So do you consider the Iraq Conflict a Victory?

• Tiernan

  With the withdraw of armed forces in Iraq scheduled to be complete within 45 days (except for 50K peacekeepers) do you as an American feel this was a worthwhile endeavor?
  
  I personally think it will become remembered as one of the biggest military "wastes of personnel & material" in history.
• FairwoodKing

  It was a war we never should have fought. W was an asshole for sending us there.
• fish82

  

  It'll be 3-5 years before we'll have any idea if it was truly successful or not.
• Belly35

  

  I agree with Fish82 to early to forcast and also the present goverment structure is not fully operational.
  My personal opinion to early to pull out right now.....
  
  Obama just trying to make it look like he keeping his word but keep his word and withdrawing to soon is just stupid.....
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Belly35;459771 wrote:I agree with Fish82 to early to forcast and also the present goverment structure is not fully operational.
  My personal opinion to early to pull out right now.....
  
  Obama just trying to make it look like he keeping his word but keep his word and withdrawing to soon is just stupid.....

  
  Agreed it was too early to tell, but it was right to start to dramatically withdraw. Logistically, the Pentagon could not maintain the current forces or timeline in Iraq and ramp up the war in Afghanistan. It had to choose, and the SOFA agreement provided a chance to withdraw. If it a choice between maintaining forces in Iraq or more forces in Afghanistan, I choose Afghanistan. It wasn't stupid.
  
  Remember, the Pentagon was willing to reduce in 24 months, Obama wanted 14-16, and they settled on 18 months.
  
  That said, the situation is still fragile, but it will continue to be for some time. The government has growing pains to go through, but they are slowly moving forward. The Iraqi Army has improved by leaps and bounds compared to 2005-2006. They have done a great job the last 2 years in helping reducing the violence. If the country can establish a somewhat operation democracy, and defend their own borders, then I will consider the war a victory in terms for the U.S. But, I expect Iraq to remain like Lebanon, a fragile democracy on the verge of implosion, for some time now.
  
  Was it right to go in? That's another issue, but looks like no. But, it was the right decision to stay and at least establish the roots of democracy and eradicate al Qaeda that took root in 2004.
• HitsRus

  

  A victory? Sure is.
  
  Pyrrhic? Sure is.
• GeneralsIcer89

  Should never have gone in the first place, but that's not the question. Too early to tell for sure if it was a success as far as the goals in initially going are concerned. I think it will be remembered as a waste, however.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Like most here, I think it's a wait and see approach before we can say definitely one way or another.
  
  If Iraq becomes the Middle East's second true stable Democracy, then it will be a great achievement. I think the only way you can truly defeat Islamic terrorism is show them they can have successful democratic governments with all the personal freedoms that go with it. Once enough folks have tasted personal and economic freedom, they will be willing to fight to keep it. Iraq is still very early in this process.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Writerbuckeye - well said. Like Fish said, it will be 3-5 years before we know, but the seed of democracy has been planted, fertilized, watered, and allowed to grow so far. We'll have to wait and see if the new gardeners can keep it alive or let it wither and die.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't think we should have been there in the first place. But....
  
  Having been there I think if in 3-10 years the country is still on the right track and improving its infrastructure/having less violence then I think it'd be fair to call the mission a victory. Will it change my mind about whether or not we should have been there in the first place? Nope. But hopefully we can call it a victory because I'd hate for the country to turn back into a hell hole making the thousands of American lives and the estimated million Iraqi lives lost essentially for nothing.
• HitsRus

  

  One thing that we will never know is what might have happenned if we didn't go in.
• dwccrew

  

  HitsRus;459903 wrote:One thing that we will never know is what might have happenned if we didn't go in.

  
  This is very true. Could have been for the better or worst, we will never know.
  
  However, I agree with the sentiment that it is too early to tell if it is a victory. Since the objectives from the beginning were unclear (they continually changed until they opted on Iraqi freedom), I'd say only time will tell; if this country can become stable and promote democracy throughout the region, it wil be a victory.
  
  That also being said, it will always have a black eye on it IMO, I don't think Americans should die for others freedoms. That is not our job. I truly don't believe Iraq was a threat to the USA (looking back), but I do hope that some good comes out of this so that those who have died do not die in vain.
• I Wear Pants

  ^^^ Pretty spot on. No matter what I feel about whether we should or shouldn't have gone in I can't change it and we'll never know what would be if we hadn't gone in. So I might as well hope for the best in the situation that we now have to live with. The best is Iraq growing into a healthy, prosperous state whose people are able to chase after whatever ambitions they have.
• majorspark

  

  HitsRus;459903 wrote:One thing that we will never know is what might have happenned if we didn't go in.

  This is a great point. Preemptive war by its very nature will never really bring full realization as to what it truly may have or have not been preempted. Its worth will always be left up for debate.
  
  Lets say Britain and France when they saw Germany was in violation of the treaty of Versailles, were rearming, and they perceived Hitler to be a great threat to themselves and world peace. They then chose to launch a preemptive strike to enforce the treaty of Versailles and remove Hitler from power. Likely the terms warmongers, aggressors, and imperialists would have been bandied about. Many would have blamed them for the deaths of 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands, but no one would ever be able to realize they prevented the holocaust and saved the lives of 10's of millions of Europeans. Hindsight is 20/20.
  
  Most of you know my opinions concerning our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have stated them many times. In the case of preemptive war the full unequivocal backing of the civilian government is most essential. A formal declaration of war by the civilian government is what is paramount, not some watered down resolution of force that gives spineless politicians an escape hatch.
• cbus4life

  Too early to tell, but i have very high hopes.
  
  W., no matter his faults, i truly believe wanted to see democracy brought to Iraq, and i think he'll see it flourish before he has passed away.
  
  We can debate till the day way we die the United States engaging in wars like the war in Iraq, but the fact remains that we went in, we did what we thought needed to be done, and now i hope every day that Iraq will be a success so that our men and women in the Armed Forces did not sacrifice, and give their lives, for what turned out to be failure in Iraq.
  
  God bless 'em.
• believer

  

  Too early to tell if this was a success or not.
  
  The political, religious, and social turmoil in the region (not just Iraq) is far too complicated to predict. You can be sure that radical Islam in the area will see a "democratic Iraq" as a threat and will do everything in its power to undermine what has been accomplished there.
  
  Frankly I don't think it has much chance of stabilizing.
• BGFalcons82

  

  cbus4life;460190 wrote:Too early to tell, but i have very high hopes.
  
  W., no matter his faults, i truly believe wanted to see democracy brought to Iraq, and i think he'll see it flourish before he has passed away.
  
  We can debate till the day way we die the United States engaging in wars like the war in Iraq, but the fact remains that we went in, we did what we thought needed to be done, and now i hope every day that Iraq will be a success so that our men and women in the Armed Forces did not sacrifice, and give their lives, for what turned out to be failure in Iraq.
  
  God bless 'em.

  
  Right there with ya, cbus. Good post.
• gut

  Writerbuckeye;459814 wrote:Like most here, I think it's a wait and see approach before we can say definitely one way or another.
  
  If Iraq becomes the Middle East's second true stable Democracy, then it will be a great achievement. I think the only way you can truly defeat Islamic terrorism is show them they can have successful democratic governments with all the personal freedoms that go with it. Once enough folks have tasted personal and economic freedom, they will be willing to fight to keep it. Iraq is still very early in this process.

  
  10,000% on point.
• gut

  believer;460206 wrote:Too early to tell if this was a success or not.
  
  The political, religious, and social turmoil in the region (not just Iraq) is far too complicated to predict. You can be sure that radical Islam in the area will see a "democratic Iraq" as a threat and will do everything in its power to undermine what has been accomplished there.
  
  Frankly I don't think it has much chance of stabilizing.

  
  Also on point. IMO, everything else has failed in the Middle East and this was a last resort. If Iraq is a failure, maybe we finally wash our hands of the Middle East as much as possible and in that regard it would still be somewhat of a success. People keep talking about breaking our dependence on oil. While I agree with that, a Middle East with no other viable source of revenue is a frightening scenario with radicals run amok. IMO, Democracy/capitalism is the only chance to avoid an endgame that will see a much more violent and destructive war. Poverty and ignorance is still a much, much larger breeding ground for terrorists than those opposed to the war would ever admit - they don't and never have needed the US on Mid East soil to create hatred for the West.
• Thread Bomber

  

  Tiernan;459526 wrote:
  I personally think it will become remembered as one of the biggest military "wastes of personnel & material" in history.

  I think it definitely has been a win for Osama. The actions of the 911 attacks were the impetus for trillions of US debt and thousands of US troops (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
  
  As far as a success, time will tell. It is tough to shove freedonm down someones throat if they have never had the opportunity of choice or a decent education.
• sjmvsfscs08

  I think we have reached a general consensus that if Iraq can become a stable democracy in the middle east, and grow more liberal tendencies, compared to it's neighbors, it should be considered a great success. A stable Iraq could solve much of the region's problems, and would partially vindicate George Bush.
  
  Personally, I feel it was Donald Rumsfeld and Co. who wanted so dearly to oust Saddam, and while I do blame George Bush, I don't blame him entirely. I would very much like to know the nature of the discussions he had with Colin Powell. Powell was firmly against the war behind closed doors, and Rumsfeld was all for it. Shit Rumsfeld Doctrine states very clearly you go into a war with a few troops as possible...it was the fucking recipe for the disaster in the first place! After Saddam fell it turned into anarchy, which took years to undo! At the end of the day, fuck Donald Rumsfeld. ptown correct me if I'm wrong.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Politically, sounds about right. Throw in Cheney and Feith and you got the political element that drove the argument for war. Though, the failure of intelligence was the main reason. We simply built in biases that were wrong and those just compounded over the years until we thought we saw stuff that simply wasn't there.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;461588 wrote:Politically, sounds about right. Throw in Cheney and Feith and you got the political element that drove the argument for war. Though, the failure of intelligence was the main reason. We simply built in biases that were wrong and those just compounded over the years until we thought we saw stuff that simply wasn't there.

  I'm not going to deny the questionable rationale for invading Iraq. Yes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith and others perhaps wrongly advocated the invasion to be sure.
  
  But in all fairness this was hardly a "Bush-only" affair.
  
  First, Saddam Hussein himself was an extremely destabilizing figure in the region. His constant anti-Western/anti-American saber rattling, his vicious treatment of his own citizens (particularly the Kurds), the nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Company (yes...it's because of oil), the Iran-Iraq War, and the epic fail in his invasion of Kuwait cried out for a slap down. Unfortunately for Iraq, September 11, 2001 was sufficient but warped "reason" for the Bush Administration kick his sorry ass.
  
  Second, U.S. and U.K. intelligence sources provided the Feds with obviously faulty information on Saddam's development of WMD's. This information was passed out to leaders on BOTH sides of the political aisle and was believed to be accurate. Many prominent Democratic leaders voiced public concerns about the alleged Iraq WMD development program long before Bush took office.
  
  Third, Congress approved the invasion and also controlled the purse strings. Congressional leadership could have seriously curtailed Bush's ability to fight a sustained war in Iraq if they had the balls to give him a serious challenge. But they chose not to for multiple political reasons.
  
  Was 9-11 good reason to invade Iraq? Nope. We should have concentrated all our military might and resources on snuffing out Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Absolutely.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Agreed Believer, but Congress also saw the same intelligence as Bush, which was the main reason why they voted for it. There were political issues as well, but the failure of intelligence, not just in the U.S. was the main reason. That failure went back to the loss of on site intelligence in the mid 1990s.
  
  Saddam was also a factor, as he calculated the U.S. would not invade. He guessed wrong.
• Thread Bomber

  

  believer;461633 wrote:Was 9-11 good reason to invade Iraq? Nope. We should have concentrated all our military might and resources on snuffing out Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Absolutely.

  I think that this is conclusive proof that believer is Donald Rumsfeld......