So how do we measure victory in Iraq? I don't think I recall anyone in the White House mentioning any specific measures. How would you measure success, and more importantly the time for withdrawal of U.S. troops? Be more specific then just saying "they need a stable government". Whats a stable government? Myself, I have no F*&*^n idea what kind of exit strategy could be considered a Win.

Anything the GOP proposes will be "the right thing".

Anything the Democrats propose will be "cut-n-run".

Hope this helps.

Vince,

I was going to try and articulate an answer, but Dan's cartoon is such an able summary. I couldn't be clearer nor more succinct.

There is no win option, only lose:lose alternatives. At this point, in the best of all possible worlds, Iraq could end up with a stable and independent government. Stable meaning no civil war and a democracy that functions about as well as the U.S. Independent meaning operable without direct or indirect interference or aid from the U.S. T'ain't likely, but I'll continue to wish for the best.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

The neocon.'s want a perminant occupation. OBL/Al-Quaeda's stated goal had been to drive the "infidels" (US) out of the "holy land" Saudi Arabia. We have reduced our presence there. This is a form of apeasment.
Our permanent presence will now be in Iraq. Doesn't solve anything except what your cartoon states. It also strengthens right wing islamo-terrorists.
Right wing aggressors love there right wing agressor enemies. It keeps them in power. Staying in Iraq will create more right wing aggressors in Iraq. Feeling like they need security, the US public will continue to turn right for safety. The neocon. leadership will also have access to the oil fields to power the right wing controlled military.
If the present Administration cared for America, they'd be investing heavily in alternative energy sources and getting out of Iraq. We are one of the present causes of hostilities there. The Neocon.'s don't want to leave and they don't care a lick for America or Americans. Just my 2 cents.
I got 3 racks of ribs for the fourth. m. Pork.
2-1 Rys,
cds

Victory will be after a government is installed that will allow the further bleeeding of all resources out of Iraq by companies like Bechtel, Halliburton, and Chevron...complete victory will be when the country has been fully bled.

Unfortunately, many tens of thousands more will die for that victory, thousands of which will be Americans.

Fish on...

Todd

Why so dour Todd? Isn't it possible that the relationship with Iraq might be symbiotic. I've been called a neocon among worse things and I personally would love to see us out of the place. If the Sunnis and the Shia want to slaughter each other, Banzai. Of course that is what was essentially what was going on in Bosnia and the troops flew in, can't remember who sent them or why. Now Darfun and Somalia are going thru the same throes. Except the difference is the Christians are being slaughtered by the Muslims. If we intend to rebuild the place on the Marshall Plan model we damn well better stay a while, if just to make sure all the largess doesn't goe to Iran or Syria.
If it takes Halliburton or some of the other macro business companies to do the job. so be it.
How you qualify the job as 'mission accomplished' would seem to be purely political.

We don't intend to rebuild Iraq on the Marshall Plan model...do the research, less people have water, electricity, sewage service, and adequate food supplies than before the invasion and occupation.

This is not to say that we haven't paid for those things, because we have...the problem is that those who we paid to do it (Halliburton and Bechtel, predominately) have failed to meet their contract obligations...repeatedly...and still pocketed the money.

The Administration response to the wholesale failure of those who we paid to rebuild the infrastructure? Extend the deadlines, reduce the obligations (without reducing the payments), and award further contracts.

Part of the reasons given by Bechtel and Halliburton, and their subsidiaries, for their failures to meet their contract obligations include being unfamiliar with the workings of the infrastructure there, and an inability to find parts to repair most of the water works.

Hundreds of thousands of folks that are familiar with the infrastructure, however, weren't allowed to participate in the reconstruction... and are unemployed, or worse, have joined the insurgency. Those people, of course, are the Iraqi people themselves...the ones we were nominally there to "liberate".

Instead, Halliburton and Bechtel imported thousands of American workers...often at ridiculous wages...to do the work that the Iraqi people not only could do better, but the Iraqi people really needed the work.

I read yesterday that American truck drivers are making $8,000 per month driving oil trucks there...that figure was from 2003...who knows what they're paying them now.

(When I say "what they're paying them now", what I mean to say is what we, the American taxpayer, are paying them now)

Guess who built the water, sewer, and telecommunications systems that we are unable to find parts for, or fix?

The French, Germans, and Russians.

Since they are forbidden from war profiteering by Bush, since they were not among "the willing", we can't get the parts.

Liberated? Yeah, we got Saddam, so I guess they've been liberated from that.

However, they've also been liberated from pesky things like food, electricity, water, sewer systems, and telecommunications...not to mention any means to support themselves, since they are forced to sit by idly while American contractors struggle with building the infrastructure.

Is this how we expected to "win their hearts and minds"? Perhaps we ought to have started with their stomachs, or air conditioners, or toilets...and their hearts would have followed.

Instead, we have made the very people we "liberated" desperate...is it any wonder why they prefer joining the insurgency? The longer and longer we are there, the more and more of them get desperate...thereby increasing our justification to stay there longer.

Idiocy...but not really, since that was the plan all along.

Iraqi infrastructure is all being sold off to private companies...guess how many of them are owned by Iraqis? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count...

Dictator Paul Bremer has also written numerous fiats regarding the wholesale privatization of all Iraqi infrastructure...by the time we're done fixing it, Iraqis will be buying water, electricity, and sewage treatement from Halliburton...and many, if not most, will not be able to afford it.

Occupying countries usually act on some of the rhetoric they spew about "liberating" the people...we, however, have given it nothing but lip service.

Besides giving all the infrastructure to American companies, there are no requirements that they hire Iraqis, no requirements that they even invest any of the exorbiant profits they make back into the country we are "saving"...they are free to export all the wealth back to their bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, or Switzerland.

So far, privatization of the oil fields themselves has been kept out of the greedy hands of Big Oil...but BO has its fingers in everything but the extraction, and contrary to popular belief, fostered by the Bush Cabal, Iraqi exports of oil to the U.S. are among the highest barrel counts EVER...yet, we are paying $3.25 at the pump, BO is posting astronomically high profits...and all the money is being bled right out of Iraq.

Hearts and minds? Pshaw...we'll bleed Iraq dry, put all its resources in the hands of greedy American companies, many of which have current and former Directors IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION...and once the contracts to take their oil are ironclad, we'll pull out and let them kill each other.

We'll have a permanent military presence there to protect "our" oil...but the Iraqi people, devestated by the destruction of their society and economy, will be allowed to shoot and bomb the Hell out of themselves.

So long as the oil flows, and the money goes to Bush Supporting Corporations, then all is good under this Administration's agenda.

Purely political? Come on, you're smarter than that...it's not about liberation, or politics.

It's about the money.

Fish on...

Todd

Just to make sure I answer your first question, if you didn't distill the answer from my response...

No, it is not symbiotic.

It is parasitic, and as soon as the host dies, the parasites will jump ship...probably to the next host, be it Iran, Syria, or whoever... unless, of course, we Americans take our country back from those who are selling it and its dignity and integrity off to the highest bidder...or highest contributor.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. If you think it is "symbiotic", I'd love to hear your reasoning...

To say I disagree with you would be an understatement in the finest British style. It would have been fun to project you back in time and hear your commentary on the silly rebels fighting King George's Redcoats.
Btw even that bit of a war was about money, when you get right down to it. Now tell me what isn't about money and how many miles one will go for it. How's that cliche go? Money will set you free, but pursuit of money is slavery.

Revolutionary War:

"Hey! Stop taking our money!"

Iraq War:

"Hey! We're gonna take your money!"

Notice any difference? I don't think it's too subtle, is it?

Fish on...

Todd

Still waiting on how it is "symbiotic"...

The rest that you disagree with are facts, not opinions...you can look them up yourself, if you like, but I doubt you'll hear them on FoxNews or on military.com, so you'll have to expand your info gathering.

Fish on...

Todd

I would guess that the only way we can define victory in Iraq is a country that is not a threat to us or Israel. I think to many people are taking Israel out of the picture. Lets not forget that Saddam was shipping money to the families of the Sucide bombers. I would guess that Israel is biting at the bit to assert themselves more in the region and we are trying our hardest to stop them. In the end we need to get them to change their basic philosopohy about life, which may not be possible. Has anyone read "The Haj"? The book is fiction, but lays out the belief that religious leaders of the middle east will never let the region prosper or be at peace, as the people will then lose the will to hate Israel. As it states in the book, if they are happy here, they will never see the need to go into Israel. All means necessary are taken to keep the people poor, angry, and in belief of a common enemy. No happiness, joy, or hope is allowed other than the hope of occupying Israel and destroying the infidel.

I've read Uris's book and your are right, it's a case of perpetual squalor and the anger generated by it directed as the controllers wish.
I personally believe Israel rewarded the suicide bomber mentality by exiting the Gaza Strip. The planned departure from the West Bank is another caase of rewarding the enemy for his atrocities. Israel needs to offer full citizen ship in the state to any and all who live in the region. If that isn't good enough, then carry on the land fill operations.

Sard,

I'm impressed. Darn right, Israel needs to do something. I can't for the life of me see how Israel is any less terrorist than the Palestinians that attack civilian Israelis. A single state, with full citizenship and responsibilities for all, multi-cultural, multi-religious, and politically accessible to all. Otherwise, I'm all for giving the Palestinians equal amounts of all the same weapons we've given the Israelis. Level the playing field and let 'em level each other if they don't want to get along.

Dang, and I'm so rational when I don't think about the Israeli/Palestinian debacle.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Sard...

Symbiotic?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I'd appreciate it if you could stay away from the amorphous "they have democracy now!" type of benefits, since they don't, and even if they did, it still doesn't get the electricity, water, sewers, and telecommunications up and running.

The term symbiosis implies a mutually usefull relationship, something for both parties in this case. In many cases the ultimate survival of the symbiotes is involved. Iraq desperately needs time to stabilize her infrastructure and weed out the homicidal fanatics in her midst. We can and have been, at great cost, providing some of the stabilizing structure needed for the above to happen. Some might say we are the cause of all the killing, but I disagree. We can be a focal point for our enemies to pin their rants on but many of the Iraqi obviously like what we are doing. From our perspective, IRAQ HAS OIL. Now that isn't too simplistic I hope. It also has a strategic site right smack in the middle of all the fanatic Islamic fundamentalists tribal areas or states if you will. Most of them would and do see Iraq as a festering sore of WESTERN thought. Any of that threatens the very existence of the power the mullahs hold over the minds and bodies of the residents. Since those folks want us all dead or converted. The ability to keep them off balance is almost as important as the oil.

POLITICAL NIHILISM. TODD.

I think you're working too hard to define the insurgency...though I agree that some of them are as you have noted, at least those who are not from Iraq.

However, the number of insurgents, Iraqi insurgents, if they can be called such a thing, didn't really take off until all the Iraqis were put out of work...left out of rebuilding their own country...no money, no water, no electricity, no sewers, no telecommunications, and an easy and obvious target for their desperation...the contractors working for U.S. corporations, and the Coalition soldiers.

I agree on your definition of symbiosis, but disagree that the Iraqis are getting a mutual benefit...they're worse off than they were before the war, in many ways, and the occupiers are rightly seen as the cause of that.

Fish on...

Todd

I gotta agree that things were and perhaps still are a public services nightmare. However, putting people to work and expecting anything useful to be done while they are getting shot at by their own countrymen or imported Islamonuts is a fools task. I don't know what the contract hires by Halliburton or Bechtel get paid but it certainly has a hazardous duty increment, and rightly so. It remains to be seen whether Iraq will get her stuff together and be able to run her own government. I hope it happens. The purple finger crowd deserve it.
The ones buried in all the mass graves created by Saddam an co. might give You some argument if they could.

While I agree that putting Iraqis to work while they are being shot at by their insurgent countrymen is a difficult situation at best. However, there are two aspects of that situation that are notable...the root cause of it, and some possible solutions to it.

The root cause of the insurgency (among Iraqis) is the desperation caused by the occupation. Winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis has been, and unless something changes, will continue to be a dismal and abject failure.

The occupation creates the self-perpetuating problem...so long as we are there to fight the insurgents, we will be indefinitely creating more insurgents to fight. There is no "exit strategy" or "final victory" to be had in such a context, at least not one that makes any sense whatsoever.

(The only one, which is nonsensical, is to keep killing Iraqis until there aren't any Iraqis left...now that would be some liberation!)

As for the imported insurgents, they, too, will keep coming as long as we are there...again, the occupation causes their growth and anger, and treating the symptom of the insurgency, without going straight to the illness of the occupation, will end neither the insurgency nor the deaths it causes.

If the occupation were to end, then the great majority of the insurgency would end...the Bushism that the insurgents "hate our freedom" is just as ridiculous now as it was in 2001...they don't hate our freedom, they hate our oppression, and they hate not having a country, and they hate not having jobs, food, water, and all the other elements of infrastructure that make life livable.

Insurgents kill other Iraqis because they are seen as either collaborators, or unfortunate but necessary targets that make the occupation more difficult to control. Remove the occupation, and there are no more "collaborators", and there is no more occupation to target.

Despite what the Bush Administration will tell us, they aren't just running around killing people because that's what they like to do...they're doing it for an actual political reason. No occupation, and the reason evaporates.

The arrogance of this Administration and its corporate allies, not to mention greed, will not allow itself to view the problem objectively...there's always someone else to blame for the insurgency. If this Administration wasn't so beholden to its corporate cronies it might be able to admit that the occupation is the problem, not the solution...but since the occupation is the bread and butter of the corporations, and this Administration has a difficult time admitting any errors in judgment or execution whatsoever, even when they are obvious and massive...well, here we are. Stalemate.

We keep killin' 'em, and they keep a'comin'...and winning the hearts and minds by killing all the bodies that hold the hearts and minds is ridiculous on all levels except the corporate contract level. They make out like the bandits they are.

The purple finger crowd does indeed deserve better, but they aren't going to get it from us. Thanks to us, they haven't really voted for anything yet...they have a leadership not of their choosing, they have laws not of their choosing, and they have a Constitution written by us that they haven't even seen.

More on that Constitution...not only does it pretty much just incorporate the Bremer Orders, and not only did enough copies of it get printed to distribute to less than a third of the citizenry, but the few that were printed were handed out just days before the vote, and significant changes were made in the interim, and none of those were even made public, much less distributed to the voters.

The "purple finger crowd" deserves much more than what we have given them...and the unfortunate outlook is that they aren't likely to see anything but "worse" in the foreseeable future. So far they've got the same from us as the got from Saddam..."Here's the ballot, cast your vote by checking here".

Those who are buried in mass graves sure aren't any better off now than they were before we ousted Saddam...they were already dead. The tens of thousands dead since might have some issues with the "betterment" of their society, though.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, unless you have some sort of crystal ball, I will take issue with one of your assumptions.

The occupation may have caused quite a bit of the insurgency initially, but without the US there in the present, we would have to change the term from occupied, to civil war. The majority of the Dems agree that there will be a long term power struggle and many more deaths in the vacuum we leave, if we leave now.

With so much political and religious instability, it's truly a stretch to think that will all just evaporate if we leave. Totally unrealistic I'm afraid. I want our guys/gals home as much as anyone, but we can't just walk away and turn our backs on the mess we created.

I think we need to elect a President capable of putting together a strategy for Iraqi stabilty and a logical exit that doesn't make things worse.