Our Unceasing Ambivalence -- Why it's so hard to define victory in Iraq.

The Wall Street Journal ^ | December 8, 2006 | Shelby Steele

[Zakeet]

Possibly the most confounding feature of the Iraq war, from the very opening of hostilities to the present day, has been the American government's utter failure to define what victory would be in this war. "Victory" has been a conjure word for the Bush administration, a Churchillian allusion meant to evoke the heroic perseverance shown in the great wars of the past. But no one in the administration has ever said what victory would actually look like. And, lacking this description, even those of us who have supported the war have seen trouble coming for some time. Without a description of victory, a war has no goal.

Historically victory in foreign war has always meant hegemony: You win, you take over. We not only occupied Germany and Japan militarily after World War II, we also--and without a whit of self doubt--imposed our democratic way of life on them. We took our victory as a moral mandate as well as a military achievement, and felt commanded to morally transform these defeated societies by the terms of our democracy. In this effort we brooked no resistance whatsoever and we achieved great success.

But today, as Nancy Pelosi recently put it, "You can define victory any way you want." And war, she said, was only "a situation to be resolved." If this sort of glibness makes the current war seem a directionless postmodern adventure, it is only because those who call us to war have themselves left the definition of victory wide open.

[Zakeet]

This thought piece by a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford raises an interesting question -- namely what is our objective in Iraq?

It's important for us to figure this out for no other reason that, in the words of the great American philosopher Yogi Berra, "If you go through life not knowing where you're going, you're liable to wind up somewhere else."

[AntiGuv]

Victory has been defined any number of times, it's just persistently failed to be achieved and so the goalposts need moving over and over again. GWB's latest definition from yesterday is about as humble a victory as you can imagine ("a government which can sustain, govern, and defend itself ... and will be an ally in [the WoT]") so if this latest definition of "victory" can't be achieved that's probably all she wrote.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

namely what is our objective in Iraq?

Simple. It is the centerpiece of our counteroffensive to global jihad. Any other description is less than honest, and all descriptions since day one have been less than honest.

[bennowens]

A fuzzy goal produces at best a fuzzy result.

[SQUID]

...because we are playing both side of the Islamic problem. Baker comes to mind as such a case.

[petro45acp]

NO NO NO NO NO!

Victory is simple. Whack every badguy until they stop coming. Find their lair and blow it up. Cut supply lines including money (do not be shy about crossing borders nor ignoring international "concensus"), and instead of exporting some wussified parlimentary procedure, export the Bill of Rights. The country of irak becomes a beacon of representative government (along with Israel) in the middle of the middle (with strong ties to the only real superpower on the planet). Come home, leaving a small and well protected training cadre, and eat a big mac.

Oh and once the islam world recognizes that we are not to be EFFed with, advise them to stay where they are and no one else will be hurt.

That is the way one handles a bully.

That is the way one handles the FASTEST GROWING DEMOGRAPHIC ON THE PLANET!!!

The first step in making or participating in history is ROLL CALL! islam's portion of the population is growing, europe (soon to be eurabia)and Russia are shrinking, and the US is holding still.

ruefully,
Top sends

[gumboyaya]

WWI and WWII had totally different outcomes. In early 43 did we have a clue that the allies would completely obliterate the axis,no. So it is today, we are just not sure of what will be the final victory. Giving in early to Islamic Fascist and sacrificing Israel is not the answer.

[tobyhill]

When the MSM and Rats ridiculed the "Mission Accomplished" sign we had already won the war but they changed the terms of victory because they were already getting word the WMD was not there and they felt, without merit, bamboozled. The mistake President Bush made was letting them change the terms of victory without challenge instead of telling the MSM and Rats that "WE WIN" but there maybe some power vacuum that will have violence involved as with almost every major war has occurred but we will assist in getting the Government running.

[nosofar]

Today America is a danger to the world in its own right, not because we are a powerful bully but because we don't fully accept who we are. We rush to war as a superpower protecting the world from menace, then leave the battle before winning as a show of what, humility? We confuse our enemies, discouraging them one minute and encouraging them the next.

Very good article. It's not just about defining victory just in Iraq as some here seem to think. (I wonder if they bother reading the entire article before posting.) It's about America's current attitude toward war in general, which is much more interesting. Iraq is just part of it.

[shrinkermd]

This is absolutely the best take on our dilemma. Not only the best analysis but the best of all suggested solutions:

"...For every reason, from the humanitarian to the geopolitical to the military, Iraq is a war that America must win in the hegemonic, even colonial, sense. It is a test of our civilization's commitment to the good against the alluring notion of menace-as-power that has gripped so much of the Muslim world. Today America is a danger to the world in its own right, not because we are a powerful bully but because we don't fully accept who we are. We rush to war as a superpower protecting the world from menace, then leave the battle before winning as a show of what, humility? We confuse our enemies, discouraging them one minute and encouraging them the next.

"....Could it be that our enemies are really paper tigers made formidable by our unceasing ambivalence? And could it be that the greater good is in both the idea and the reality of American victory?

In a just world this could be posted in its entirety. It is absolutely the most carefully thought out analysis of group psychology as it applies to contemporary America. Thank you, Shelby Steele.

[Rakkasan1]

bttt

[RobbyS]

Steele is one of the most original thinker around. We are expecting the Iraqi Army to do the job, but I fear that it will only work as a colonial force, which is what ROK was for many years, what the Indian Army was under the British Raj.

[neverdem]

thanks, bfl

[swheats]

It's really hard to define when your enemies within keep moving the goal posts and create astounding obstacles to overcome.

[swheats]

Well at least you and I agree. :)

[hosepipe]

[ Why it's so hard to define victory in Iraq. ]

Victory in Iraq will be prefaced by victory in Washington D.C..
The most destructive IED's are Insane Espionage by Democrats..

[Parrot_was_devastating]

In a world turned upside down,.....Iraq is Victory, and here's why,

America's power is the U.S. Dollar,
Wether it is transfered in legal mode...

Or Illegal mode.

To what degree is world U.S. Dollar activity moving in illegal mode? : )

U.S. Dollars flood the mid east and are the coin of choice for crime syndicates from grotty cave dwellers with RGG's to nation centres.
No Borse exists as yet against the U.S. Dollar,
Saddams small Borse is gone,...
Euro - U.N. oil for extortion fest is over,
Iran postures Borse......time will tell if they have the balls for that.

Concessions to Saudi/Opec/Sunni Arab League keep them in Dollars sphere [For now]

This is Victory....allong with FED/World Bank/IMF activity,
debt does matter....but Dollar activity is Primacy and key to Geostrategic imperatives,
Pipelines,Oil concessions and other futures may have dissapointing returns at present,
if they are not working for the U.S. Dollar,
make sure the assets are not working for anyone else.

The Greatest Generation and those who value higher things would clearly state that priorities are wrong,

But then.....whose really listening anyway.

[Parrot_was_devastating]

RGG's = RPG's [Grrrr]

[gleeaikin]

"What is our objective in Iraq?"

As a parent whose son spent 8 months in Gulf War I with the 82nd Airborne, this was an important question to me. I was glad that we were going to take out Saddam Hussein, and although no one mentions it, one fine result of this war is that we will never have to deal with his two mentally diseased sons Uday and Qusay. Nevertheless, I was concerned that the President's main motivation seemed to be "He tried to kill my Daddy.", and the VP's motivation seemed likely to be linked to his links with Halliburton.

Now, of course, the whole situation has gotten much more complicated, with a pinch of Lebanon, a cup of Syria, a quart of Iran, and a generous sprinkling of Al Qaida. What no one seems to be focusing on is the fighting that is now going on within the Islamic world. Iran assisted us against the Taliban and Al Qaida. The Sunnis and Druzes of Lebanon have already fought the Shiites. The Shia and Sunni in Iraq are at each other's throats. The Alawites of Syria have their own position which is not the same as Iran's.

It appears that the Islamic world is in about the place that the Christian world was in 4 or 5 centuries ago with the conflicts of the Protestant Reformation. Perhaps a useful strategy for us would be to educate the Islamic world on just how deadly and painful those conflicts were. We had the Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, the conflicts in England, Scotland and Ireland with Catholicism vs Protestantism, then the Anglican church vs the Presbeterians, Puritans, etc., and many variations upon those themes. Surely it would make sense to hold up to the Islamic world the lesson of the millions of Christians who died in those terrible conflicts. If not, Islam will surely suffer the same kind of suffering. "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

I remember in the early days of the Vietnam conflict, wondering about the validity of the "domino theory". I decided to read up on the history of Vietnam. I discovered that for the past 700 years there had alway been conflict between the north and the south of Vietnam, and that sometimes there had also been a middle Vietnam as well. At that point it seemed to me that we were in a useless conflict, that had nothing to do with dominoes, and everthing to do with Vietnam history. Fifty thousand dead Americans later we finally go off this merry-go-round, and the dominoes did not fall. Will we learn anything from this regarding our current position in Iraq? I hope so!!

[angkor]

An exceptionally great editorial.

Also see:

THE TRUTH ON IRAQ
By JOHN PODHORETZ
The New York Post

December 5, 2006 -- THE most common cliché about the war in Iraq is now this: We didn't have a plan, and now everything is in chaos; we didn't have a plan, and now we can't win.

This is entirely wrong. We did have a plan - the problem is that the plan didn't work. And of course we can win - we just have to choose to do so.

[snip]

President Bush needs to decide, as soon as possible, that he is going to win this war - that the bad guys are going to die, that we are going to kill them and that we will achieve our objectives in Iraq. That is the only way forward for him if he doesn't want to end up in ignominy.

The clock is ticking. He has only a week, maybe two, to change course dramatically. To choose to win, and to direct the military to do so.

Or we are sunk, and so is he.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/12052006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_truth_on_iraq_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm