No US Victory in Iraq

[Merlin]

This is a gradual US withdraw. Not a US victory.

Odierno: May not be possible to declare victory in Iraq

2 Oct WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It isn't clear whether the United States will ever be able to declare victory in Iraq, the top U.S. commander there said Thursday.

"I'm not sure we will ever see anyone declare victory in Iraq, because first off, I'm not sure we'll know for 10 years or five years," Army Gen. Ray Odierno told reporters at the Pentagon.

About 123,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now, and President Obama says all combat forces will be gone by the end of August 2010, leaving as many as 50,000 noncombat troops to advise and train Iraqi forces before leaving by the end of 2011.

Odierno has said he wants to draw down the U.S. forces at a faster rate than planned if the security situation allows it. On Thursday, he said he expected the number of U.S. troops to drop to 120,000 by the end of October, and to as few as 110,000 by the end of 2009.

"What we've done here is we're giving Iraq an opportunity in the long term to be a strategic partner of the United States, but more importantly, be a partner in providing regional stability inside of the Middle East," Odierno said. ....

[S2]

Merlin Reply

Alarmist views. No hand-wringing allowed.

This is no defeat either. The landscape IS transformed and hardly resembles the past.

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

So, the realisation that one my not know if their decisions were correct or not until 10-15 years down the road is supposed to be some sort of groundbreaking revelation? Most wars end without an immediately clear victor, the only time they ever do is when the battle has been one of annihilation such as WW2. Even then the long term winners are losers won't become clear until the um, long term.

[Luke Gu]

No matter which year US plan to leave Iraq，the key is if Iraq goverment can control the nation at that time。If not，I will think US bring Iraq nothing In addition to the disaster

[Maxor]

What disaster? Maybe I'm confused but over 1 million potential enemy lives have been lost in a country hostile to the US for a loss of less than 10,000 allied lives. The US has also got them fighting amoungst themselves instead of as a unified governement. If thats not a clear cut vistory what is?

[Luke Gu]

What disaster?

Do Iraq have so many Terrorist attacks before Iraq war？How many Iraq have dead after Iraq war？And if you guys leave Iraq before the goverment can control the nation，I think you just abandon Iraq to civil war or terrorism？Then what you guys have brought to Iraq if she fail to Establish democratic system when you guys Hasty departure？

[cr9527]

Do Iraq have so many Terrorist attacks before Iraq war？

Yes, just not by the same people, or target the same people

How many Iraq have dead after Iraq war？

A lot, with or without US involvement.

And if you guys leave Iraq before the goverment can control the nation，I think you just abandon Iraq to civil war or terrorism？Then what you guys have brought to Iraq if she fail to Establish democratic system when you guys Hasty departure?

Both political parties would have a giant match of the most subtle way of yelling out "I Told you so!"

[axeman]

This is no defeat either. The landscape IS transformed and hardly resembles the past.

Good work. Follow the Pakistani model. 'Not a failure as long as we haven't lost half our territory'.

So, the realisation that one my not know if their decisions were correct or not until 10-15 years down the road is supposed to be some sort of groundbreaking revelation? Most wars end without an immediately clear victor, the only time they ever do is when the battle has been one of annihilation such as WW2. Even then the long term winners are losers won't become clear until the um, long term.

Most wars don't have a clear victor ? All of the wars my country has been involved in has had a clear victor. Which war in the modern age do you know of whose victor wasn't known for 50 years (long term enough, I assume).

What disaster? Maybe I'm confused but over 1 million potential enemy lives have been lost in a country hostile to the US for a loss of less than 10,000 allied lives. The US has also got them fighting amoungst themselves instead of as a unified governement. If thats not a clear cut vistory what is?

Why don't you nuke the entire Middle East ? 200 mil + POTENTIAL enemy lives will be taken. Show some sense.

As for the underlined comment - if you think this is a clear cut victory, you need your head examined.

Yes, just not by the same people, or target the same people

A lot, with or without US involvement.

Please enlighten me as to which terrorist acts you're talking about before the Iraq War.

[Parihaka]

Do Iraq have so many Terrorist attacks before Iraq war？How many Iraq have dead after Iraq war？And if you guys leave Iraq before the goverment can control the nation，I think you just abandon Iraq to civil war or terrorism？Then what you guys have brought to Iraq if she fail to Establish democratic system when you guys Hasty departure？

The government IS controlling the nation. The US forces remaining no longer police the streets, the Iraqi forces do. The US no longer governs the state, the Iraqi government does.

[Parihaka]

Please enlighten me as to which terrorist acts you're talking about before the Iraq War.

Ohhh, the Kurds and Marsh Arabs spring to mind. Deliberate targeting of women and children, genocide, that sort of thing. The difference between before and after the US invasion being the terrorists are no longer in control of the government apparatus.

[Rastagir]

I guess it depends on the military objectives.

If the objective was to overthrow Saddam, yes, it is a success. If it was to make Iraq a country who sees the West as a friend, I am not that sure. If it was to bring prosperity and peace there, still not that sure. Think is, people seem to prefer having a bastard at the top, as long as it is their own bastard.

I also love the part about "potential enemies". Doesn't that include, oh, I don't know, half the planet?

Thing is, yes, you can nuke the place, kill everyone in sight, and convert the whole country into a giant parking lot and drill like a happy mole. But that would be against the whole "freedom and pursuit of happiness for all", correct?

[Parihaka]

Thing is, yes, you can nuke the place, kill everyone in sight, and convert the whole country into a giant parking lot and drill like a happy mole. But that would be against the whole "freedom and pursuit of happiness for all", correct?

This plus the fact that there's absolutely no reason to do it would be why it hasn't happened?

[Rastagir]

The government IS controlling the nation. The US forces remaining no longer police the streets, the Iraqi forces do. The US no longer governs the state, the Iraqi government does.

Thing is, this might be correct, but to a certain extend. Let's say that tomorrow, the Iraqi leadership decides that it doesn't want ANY american bases on Iraq, or that it does wish to do business only with the Russians and Chinese corporations and gives the exclusive rights of oil drilling and exporting to them (I am just giving you an example, you get my drift). Would the US be ok with that, since the Iraqi government is in charge?

[Luke Gu]

Ohhh, the Kurds and Marsh Arabs spring to mind. Deliberate targeting of women and children, genocide, that sort of thing. The difference between before and after the US invasion being the terrorists are no longer in control of the government apparatus.

I think you're saying Saddam Hussein repress the opponents。It's different，after all，the repression just aim some people，but now almost all Iraq is influenced by the terrorist attacks 。I've heard too much these news

[Parihaka]

Thing is, this might be correct, but to a certain extend. Let's say that tomorrow, the Iraqi leadership decides that it doesn't want ANY american bases on Iraq, or that it does wish to do business only with the Russians and Chinese corporations and gives the exclusive rights of oil drilling and exporting to them (I am just giving you an example, you get my drift). Would the US be ok with that, since the Iraqi government is in charge?

Well, the Iraqis certainly are playing hardball with the oil contracts. The US has never been interested in owning Iraqi oil, they simply want to guarantee supply and will happily line up to buy it just like everyone else.
As regards troops, Obama has stated that he wants all US troops out by Dec 31 2011, the Iraqis don't have much say in the matter either way.