Cont

>> “Baghdad has seen a reduction in the number of bombings in recent months amid a steady decline in violence across the country since late last year. The capital, the epicentre of violence since 2005, has witnessed a drop in bloodshed on the back of a controversial "surge" of troops by the US military over the past year.” http://news.smh.com.au/world/iraq-attacks-kill-15-20080706-32pp.html

Increasingly, a wider circle of American observers believe that the surge has worked militarily. Now we are seeing evidence that it opens the door to political progress. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/18/measurable-improvements-in-iraq/

Pericles,
The article by the Center for American Progress who are committed to “EXPOS[ING] THE HOLLOWNESS OF CONSERVATIVE GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY” is a POLEMIC. It’s not a dispassionate look at ground truth. It’s a so called "Progressive" OPED piece. Try http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495565050121277.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

See here for a thoughtful, FULLY REFERENCED analysis as at Sept07. http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200709.noonan.iraqmetricssystem.html

There is little doubt that the situation in Iraq has been very expensive. Hopefully this has put to bed for good the inane and simplistic assertions that the US only invaded Iraq to turn a profit. Clearly this is not the case.

>> “I have yet to see any plans, or any ideas for plans, or any inkling that the US might have an idea how to formulate plans, that consist of stabilizing the situation through their presence in the country.”

I think the improving security situation, along with the improved political situation is evidence that something is working, that the current policy direction is on the right track. Indeed Obama is so impressed with Secretary of Defence Gates that he is thinking of keeping this Republican appointee on if he wins in Novemeber.

>> “I'd be very interested to understand better the definitions of "win" and "prevail" in this context.”

In this context I would consider winning to be attaining the point where Iraq has a democratically elected gov’t with the strength to defend itself from external and internal threats and the ability to provide the basic services (electricity, clean water etc) its citizens need. In that sense I have used the term win and prevail interchangeably

TBC

Cont,

Withdrawal under those circumstances is “winning”, not “losing”, and I challenge you to provide evidence of this assertion that Bush or McCain believe that “ANY” withdrawal is a loss or that “winning” requires occupation.

Pericles >> “With Obama, there is a small but real chance that he can persuade the American people that "leaving" is equivalent to "winning".”

If premature withdrawal leads, as many believe, to a descent into full blown civil war and perhaps regional conflict and safe havens for terrorists, how is that “winning” in ANY sense of the word? Unless of course you’re a supporter of the Islamic extremists.

CJ,
I’d like to see some evidence for your assertion that Iraq is no more winnable than Vietnam or Afghanistan. Its clearly a blanket statement that takes no account of the differences between those three conflicts.

Of course it does hang on how you define win but, if you define it as I have above, it is clearly eminently possible and seemingly becoming more likely by the day.

So am I understanding you? You’re saying that winning would be OK its just that we can’t win? Is that right?

Does that go for you too Pericles?

Steel,

Steel >> “Your moral viewpoints on benchmarking "achievements" is leaving out the fact that those achievements ... can be distorted or changed at will.”

That’s just plain ridiculous. For starters KPI’s are not moral viewpoints at all. They are generally, evidentially substantiated outcomes that are agreed upon between the interested parties. Your whole “Occupiers” mentality totally ignores the fact that Iraq's elected gov’t is working with the US to defeat the insurgency and improve the infrastructure of Iraq.

>> “Those achievements will not be beneficial to the Iraqi people, ”

What ?? Is Democracy not beneficial to the Iraqis? Was getting rid of Saddam not beneficial? Are 25 Provincial reconstruction teams not beneficial to the Iraqis?

The idea that the US is doing NOTHING which is beneficial for the Iraqis could only come from someone who has a rigidly dogmatic approach to this whole situation.

Paul, you've said nothing about the USA's strategic interests in Iraq. You've said nothing about the private profits. In light of my recent thread on that subject, I would have thought it was notable.

The USA does not support democracy, except where it sees a tangible strategic benefit. Do you disagree with this? (I will get some historical information if you want to argue).

Furthermore, from a strategic perspective, Iraq becoming a Shiite democracy would be very friendly with Iran. Not really a "win" then, is it?

Yes the Iraqi government are more or less puppets at the moment. Is it surprising they are working with the USA when it is privately profitable for them to do so?

PaulL>"What ?? Is Democracy not beneficial to the Iraqis? Was getting rid of Saddam not beneficial? "

A little birdie told me there are approximately 1 million dead Iraqis to not give their opinion on that any more. That is more than Saddam was ever responsible.

you know, you did say once recently that you did not care about sovereign rights of nations that have a different way of life and political philosophy from you. You hence represent the invader and war criminal. You are the aggressor and provoker of war in these things. You are the archetypical hypocrite who believes that another country can invade another...but only if it's Us Spreading 'Democracy'. Who cares about international law?

Despite the confident "Mission Accomplished" claim some time back, I think the US and Brits should actually be made to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for their "dream" of a democratic and vibrant middle eastern nation to actually be achieved - no matter how long it takes or how much it costs.

Maybe they'll finally find those elusive WMDs that apparently took them there in the first place. (Although by now they are probably hidden inside those elaborate underground citadels that Bin Laden had inside built inside Afghani mountains).

While they're at it, maybe they can resolve that tricky Kurdish situation once and for all and get Turkey on side into the bargain to help establish an autonomous Kurdish State.

It's been said that if the US opens up another war front, they'll be bankrupt within a year so while they keep busy cleaning up their mess in Iraq, maybe they'll have to leave the rest of the world alone to get on with their lives.

The presence of foreign Al Quaeda fighters has always been considered to be relatively minor - about 5% of the total belligerents - so any claim of a significant overall victory is somewhat shakey.

I thought I had already won this debate and proven that the Iraq war although not a brilliant success it was obviously the best option from are rather crappy selection of options.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1180&page=0

Steel don’t talk to me about deaths in Iraq look at the number who died while your mate Saddam was in power.

The number of children who died under the age of five - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/sanclook.htm

Seeing that most of you have criticized PaulL it seems you where pro status quo! Pro do nothing! Pro sit on your hands! And most sadly of all Pro evil dictator! While you criticise the deaths from collateral damage there is not even a peep about the hundreds of thousands who died under Saddams stewardship. These people died because people like you lot where quite happy to sit there and do nothing while Saddam went about his evil ways! And then when Australia the US and England do something to stop him who do you lot criticise? With attitudes like you people have its no wonder most of the world wont stand up to evil people. They instead prefer to look away when evil is committed and then criticise those who get off their arse to try and do something to rectify it.

The US has financial interest all over the world anywhere you intervene you could use that worn out old cliché of “they are there for the money” or in this case oil.

I remember people like you lot being critical of Australia for helping East Timor and saying Australia was only there for the oil. I guess that’s why we are in Fiji as well! Hang on Fiji has no oil! There goes that theory.

Has anybody got a better idea to helping Iraq out then staying the course? What do you think the consequences of this will be?

Don't fob off the deaths of those children onto Iraq. That's extremely disgusting.

"The sanctions resulted in high rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water. Chlorine, was desperately needed to disinfect water supplies, but it was banned from the country due to the potential that it may be used as part of a chemical weapon."

http://www.commondreams.org/views/102300-103.htm