Republican frontrunner John McCain says if he was elected president most American troops would be withdrawn from Iraq within five years. In a speech in Ohio, he said that by January 2013, the war would be won and the country would have a functioning democracy.
Do you agree with Senator McCain that the Iraq war can be won by 2013?
Will most U.S. servicemen and women have returned home by that year? Do you expect Iraq to have a "functioning democracy" within five years?
No, I do not believe Senator McCain is correct. A win in Iraq in not obtainable for the foreseeable future.
• Even prior to the war and American occupation the Iraqi body politic was in distress. The people have suffered for years from very severe repression, policies of isolation and polarization, and extreme poverty. Their ability to participate in civil society is very constrained. Furthermore, the legacy of the current violence is a youth that will grow up even more traumatized than their parents.
• The Iraqi governmental and industrial infrastructure is in shambles. Even with the best of political conditions, it will take a monumental effort to bring Iraq back on line. Given the opposition to progress by radical groups, the extreme corruption and incompetence of governing authorities, and the lack of an educated and experienced work force, it is unlikely that the Iraqi economy will turn around in the foreseeable future.
• The practical effect of American occupation has been to remove responsibility for the condition of Iraq from its people and thrust it squarely upon American shoulders. So, progress depends upon Western leadership. However, any action by the West to develop democracy in Iraq immediately runs up against an Islamic world that is suspicious of the West and unmanageable as a result.
• Increasingly even the West has more of a stake in Iraqi instability than progress. The international community is unable to invest in the Iraqi economy (read ‘make money’) under current conditions. More to the point, nowhere are politicians being elected because of progress in Iraq. Accordingly, there is virtually no pressure from large firms or political constituencies to further the goal of peace. Instead, the money to be made, and the votes to be gained are only from ongoing instability there.
All of the above could morph easily into the very worst scenario of all -- a failed Iraq. The failure of the nation would lead to out-of-control situations -- including calamitous civil war or invasion by neighboring states -- causing irreparable harm to American interests there. No one knows what the future might bring, but right now there is little to support expectation that Iraq will to be ready for American withdrawal by 2013. Instead, all these problems add up to a U.S presence for many years to come. In fact, no matter who becomes President, it is likely that the last soldier will come home only after the oil runs out and the place is no longer an international concern.
How can this war ever be declared to be "won"?
The individuals in power must recognize that the middle eastern mentality is so vastly different from the american, this conflict may go on for as long as the country is occupied.
McCain's comment, if sincere, says volumes about his naivete and his inability to grasp the motivations behind an occupation that was never meant to end.
well, Americans will win this war as soon as they can convince Muslims that American capitalism is going to benefit them. Hmm...this will never happen. The Middle Eastern peoples are not ignorant of what the United States is doing to manipulate nation after nation. There is so much animosity towards what the United States has been doing for such a long period of time. America cannot win a war of beliefs especially since this thing has been building for so long. Read the book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman".
Personally I find it silly to predict such an outcome in just a few years. I am a rabidly loyal american citizen and love my country very much. I am not afraid to admit I voted for Bush, either. Even though he has not done much to improve our country's standing in the world. But I have no desire to defend my poor choices on this message board. Any somewhat educated person should know that the "war" that we are involved in started not a decade or two ago but hundreds of years ago. Any such war cannot be won without completely eliminating one or the other side. I don't think that is appropriate, nor achieveable. We need to do our best to "teach a man to fish" rather than give him a fish by running the country for him. Then, we should get out and deal with the issues that are closer to home. Like healthcare and immigration, for instance.
God Bless America.
Absolutely not. In my opinion, Iraq war can be won by capturing hearts of people and not by killing them or arresting them. That is especially true in Middle East, where people are fairly emotional. McCain plan is about millitarey win. There will periods of less and more violance by the "win" will not going to happen.
I beleive the war was "won" years ago. The Iraqi army was soundly defeated, the government was overthrown, and a democratically elected government was installed. If that does not signify both a military and political victory, then what does? The senseless occupation that has followed should be ended as quickly as is physically possible.
I believe they "should" have a functioning democracy within 5 years. But with the history of the region I doubt it will happen. I don't believe in pulling our troops out as we did in Vietnam though. We need to secure our presence in the region with a strong enough force to force all terrorist groups out and train the locals to keep them out. Then we should leave and let what happens happen. If the region returns to its old ways, so be it, we just cut them off forever! We have our own oil resources. Congress will just have to let us use them!
No war is ever "won" -- in war all are losers. "Winning a war" is an illusion, it only means the others are more broke. War is revenge: if you take revenge, the revenged upon are even madder, they want their own revenge on you, and it goes on until someone can't afford it anymore, and everyone gets more and more broken, except the arms manufacturers. So, what is McCain's definition of winning a war?
My definition of winning a war is never having a reason to start a war. How is that? If you can't follow the command to "Love your neighbors," you can at least listen to your neighbors, hear what they are thinking, think what there is they want that you are willing to do with them. Someone owing you for a good deed you did doesn't usually mean they bomb you.
No way. What defines 'victory' in Iraq? Who will be the vanquished? The war was ostensibly to remove Saddam. He is dead. Sanctions were initiated against Zimbabwe when they took their land back. Now an Iraq-style demonisation is in effect against Zimbabwe and Mugabe. The propaganda machine is in overdrive. African leaders are being intimated to support the neo-colonialists. Will they never stop the rape of Africa and its people, while propping up corrupt leaders. Does the greed of the 'masters' know no bounds. This is the same greed that manipulated Iraq into chaos. Now its Zimbabwe's turn.
05/15/2008 5:00:28 PM
