, and just feels comfortable getting up in front of a lot of people and putting on a false face, and act and LYING to them.

 

[Hobbit]

You are so full of shit, Hobbit. First off, you ain't never seen me, so I can only conclude you wouldn't know a patriot if you were hit by one. Subliminal meaning there oh ignorant one, get it? I didn't think so. You could've told me that YOU had done something for this country, but, you only KNOW some that have? On the other hand, you're fairly typical.

Secondly, there ain't nothing about me coward. I've proven myself, earned my stripes and defend my position. What are you other than a name-calling chicken shit with innuendo a mountain high? I'd suggest that you grow up, do some genuine fighting for your ideals and your country and wipe that silly smirk off your face.

I never knew that "Psychoblues" was naming myself as some sort of "big-shot". And your remarks are not condescending? If not plain ass ignorant?

Psychoblues

See what I mean? Condescending, self-righteous bullcrap. And for your general information, I attended the United States Naval Academy until a broken leg prevented me from being able to keep up with the physical rigors and I plan to go back to the Navy once I finish college. I've shown my devotion to the cause, whether I've actually had the chance to see combat or not.

You trounce out your war record like it's some sort of divine mandate of you being right, yet you continually support those who are degrading the morale of the troops, something you just don't seem to get. I also fail to see how "seeing" you can possibly give me a better look at your attitude than what you say. After all, you ain't seen me, either, but that doesn't prevent you from assuming I'm a stupid little 2-year old whose infantile intellect can't possibly stand up to your holy war record and the fact that you were such a prodigy that you started thinking ill of the government when you were 4 because of a decision that didn't even affect you.

You also seem to use a lot of words you don't know the meaning of and when somebody rubs you the wrong way, you make about as much sense as a stoned drunk with a concussion having a stroke during a fire, which is only slightly less sense than you make when you're calm. It's obvious you think yourself better than anyone else, and the only way to deal with your type is to let them know just how little they matter. I'm through talking to you.