Should we Hope for “Victory” in Iraq?

Time for change

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-21-07 12:36 PM
Original message

Should we Hope for “Victory” in Iraq?

The answer to this question is of crucial importance because it would help guide us on what course we should take from here. More specifically, if the answer is NO, then it would behoove us to withdraw our military from Iraq as quickly as possible, rather than to continue to pursue a worthless “victory”. Yet, the good majority of U.S. politicians would answer the question with a resounding YES, lest they be perceived as unpatriotic or “soft on defense”.

But it’s actually a trick question, since few who advocate “victory” have defined what victory in Iraq means, and our national corporate news media has not found it necessary to discuss what the definition of victory is or should be. The prevailing assumption is simply that the question of what victory means is not even necessary to discuss because whatever it means, all patriotic Americans must want it.

But in fact, how victory is defined makes all the difference in the world, as that definition necessarily determines what course we should take from here. And doubtlessly much of the difference of opinion on what course we should take is due to different conceptions of what constitutes “victory”.

George Bush’s definition of “victory” in Iraq

George Bush talks about “victory” a great deal, but he has never explained what he means by victory. Not that it would matter if he had explained it, since nobody can remember the last time he told the truth about something important. Anyhow, I’m going to take a wild guess as to what “victory” in Iraq means to George Bush:

 Ensuring a permanent American military presence in Iraq, with the permanent military bases needed to support that presence
 Billions of dollars in profits for corporate friends of the Bush administration
 Control of Iraq’s oil supplies
 Establishing a legacy as a great “War President”
 Strategically positioning ourselves to invade other Middle Eastern countries, and possibly China as well

And that definition of victory would not be complete without a list of what is NOT relevant to victory (and therefore eligible for sacrificing) for the Bush administration’s purposes:

 How many lives are lost
 The well being of the Iraqi people
 The recruitment of thousands of more terrorists for al Qaeda
 International opinion of the United States
 Bankrupting our nation

I’ve supplied links to support most of my above noted assertions about what the Bush administration’s definition of victory is and is not. Additional evidence can be found in “Rebuilding American Defenses”, written by the men of “Project for a New American Century”, which I’ve summarized here. (See section on “Other evidence that the United States under Bush and Cheney is a dangerous rogue nation”). And here is Wesley Clark’s explanation as to: 1) How he knew that Bush planned to take out Iraq, as early as a few days after the 9/11 attacks on our country.

About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said… “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”… So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.”

and 2) What he knows about plans that the Bush administration has for other countries in the area:

So I came back to see him a few weeks later… I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from… the Secretary of Defense’s office … And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.”

The definition of victory for liberals

Anthony Arnove writes in “Iraq – The Logic of Withdrawal” that there are many well meaning people in this country who were vigorously against the Iraq War before Bush invaded Iraq, but now that we’re there feel that we need to stay until we’ve fulfilled our obligation to the Iraqi people. He writes:

Understandably, many opponents of the war now believe that the United States has an obligation to stay to “clean up the mess it has created.” We “broke it,” this line of argument suggests, and therefore we must “fix it”… Leading anti-sanctions and antiwar groups… have formally adopted positions in support of occupation.

For those people, “victory” has the following meanings:

 Minimizing the violence and death toll
 Helping Iraqis to rebuild their country’s infrastructure
 Helping Iraqis to create a self-sufficient government devoted to its people

How does the definition of “victory” determine our course of action from here?

The two different definitions of victory noted above are almost diametrically opposite to each other.

If George Bush’s definition of “victory” is used, then it is quite obvious that in order to “win” the war we must stay in Iraq indefinitely. And since the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq civilians, the destruction of the Iraq infrastructure, our international reputation, our security against attacks from al Qaeda, and the bankrupting of our country are of no relevance to that definition, they have nothing to lose by continuing indefinitely to fight that war. In fact, the profits of Bush’s corporate friends, the construction of permanent American military bases and plans for the distribution of oil in Iraq all continue to make great progress even though by all standard measures we are losing the Iraq War.

On the other hand, if the other definition of victory in Iraq is used, the issue is much more complicated. Do we fulfill our obligation to the Iraqi people better by staying there and continuing to fight the war, or by leaving? Arnove writes on this question:

But even if we set aside the question of (Bush’s) motives, always subject to dispute, we must confront the bizarre logic of saying that the people who have devastated Iraq… who have failed at even the most basic responsibilities as an occupying power, who are the source of the instability in Iraq today, are the only ones who can protect Iraqis from hunger and anarchy. In no other area of our lives do we accept such logic, but when it comes to the crimes of empire, we are supposed to continually ignore history. The “doctrine of good intentions exculpates all crimes.” The reality, however, is that the U.S. occupation, rather than being a source of stability in Iraq, is the major source of instability and ongoing suffering.

Arnove also provides several other reasons for why we should withdraw our military from Iraq immediately. First he notes that the main excuses for invading Iraq (weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist and the desire to bring democracy to Iraq) turned out to be bogus. Then he points out that our war in Iraq, far from combating terrorism, is only fueling the terrorist threat against us. And our military presence is not preventing the spread of violence in Iraq, since it is the U.S. military forces in Iraq that are the main cause of the violence there. Nor are we helping to rebuild Iraq.

Why do politicians continually talk about “winning” the Iraq war, without ever explaining how they define “win”?

The reason why George Bush talks incessantly about the need to “win” the war, while never explaining to the American people what “winning” means or why it is important should be obvious. That is something that the Bush administration doesn’t even want people to think about. Once people begin to think about the purpose of the war they might reach the correct conclusion as to what the Bush administration’s purpose is. Those purposes are hardly likely to inspire enthusiasm in most people, much less patriotism.

It is more difficult to explain why many leading Democrats don’t talk about this. Perhaps it is because some of them believe that discussing the definition of victory implies that our country needs a valid reason to fight in a war – and that such questioning of the Bush administration’s motives will make them look “unpatriotic” in the eyes of many Americans. If this is what they think, I believe that they are underestimating most of the American people, and by refusing to discuss this crucially important issue they are not serving us well.

Every time I hear a politician rave on about the need for “victory”, without telling us what s/he means by victory, I just want to scream at them. I believe that such talk is a cynical attempt to appeal to the worst of us and the worst in all of us. The implication is that war is like a game, where winning is the only thing that is important. That kind of talk appeals to sentiments of virulent nationalism and American exceptionalism that suppose that our country has the God given right to destroy whatever it feels is necessary, including millions of human lives, in order to get whatever it wants.

So should we hope for “victory” in Iraq?

My short answer to that question is NO.

That answer is based upon what the Bush administration has made obvious through their actions is the definition of the “victory” that they pursue. And since the Bush administration is now in power, it is their definition of victory that we have to deal with. I have no desire whatsoever to see Bush’s corporate friends continue to reap billions of dollars of ill gotten profit. Nor do I feel it necessary for the United States to have control of Iraq’s oil supplies or permanent military bases in Iraq. And most of all, I shudder to think of the world wide destruction that will ensue if the Bush administration’s military gets enough of a foothold in Iraq to invade several other nations. These are the things that constitute victory in Iraq for our current leaders, and I reject every one of them. Those thoughts are not unpatriotic. On the contrary, they are putting the welfare of the American people and of the people of the world above the wealthy and powerful few who are benefiting from George Bush’s Iraq War.