What does "Winning in Iraq" mean?

What is Bush's GOAL? How can we "win" in Iraq? What will we "win"? Who decides when we "win"? What is "U.S. Success in Iraq"? What is the mission that has yet to be accomplished? What does "get the job done" mean? What job? Winning? Seriously, what IS Bush talking about? What insanity is his psycho-phant, Blair, agreeing with?

Is ANYONE asking this question?

Will we "win" when the last of our troops dies? Will the "job be done" when all Iraqis are dead or gone? Will we "win" when we grab ALL the oil? Will we "win" when the Middle East explodes? Will we "win" when Bush crowns himself dictator of the Middle East? Is THAT the goal?

The entire Iraqi Study Group crap was created to further the illusion that the Bush Admin actually GIVES a shit what the world thinks about Iraq. Now Junior can pretend he is "studying" the ISG points while his "mission" in Iraq continues and his plans to bomb Iran into the stone age go forward unchallenged.

The findings of the Iraq Study Group obviously haven't changed Bush's mind about his course in Iraq and I doubt it ever will. Nothing is going to change as long as he and his cabal are in power.

Unless of course we "win", whatever that means.


:wtf:

The Alpha and Omega of this conflict.

and the entire Iraqi economy . . . they've even prohibited Iraqi farmers from continuing the age-old practice of seed-saving . . . if BushCo has their way, Iraqi farmers will have to buy new seeds each year from American corporations like Monsanto . . .

So somebody gets it.

But this is why I'm concerned about trashing the ISG instead of picking the parts that will help, mainly a regional summit and diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. If we don't articulate a strategy, we will be left with Bush's 'stay the course'.

Possibly I am already prejudiced against the ISG because I do not trust James Baker at all...I hope the recommendations were sincere and I totally agree about diplomacy.

I didn't use to be so pessimistic.

I wonder how much of his stance is based on mental illness,, how much on hubris and an inability to admit a mistake, how much on oil, and how much on maintaining his war powers? Oh, and how much graft he can send his favorite corporations' way.

There is a great deal that he can do if he wants to, no matter what that report says or doesn't say. I am a veteran of the Anti Viet Nam War protest movement. I venerate what we stood for and what we accomplished, but it also taught me not to be naive about the extent of our power IN THE SHORT TERM while our enemies hold the Presidency. Democrats had a strong base in Congress then also. I protested the Viet Nam War in 1967, I supported RFK, I voted for Humphrey in 1968, and we never stopped protesting after Nixon won. We got behind McGovern in 1972 because the Viet Nam war continued through 4 years of Nixon's first presidency, and it didn't finally end until 1974.

The ISG Report is an insider strategy to influence the decisions of the Executive Branch under this Republican Administration. It doesn't close the door on an outsider strategy to bring pressure to bear on Bush also. Seen that way, overall I welcome it.

My first Presidential election was 1972 and I voted for McGovern. But even with the Nixon administration as terrible as it was, I don't recall seeing the situation as being such an utter and complete nightmare. I don't remember feeling so completely frustrated and hopeless. Perhaps time has muted the reality of those years, or maybe it is just that the MSM was relatively free back then.

You wrote : "The ISG Report is an insider strategy to influence the decisions of the Executive Branch under this Republican Administration. It doesn't close the door on an outsider strategy to bring pressure to bear on Bush also. Seen that way, overall I welcome it."

Please explain what you mean. I am looking to find some hope here.

Republicans weren't always this crazed by evangelical ideology (both religious and secular). George W. Bush and the neocons were on a mission to transform the world to an image of their liking. In W's world view even talking to a State like Iran Syria or North Korea is the moral equivalent of signing off on and supporting all of their practices. Daddy Bush had evidence, same as Junior, that Hussein was a cruel tyrant willing to murder his own people, yet Daddy Bush backed Hussein against Iran before Hussein crossed him in Kuwait. Remember, Daddy Bush then actually got Syria to sign onto his grand coalition against Hussein before the Gulf War began.

Both Daddy Bush and Junior want to secure Oil for themselves and their friends, but Daddy was at least clever enough to go about it without plunging the United States into a war like the one that sucked the Soviet Union dry in Afghanistan, or the one W now has us in in the Middle East that threatens to expand; uniting all of the regional hot spots and friction points, including Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Palestine, Turkey, Saud Arabia and Iran, into one huge bonfire.

The ISG Report is, to an extent, an attempt by the Old Guard in foreign policy to reassert control over the neocon agenda that clearly has been a disaster for the United States, and threatens to get even worse. The Old Guard agenda is not my agenda. Before I was resisting the Neocons I was resisting the Old Guard. But it is extremely unlikely that both Bush and Cheney will be impeached prior to the 2008 elections, and they sure as hell won't both be impeached within the next 6 months. W can do a hell of a lot of damage inside 6 months if he is not restrained. Clinton didn't wait for approval from Congress before he launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan against Bin Ladin. Bush can do the same against Iran's nuke program with an executive order anytime he wants to.

Who is most likely to have any influence over Bush's actions short term, Democrats in Congress or James Baker? I think the latter. The ISG Report and the change in civilian command of the Pentagon with Rumsfeld out and a Daddy Bush loyalist replacing a Cheney ally is all of the same cloth. George Bush Senior was once Ambassador to China, he represents ruling class interests but he does not wear ideological blinders that keep him from cooperating with "Bad guys" when cooperation makes more sense overall than confrontation. The ISG asserts that cooperation with Syria and Iran now makes more sense than a continued confrontation stand off, given that the current strategy of W's administration has failed. I hope Baker and Gates can get Bush Jr. to listen to them on that at least. Actually, I hope they make W into a figure head puppet, and seize control of Executive Branch decision making regarding the Middle East away from Cheney's cabal. I hope we are watching a palace coup, even if our overall goal is still to overthrow the monarchy.

and it makes sense. It is clear that those who have perpetrated this run-away obscenity they call the "war in Iraq" are not, themselves, sane. At least there is still hope that someone might be able to apply the brakes.

Thank you for answering

for a few years now, with no answer but stay the course...

<link to poll> http://www.bestandworst.com/v/104750.htm

WHAT DOES "WINNING IN IRAQ" MEAN, FROM AN AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW?
serious ballot by Mithrandir
ACTIVE Nov 06,2006 - Tue Nov 06, 07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what it means 26%
It means taking control over the oil industry 19%
It means leaving the country better off then when the US invaded 12%
It means protecting American interests, such as they are, in Iraq 9%
Other (please comment) 9%
It means killing/neutralizing all the terrorists in Iraq 7%
It means building a lasting peace in the region 7%
It means witnessing Saddam's execution 4%
It means killing/neutralizing all the Muslims in Iraq 2%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ballot #104750: has 41 total votes.

This is why I am so damn grateful for DU...I just wish the MSM paid attention.

We have defeated Iraqs army - so we've already win. Now all we have to do is defeat . . . Iraq? Again?

We can't win anymore than we have, but we can go on losing for a long long long time.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

I have no idea, either.

The liberal view: Bring the troops home alive, rebuild Iraq. The conservative view: Make or steal as much money as possible, and kill all the terraists...

now, getting down to details? It's like a four-year-old who can "drive" a car ... no idea of what it involves ...