Succes in Iraq

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
So let's recap: You selectively use facts, cherry pick individual and isolated incidents, fail to define success and progress, and continue to state there is "progress" towards a nebulous goal that keeps getting pushed further out. That's called failure. Your post is largely a failure and it's because you don't understand basic tenets of logic and empiricism. Look at palehorses response for a proper defense.
<br

I show charts depicting a large reduction in violence over the last year while you pick a slight uptick in violence over the last couple of months and I'm the one cherry-picking? :roll:

I was only showing progress btw. Not the end definition of success in Iraq. Though I think palehorse has got it about right.

Why not look at the violence chart since the beginning? It's NEVER CONSTANT. And if you think 4000 soldiers, 30k wounded, trillions spent and loss of actual and perceived power all for the mere POSSIBILITY of creating a stable (not even democratic) government in iraq is Success, you need more ambition

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Thanks for posting this. I wasn't aware Sadr city was under control.

 

[Stoneburner]

[John] MY FRIENDS [/McCain]

Don't let narrow minded rhetoric fool you. Don't let isolated incidents pushed by bush sychophants fool you. Iraq is a failure and a long term blunder. NOBODY is arguing against this. What some of you are arguing is, "well , we can possibly make it not so bad." Sure, but it can also be made worse. As it stands, the nation is destabilized, IRAN IS MORE POWERFUL THAN EVER, the U.S. has lost power in the region. Ask yourselves why such a heavy price was paid. All to remove 1 dictator? Iraq is a failure for the U.S. Every stated goal of the invasion has FAILED. Please stop trying to redefine failure to success. If you think about the entire affair rationally for even a fleeting moment, the truth is inescapable. A stable iraqi government is NOT success, it's the best the U.S. can do to salvage a massive blunder.

 

[umbrella39]

No one ever said our troops aren't the best in the world nor that they aren't kicking ass over there. Unfortunately, they can't fix Iraq, our elected leaders have to be involved in that part and as we know once that happens, all shit hits the fan. If I were the OP, I would gauge success in Iraq as whether or not you make it out of there alive and are able to come home for good. Had the OP died over there like thousands other have, I highly doubt his memory would be reminding us of what a huge success Iraq is. A success would have been never going in there in the first place, anything after that can only be judged in lives and dollars, because the Iraqis still after all these years aren't able to handle their own affairs.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
No one ever said our troops aren't the best in the world nor that they aren't kicking ass over there. Unfortunately, they can't fix Iraq, our elected leaders have to be involved in that part and as we know once that happens, all shit hits the fan. If I were the OP, I would gauge success in Iraq as whether or not you make it out of there alive and are able to come home for good. Had the OP died over there like thousands other have, I highly doubt his memory would be reminding us of what a huge success Iraq is. A success would have been never going in there in the first place, anything after that can only be judged in lives and dollars, because the Iraqis still after all these years aren't able to handle their own affairs.

Hypothetical Question: Would you consider 3-5 more years of US involvement worth the cost in blood and money if it is guaranteed to prevent 20-30 years of bloody chaos?

 

[Jhhnn]

From Palehorse-

Hypothetical Question: Would you consider 3-5 more years of US involvement worth the cost in blood and money if it is guaranteed to prevent 20-30 years of bloody chaos?

The question is pointless- no such guarantees can reasonably be make or accepted, whether we stay, go, or fly to the moon on a pogo stick.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Palehorse-

Hypothetical Question: Would you consider 3-5 more years of US involvement worth the cost in blood and money if it is guaranteed to prevent 20-30 years of bloody chaos?

The question is pointless- no such guarantees can reasonably be make or accepted, whether we stay, go, or fly to the moon on a pogo stick.

hence the italicized and underlined word "hypothetical"... so please, answer it with a 'yes' or 'no' as though a guarantee were in fact possible.

If you can't handle this type of exercise, please butt out and let others give it a shot. You'll find out soon enough where I'm going with this...

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Hypothetical Question: Would you consider 3-5 more years of US involvement worth the cost in blood and money if it is guaranteed to prevent 20-30 years of bloody chaos?

Yes but if there is enough hatred between the sunnis and the shiites to fight for 20-30 years if we leave then I doubt we can stop that in 3-5 years.

I don't actually believe Iraq would fall into 20-30 years of "bloody chaos." There aren't enough motivating factors for sunnis and shiites to support their respective extremists (as opposed to, say, the Israeli/Palestinian situation where two extreme factions are literally fighting for control of what they view as their homeland and have massive sympathy from less extreme members of the population). The general sentiment I've gotten from Iraqis (second-hand of course) is that most of them are tired of the violence and want peace. There isn't enough general support for extremist groups for fighting to continue for decades.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Hypothetical Question: Would you consider 3-5 more years of US involvement worth the cost in blood and money if it is guaranteed to prevent 20-30 years of bloody chaos?

Yes but if there is enough hatred between the sunnis and the shiites to fight for 20-30 years if we leave then I doubt we can stop that in 3-5 years.

I don't actually believe Iraq would fall into 20-30 years of "bloody chaos." There aren't enough motivating factors for sunnis and shiites to support their respective extremists (as opposed to, say, the Israeli/Palestinian situation where two extreme factions are literally fighting for control of what they view as their homeland and have massive sympathy from less extreme members of the population). The general sentiment I've gotten from Iraqis (second-hand of course) is that most of them are tired of the violence and want peace. There isn't enough general support for extremist groups for fighting to continue for decades.

What this boils down to is a series of detente followed by surges in violence and overall political instability.

And the reason nobody wants to fight right now is because they are waiting to see what the U.S. does. If the U.S. stays too long, things get hairy, if The U.S. leaves early, things get hairy. Basically, it's a no win situation.

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope by Michael Yon

Now that's what I call the "Audacity of Hope"

Most people would call it blindly partisan and disingenuous cheerleading.

So I'm assuming you've read the book?

 

[NeoV]

"it's hard to deny that we are currently successfull in our mission."

What exactly is that mission again?

I would hope that after 6 years + there we would have some success to talk about. However, in many areas, water and electricity are below pre-war levels, unemployment is sky high, and there are still dozens of attacks/murders every day.

I don't deny progress is being made, but it's still far from a rosy picture over there.