On NPR's on point show, the chairman of the New York Times was interviewed, and was asked whether we are winning the war in Iraq. He replied, that while we are inflicting serious damage onto the insurgency, the insurgency seems capable of absorbing its losses, and has a quote "inexhaustible recruiting pool", much like he says, the Vietcong had. He says winning the war really dependents upon whether or not the Sunnis can be placated, and if they cannot be, he says it is likely to take at least another decade for the insurgency to burn itself out.

The question for this thread is:

If winning the war in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?

Good question. Would it be worth it if only people whom you don't know or with whom you are casually acquainted were killed or injured for life?

If yes, would it still be worth it if your husband/wife/father/mother/brother/ sister or son/daughter were killed or maimed?

How much are we willing to sacrifice for the sake of (mostly) people we do not know who may have appreciated getting out from under Saddam Hussein's rule but do not appreciate (and many who fight) the presence of "infidel" Americans, and who feel that Islam and Islamic rule are the only correct ideology and authority for their country?

Add to that the fact that the Iraqis don't even agree on which Islamic faction should predominate, and that the Americans are in the middle.

Iraq was far less messy before the war, rape rooms notwithstanding. And while the insurgents may have an "inexhaustible recruiting pool", we do not. If, in ten years, the military does not meet its recruitment goals to continue to carry on this war, will it still be considered "worth it" to those who support it now?

As it stands, I don't believe it is worth it, considering that "victory" in Iraq will mean many more deaths of the peacekeepers, the warring factions, the insurgents, and innocents caught in the crossfire.

It is difficult for me to answer the question the way it is phrased, because it is hard for me to imagine anything which could be called "victory" in Iraq. If you make a big mess, and spend a long time cleaning it up, I would not really call that "victory." At best, you have spent a great deal of time and trouble undoing the damage you have done.

It may be necessary for there to be an American military presence in Iraq for many decades to come in order to prevent total chaos and a even greater bloodbath than the one that currently exists. I would not say that it was "worth it." Rather, I would say that the United States has trapped itself, and has very few options about what it can do. Both withdrawal and "staying the course" seem like terrible choices.

Violent death rates under us have not really been any higher then they were over Saddam, though they have probably been more concentrated under us, into just a few cities.

Did we create a problem?

Well yes, but it doesn't really seem to be worse then the problem which was already there, so i'd say the net effect is nuetral.

More significant/More prolofic then Iraq's violent deaths, are its economic deaths. Iraq is the poorest country in the Middle East, and is almost African in its poverty levels. 100,000 people die there of starvation every year, and thats an annual death rate of roughly one two hundred and sixth the enitre population. To put that into prospective, in this country that would be 1.1 million deaths per year (the annual world rate is somewhere over 6 million). Poverty is one of the main contributing factors to the insurgency, as people are desperate for jobs, and joining Al Quida at least gives them some food. The poverty is there because of 10 years of sanctions, and it remains there because the insurgents are providing to much instability for a proper recovery to take place.

Really, from a humanitarian propspective, our deaths in this war have not been in a relative sense not that large. Roughly 1,000 soldiers die per year, but thats next to at least 120,000-130,000 deaths a year in that country as a whole. Monetarly is different of course...

As far as I can gather ten years means this:

10,000 more US deaths
600 Billion more dollars
The prevention of a flare up war lthat may or may not result in a long term stable government within a few years (many countries of Iraqs disposition have one dictater toppling another for even decade before one of them proves strong enough to hold).

I haven't proof read this, but I have to go to school now, so see you...

If winning the war in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?


If transforming our policy and if altering how we interact with and deal with despotic regimes and regional threats in the Middle East will takes us 10 or more years, as I always suspected, then yes it is worth it. We needed a change, we could no longer pursue our political needs, national interests and support for human rights and democracy without taking a drastic change of course and a complete alteration of our foreign policy.

I think we waste a lot of energy and time discussing this policy in the context of "are we winning" when we should be focusing this debate on "how we can win"

I wish Bush was asked to take responsibility not for taking us into this war, or detailing when he will take us out, but for not adapting and tailoring this war better for success. I would like to see more focus on and cooperation between political parties on wanting and desiring success, rather than this division we see now between success already achieved and failure already committed.

altering how

Do you really believe there is a good solution to every problem?

My question BTW, was based upon the assumption that the insurgency would have to burn itself out. It presumes political change won't occur, and that the Sunnis instead of being placated, will have be mellowed out, which will take ages (or if you will, ten or so years).

What we essentially have in Iraq, is a mallet, and a bunch of gopher holes. Were perhaps getting better now at shuting holes then we used to be, but I have as of yet seen no progress in the field of preventing the gopher from surfacing to begin with.

Not really understanding the encrypted reply and quoting but I guess it is me you are addressing.

Did I say that there will forever and always be a good solution? No. I think what I said was the past solution of "containment" in the Middle East was a failure, what was good about it?
I also more than willingly acknowledge the new solution will be painstakingly long.


And I am BTW debating in opposition to your assumptions. It seems you believe the "insurgency" is at first and foremost homogeneous and more importantly unsatiable. I disagree. Political change has already occurred. I think the idea that the Sunnis will never be politically appealed to or satisfied is already disputed with the accounts of many Sunni leaders in Iraq calling for more political involvement and participation.



*yawn* not the ol' whack a mole/gopher/terrorist analogy again. Isn't there any new ones making the rounds?

If winning the war in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?
This is typical of the trash we get from the NYT and hyped on highly biased NPR. The truth is that, unlike Vietnam this country is now free because of an election witch drew massive participation. The “insurgents” can only win if we back down and abandon the people we have freed. The NYT is of course the perfect vehicle to help do this and these morons, who hate Bush, are eager to comply.

There are plenty of good things happening in Iraq but we will not read about them in the NYT. The Iraqi police and Army are coming up to speed and if anyone thinks that any number of “insurgents” can outnumber them and people who desperately want to be free they are wrong.

Our troops will be drawn down as Iraq takes over. This was the plan from the beginning and despite mistakes it is still the one that will work.


It will not take 10 years and it is definitely is worth staying the course.

Depends on what you mean by "winning" and, in terms of being "worth it", to whom the question is directed. Also, on what conditions prevail in Iraq, the U.S., and in the rest of the world as a consequence of our troops staying there for that 10 years. If conditions for most of that 10 years were going to be what they are now, then I would say no, not even if "winning" meant that 10 years from now Iraq was a shining example of a free republic with unprecedented liberty and peace. The U.S. cannot endure 10 years of this, even with a utopian Iraq as the outcome. Our military would be depleted and our treasury drained. The impact on American troops and their families devastating. If you had asked me about 2 years more or if the bulk of the 10 years was relatively peaceful, then I might have asked what condition Iraq will be in afterward.
I find it very disturbing that the government that we have placed in power in Afghanistan, is threatening to execute a man for converting from Islam to Christianity. Would similar circumstances prevail in Iraq after we leave there? The sacrifice of American lives should at least leave Iraqis with no less freedom than that already possessed by Americans.
Right now a better question might be: what conditions must persist in Iraq and for how long before American troops can begin leaving?

I believe that we cannot start pulling troops out of Iraq until they can prove to us once and for all that they can handle the situation of containing their citizens. If they cannot do that, then there is just going to be more and more innocent people being killed. They should keep the troops there until the Iraqi government can prove to the US President that they can control their country on their own. Until then they need to keep people there to contain the civilians from killing other people.

I don't think that OUR troops have proven that they can handle the situation of containing Iraq's citizens. Every day there are deaths, even in the so-called "green" zone where it's supposed to be safer.

So what do we do--continue to commit our young men and women to a situation where they are targeted in such a way, where guerilla fighting is the norm and they might as well have targets painted on their backs? All the insurgents need to continue their fight are angry people with a death wish, and suicides conducted in this manner are characterized as "martyrdom". They become so-called heroes even killing women and children uninvolved in the conflict.

To continue to commit troops to maintain order in Iraq means to keep them from being deployed in other areas of the world. How ironic that we are still involved in Iraq long after our "victory" and that this triumph will make it hard for us to pose a convincing threat to Iran, which continues to enrich its uranium. Continuing commitment of our troops means that our forces are spred thinly and that it will be difficult to respond to other world crises.

What it means is that, somewhere down the line, a draft will have to be instituted in order to "honor our commitment" to a land where WE ARE NOT WANTED.

It is difficult even for the United States of America to stop an Iraqi civil war from taking place. This has been fomenting for centuries, and Saddam Hussein's tyranny seems to have been the only thing keeping them from open warfare during the past few years.

Like it or not, when Paul Bremer dismissed the Iraqi army, and the Iraqi police force at the time was not allowed to maintain order, it was we who instituted chaos in a country that had previously known order, albeit cruel order. We have opened Pandora's Box there, and even if we close the lid, what has escaped will continue to oppose U.S. authority and any authority perceived to have been placed there by the United States, free elections or not.

Why don't we let the Iraqis ultimately figure it out? I think trying to keep the factions from fighting one another is like trying to keep the tide from coming in, and I for one am not happy about the prospect of my daughter (now 12 years old) having to pay for this misadventure, let alone having to possibly don a uniform and pick up a rifle to fight in it. In short, it's not worth it.

If winning the war in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?

There seem to be two main schools of thought on this. One side says we should stay as long as it takes, regardless of cost; and the other side says we should leave as quickly as possible, again almost regardless of cost. I think the real answer lies somewhere in between. I don't think we should necessarily stay until the Iraqis can maintain stability, nor do I think we should pull out as quickly as we can regardless of the consequences. We should stay until the benefits to be gained from staying longer exceed the costs of doing so. I'll be the first to admit I'm not sure exactly what that point might be. I can say that it means that the benefits of leaving must be weighed against the costs of doing so. If the costs are greater than the benefits, then we should continue to stay. If the benefits are greater than the costs, then we should leave. Obviously, there is much to be discussed regarding what those costs might be, particularly when looking at the long term ramifications. But, only by framing the discussion to include both sides can the 'right' decision be reached.

Ted, I'm dissapointed. In your usual rant you forgot to insult blame it on either Clinton or Ted Kennedy, thus failing to entirely live up to steriotype.

ANYways...



This is a hilarious error. You are obviously unaware, but in the growing days of the Vietnam war, the US was desperate to gain some legitimacy for their intervention, and insisted upon democratic elections in Vietnam.They were held, with a reasonably high response rate, and Nguyen Van Thieu. was elected. However, it rapidly became clear he had no sway with the people, and they rapidly lost all faith in him as his government proved utterly incapable of preventing bloodshed from both sides.

Its quite droll how you say this is 'not like Vietnam' and then list as your justification the thing that makes this war MOST similar to the conflict in Vietnam...




Thats quite an assertion you make there, that the Iraqi army and police are coming up to speed. You assert it as though it was 'common sense for smart people like you', and only those who dont know better could think otherwise.

Care to justify that rather large assertion? All the evidence, like the increasing strength of roving death suqds, terroist attacks and the ongoing religious uprising would tend to show the exact OPPOSITE of your rather fanciful claim.

Jane's Defence also strongly disagrees with you.
'Unravelling strategies of deception and perception in the Iraq crisis' -Apr 2006
http://jir.janes.com/public/jir/index.shtml (Requires membership, I'll look about and find more available sources later today)

The escalating death toll in Iraq, as well as the constant attacks of both insurgents and nor religious factions against the police and army recruitment and infrastructure seem to disagree with you. The complete inability of the Iraqis to keep the peace would seem to disagree with you.

There were some reports about the Iraqi army growing stronger before this latest religious clash started, and they were all proven wrong as not only was the Iraqi police and military incapable of stopping the violence, in most areas they did not even TRY, refusing to deploy.


So, given that your assertion flies in the face of all evidence on the ground, I assume you are prepared to back it up, somehow?





Great talking point, but zero substance. How do you know it will work? The US poured money, training and equipment into the South Vietnamese military for over a decade, and in the end they proved entirely incapable of standing up on their own or even maintaining order. So we know that failure in these situations most certainly is possible.

I am willing to admit it MAY work, one never can tell of course, but given the EVIDENCE it is certainly not working so far. And it is NOT working at a running cost of almost half a trillion dollars to the United States.

Before spending another half trillion (which you don't really have to spend, by the way) perhaps you should present some form of substance to back up your counter-factual assertions?

Of course not. But consider it this way: ten years ago, would you have ever ever believed that thousands of US G.I.'s would be dying in Iraq because their lives are worth trying to dig a few water wells and build a few elementary schools for the Iraqi people? Not at all, of course. No one would have believed it. "Uhhh, why did we sanction Iraq leading to the painful killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and babies then?".

That's not true and has already been proven to be unworkable Mr. Johnson. Oops I mean Mr. Nixon. Oops I mean Mr. Ford.

If winning the war in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?

I can't really answer this because I believe that "winning the war in Iraq" is a phrase devoid of meaning. There is no "winning the war in Iraq".

For me, the quetion boils down to "Is it worth it to maintain the futile struggle against irreconcilable factions within an artificial boundary for another ten years before finally accepting the inevitable?" I would say no. What would be worth it would be to accept the inevitable now - and start trying to negotiate a treaty among Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds that would partition the country along mutually acceptable borders. I don't see another possible solution to this mare's nest. The only question is whether the process starts now or five, ten, or twenty years from now.

Of course, I don't believe that this administration wants a solution to Iraq that would involve the removal of US military bases and needs a certain level of chaos to justify our level of involvement. So we will be staying there for the next three years, at least - with no effort made toward a peaceful solution.

If winning the war in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?

This time chunk is too big. If the Iraq project is doing as well as claimed (DoD on Iraq Future), then our involvement should be minimal in a much shorter length of time, say by June of 2008.

That is unless the project is not doing so well, in which case we'll get yet more glowing speeches from those who are paid to do so.

Anyway, bottom line: Ten years is too much time and calls for too much of our resources. No, it is not worth it; however, I'm hoping that the prediction is far off the mark. Can't help but think that the course of containment would have been a lot cheaper in terms of lives and money, but oh well. That time is done and in history for academics to ponder.

I'm also wondering what would have happened had the conservative movement fizzled in its early years. Again, it's just academic pondering.

In any case, another ten years of the Iraq project is too much time. Wrap it up and finish. Learn something from the experience.

If winning the war in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?


I agree with Wertz that there is no "winning" in the traditional sense. The current insurgency might cool down in ten years, but the problem is not really solved. Forcibly installed democracy, if it can be called that, doesn't work. Political institutions develop gradually over time, they don't just magically appear overnight. It is an issue of legitimacy, and stable political institutions are essential to the people viewing their government as legitimate.

If anything, we should have learned from the lessons of the British occupation of Iraq. They spent 25 years there acting as "liberators," and the end result before the U.S. occupation was Saddam Hussein -- not the most democratic leader.

From "British Mandate of Iraq" - Wikipedia


Another article on the British occupation in the Guardian.

So, is it worth another ten years when historical precedent says we're setting up a transient "democratic" government? I don't think so. To achieve unity in Iraq would take a sea change in the nation's political culture which isn't going to happen in ten years' time.

why the hell not!!!!!! come on if we leave now it will turn into the next afghanistan and be infiltrated with terroist and we will most likely be there for another 70 years

I think it's better if we leave. Staying 10 years is like having a burr in your saddle for 10 years thinking the horse will eventually get used to it.

Iraqis have to die for Iraq and we need to get out of their way to settle their own issues. Staying there 10 years is not a solution. And even if it were, I think we need to leave.

Would it be worth it? Maybe for gas and strategic position against Iran and Syria.

About half of you missed the point of the debate, which was that if we knew for certain that if we stayed for another 10 years, that we could form a stable lasting democracy, would it be worth it to stay another 10 years?

My question never asked anything about whether or not the assertion of 10 years equalling victory was accurate.

Actually, that wasn't your question - nowhere near. You did not once mention "forming a stable democracy", you said "winning the war". The quote you cited placed "winning" in the context of "defeating the insurgency" with, again, no mention of the establishment of democracy. If you want to change the question now, you should probably start a new thread.

Had your original question been If forming a stable lasting democracy in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?, I would have considered it too wildly hypothetical to have taken seriously enough to respond at all - like a question prefaced with "If human beings could fly..." or "If we could live on the sun..."

Indeed then part of the question is subjective, in that the word "winning" could be construed to mean a number of different things. I would however, presume, that most people would consider the formation of a stable democracy under no threat of civil war to be "winning", at least in non-tactical terms*.

*-If I have a 1000 men, and I annihilate your 100 men, whilst losing 200 of my own men, you have tactically defeated me.

If we did win the war by staying 10 more years, but at the same time lost 10,000 more lives, and 600 billion more dollars, then you might be able to say that tactically speaking, the war was lost, pending on how you quantify the price of victory against its inherent achievement.

The purpose of the invasion of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has never been to establish "a stable, lasting democracy." The purpose has been to establish a stable, lasting U.S. client state which, ideally, will be able to be called democratic without giving rise to ridicule from those parts of the world where people do not take their opinions from Fox News or the Wall Street Journal. At worst it will be said that the Iraqi state is "imperfectly democratic" or "authoritarian," but that "constructive engagement is necessary to build democracy." Of course there will have to be elections, but whether these elections actually decide anything is immaterial. The key objective has been that the United States gain effective control of the government of Iraq; with this comes control of the oil fields and virtual monopolization of Iraqi importation of goods, services (e.g. construction) and capital (e.g. oil drilling equipment and power generating units). With this comes the militiary bases that will solidify U.S power in Iraq and enable its projection, whether by threat or execution, in neighboring states. Washington will govern Iraq; that is the plan. That vast embassy isn't being built just to house cultural attachees or to process visas. I wonder if the Soviet Union even built such a large embassy in Kabul.

The Iraq war has always been just as much an imperialist project as any ever hatched by the British or the French in their heydays; it merely dressed up in the cloak of an anti-terrorist, pro-democracy crusade to satisfy a credulous American electorate. Americans must always their Hitler-figure to justify their wars (it is most amusing now to watch the right-wing pundits kick around their straw-stuffed Ahmadinejad), and Saddam Hussein was an excellent target of opportunity. There was an initial attempt to satisfy world opinion as well, notably with all that bogus WMD "evidence," but nobody believed it.

It was all a miscalculation, of course. Considering that a rapidly diminishing segment of Americans believes in the official rationale for war; that the world at large never did; that there has been no improvement in oil or electricity production in many months; that the number of insurgent attacks is increasing; that sectarian violence is increasing; that the so-called government of Iraq governs nothing outside the Green Zone; that the enemy does not require large forces or substantial supplies; that he moves among the people in comparative freedom; that he is more or less undetectable; that he has deep reserves of manpower and money; that he knows the urban ground in Iraq vastly better than the U.S. military does; that armor, helicopter assault forces and aircraft are essentially useless against him; that any action taken against him stands an excellent chance of killing innocent people and alienating the Iraqi populace still further; that the U.S. military is stretched almost to the breaking point; that the Iraqi people are mostly fed up with the occupation; the war has already been lost. It was not lost by military defeat, but by inability to defeat the enemy. That is in the nature of this kind of struggle.

History shows that wars of this kind can sometimes be won, and there is exactly one time-tested tactic for doing so: whenever there is an attack by the resistance, round up 100 people from the nearest village and put them immediately to death. Eventually, the people stop supporting the resistance. However, because the war has been sold as a humanitarian exercise and is carried on more or less in public, this tactic is not open to U.S. forces (though there no doubt has been some attempt to apply it in given local situations through "mistaken" bombings and the like).

What is left is merely the question of how much longer the American people will tolerate so great a waste of their blood and treasure. The war is undoubtedly an enormous waste of money; it is only a little waste of American blood (such is our national character that we care very little about that of the Iraqis), but the wasted blood is large in relation to the possible gain as perceived by most Americans. Nobody really believes that the national security depends on the outcome there -- not even the Adminstration, or they would have done more to try to win. I suppose it is just possible that in 2008, the American people will elect a president who proposes to continue the war. I think it much more likely that they will elect one who promises to end it. Whether he will actually do so or will, like Nixon, continue the war for four more years, I can only guess.

A stable Iraq will eventually emerge after American withdrawal. It will never emerge as long as the U.S. continues to attempt to dictate the future of Iraq by military force. In any case, it is exceedingly unlikely that that enormous embassy will ever be used for its intended purposes.

What exactly is a “client-state” and how can a free elected government ever become one??? We are not the murderous butchers of the Soviet era who came to conquer and rule. We need to stay as long as it takes to insure that the enemies of the emerging democracy do not subvert it. The Iraqi’s want this as well as the US. Do we also want a stable ally in this critical region – you bet but this is not sinister as you imply and not at all like the cruel dictatorships of the last century.


I find it amusing you use the old saw “imperialist” and refer to the British yet you never mention the real imperialists of the last century – the Soviets and 80 million deaths connected with the failed philosophy of Communism/Socialism.

Since the topic of the thread is the war in Iraq, I am hardly obligated to discuss the "failed philosophy" of Communism/Socialism or the supposed evils of the Soviet Union. It would be beside the point to pursue these questions. In any case, this being an open forum, one really should be prepared to deal with political ideas which fall outside the conventional verities learned in a high school civics class.

A workable definition of a "client state" would be a state that is so closely tied, economically and militarily, to its "parent" (or other term if you like) state that its government must subtantially defer to its parent's government in the conduct of its affairs, either domestic or foreign. A good example of a U.S. client state would be the Phillipines during most of the 20th Century. Likewise Cuba before the revolution. Likewise most countries of Central America. Likewise Taiwan. Salvador Allende found out what a client state was when he tried to stop Chile from being one. It's a matter of degree, of course. In practice, it usually means that the economy of the client state is run for the benefit of commercial interests in the parent state, often through ownership of significant capital in the client state.

There is no reason to qualify "imperialist" with quotation marks. It is a real enough phenomenon, the only question of relevance here is, is the term appropriately applied to the U.S. occupation of Iraq? I believe that most non-Americans, and quite a few Americans, would say that it is.

I do not know who the "we" is to which you refer. I do not associate the objectives of the foreign policy of the United States with my personal interests. You are mistaken if you think that policy is conducted for the general benefit of ordinary citizens.

Then those "most people" would have bought the neocon spin, hook, line, and sinker. You did not make it clear that your question was predicated on accepting the Bush administration's Reason-of-the-Week for having invaded in the first place.

I think some people still recall that the stated reasons for the invasion of Iraq were "to eliminate its [non-existent] nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs... and to end its [fictitious] support for international terrorism". By that definition - the administration's definition, the definiftion under which we launched hostilities - the war was "won" before the first soldier set foot on Iraqi soil.

What you - or "most people" - now think "winning" means is irrelevant. I was addressing the question you asked (as were several others here), not the one you may have wanted to ask. Your question only cast "winning" in the light of the "insurgency" being defeated. We have not been "missing the point" of your question, we have been answering it.

Although most are more than aware of Iraq's role and support for international terrorism. I think this group of "some" that you talk of are on a campaign to require laws that allow the term "terrorism' to only apply to violence and death that comes form the region of Afghanistan. They often call this truth labeling when in reality it is an attempt to claim ownership over language.

Well, I myself am not aware of Iraq's "role and support for international terrorism."

I am aware that the Ba'athist regime did much to sponsor the Palestinian cause, granting substantial subsidies to resident Palestinians and contributing large sums to the Palestinians on the West Bank. I am aware that the latter included payments to the families of suicide bombers. But that was all about the struggle of the Palestinians, nothing international.

I am unaware of any corresponding, significant support that that same regime might have given to "international terrorism." Indeed the sole practical manifestation of international terrorism of which I am aware is Al Quaeda, and I am unaware of any significant support for that by Hussein's regime. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me, and others similarly ignorant, on this point.

Secondly I really am not aware of any attempt by anyone to define terrorism as terrorism that "comes from" Afghanistan. Could you supply an example?

I do share your concern for the precise use of terminology in this context, however. In general I think it is a category mistake to suppose that "terrorism" is a thing that can be made war upon. Terrorism is a method of waging war, like aerial bombardment or submarine blockade. It is employed by stateless forces or, at least, by forces unable to command fleets and armies. Such entities can sometimes make war nonetheless, and that they are stateless does not in itself, I would hope you agree, warrant their condemnation.

It might be useful also to distinguish between "terror" and "terrorism." Workably, I would call "terror" the organized and purposeful infliction of violence upon civilian populations. Workably, "terrorism" as commonly understood is not merely the practice of terror, but the practice of terror by clandestine, stateless forces. Viewed this way, it is clear that terror has been practised routinely over the centuries and is almost a natural concomitant of war; the fate of attacked cities, for example, is often to be subjected to rape and pillage. Terrorism can't be so old because it is defined in terms of states, which are something comparatively recent. One of its earliest appearances may have been in frontier wars between native Americans and English colonists in the 17th and 18th centuries, I opine. In those wars, organized, wanton depredations were committed, often without sanction of the colonial governments on the one hand or the native nations on the other, for the essential purpose of demoralizing the other side and causing it to give up its occupation of the land. One could view the sectarian violence in Iraq as an example of something similar.

When stateless forces attack the organized armed forces of a state, I don't think it should be called terrorism at all, since it doesn't really involve the application of terror. It is simply an attack.

Finally, I fail to see what makes terrorism particularly worthy of moral condemnation, given that many other, much more destructive, methods of practicing terror are not widely condemned. Aerial bombardment has often been an instrument of terror, for example and, more recently, attacks upon civilians by airborne gunships. Also it is well known that many states sponsored terrorists. The U.S. sponsored its in Nicaragua, for example (unless you believe that the Contras did not practice terror; my limited underderstanding of Nicaraguan history is that they did.)

What you call the "struggle of the Palestinians" most in the US call "international terrorism".
And Palestine is not a part of Iraq so even using your terminology..struggle, it is still a international "struggle" not a national one.

You can read exactly how the US govt defines international terrorism here.


I also have little doubt that groups like Hamas or the PLF are disputed as being terrorist. As they each appear not only on the US state dept's list but also the EU's.



Well read the UN's designated terrorist list and you will see that only groups with direct ties to Afghanistan/ Taliban and al Qaeda are included.

Besides my argument was more a play on the Champagne "truth label" laws, sorry you didn't get the alllusion.

If winning the war in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?
"Winning" unfortunately is undefined within the frame of the question, but I'll attempt an answer on a number of fronts.

If winning equates to simply quelling the insurgency, the answer to that question is an emphatic no. This "war" has cost far too much in lives on both sides and financially. We are way past any type of actuarial analysis that would even get in the ball park of rendering a solution that would support remaining there for 10 years.

If winning equates to the establishment of a stable, western-style democracy (also known as a pipe-dream, see Afghanistan), the answer is yet again, no. The American public was never sold the idea of nation-building and had the Bush Administration been honest about that fact, they would have never received the support of the war that existed in March 2003. Fear was sold, and fear won. And now we're paying the price, in debt and lives.

This was a failed experiment by PNAC from the get go, on one of the the worst possible candidates. Iran would have been a far better guinea pig, but we're obviously past that for both sides.

If winning the war in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?

I‘ve been looking at this thread for a while and it raises a good many questions. My first problem is that we can’t, at this point, project the cost of this war seven years down the road. We have current figures for American dead, American injured, Iraqi dead and financial costs, but I don’t think we can project the future based on current figures.

AMERICAN DEATHS IN IRAQ

http://icasualties.org/oif/USChart.aspx

AMERICANS WOUNDED: 17,700

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/11731

ESTIMATED IRAQI DEATHS

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

FINANCIAL COSTS

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle360657.ece

Then there are less tangible elements to consider.

Would it be worth seven more years of war in terms of continued loss of international goodwill?

Would it be worth tying up American military resources for another seven years?

My second concern is about who will think seven more years of war "worth it".

In theory, a “Democracy” in the Middle East would be a good thing. It would be worth it to bolster Bush’s historical legacy, which looks rather bleak at this time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/s...ion=6.0.12.1040

Would it be good for corporations like Halliburton?

Obviously!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.html

On January 20, 2009, a new president will take office. Will he or she find continued involvement in Iraq “worth it?” I don’t know.

Will seven more years of involvement be worth it to Americans more concerned with health care, education, gas prices and immigration than Bush’s legacy?

I don’t think so.

MY OPINION

Seven more years of Bush's Iraq policy would produce both fiscal and moral bankruptcy. It isn't worth it.

I am not sure what either set of definitions to which you point is supposed to contribute to this discussion, particularly since you point to one as received truth and hold up the other as odious. (Al Qaeda does not "come from Afghanistan, by the way.) It would have been more constructive if you had confronted my reasoning on the nature of terror and that of terrorism. I would particularly like you to respond to my point that "war on terrorism" is a category mistake, and that many nations, including the U.S., have sponsored terrorists.

The struggle of the Palestinians is most obviously a national struggle, no matter how the U.S. government -- a strong ally of Israel -- may choose to define it. Iraq's support for a foreign national cause can hardly be seen as support for "international terrorism" as any sensible person would construe that term. Whether "most people in the U.S." would agree with your characterization of the Palestinian cause is hardly of relevance, but in any case, I very much doubt that many Americans fail to understand that what is at stake in that particular war is who will govern Palestine. It further happens that, except for some minor operations by rogue elements, the Palestinians have conspicuously refrained from attacks against the United States or its interests. I believe it is thoroughly correct to say that only Al Qaeda is waging an international war by terrorist means.

Iraq's support for the Palestinians was quite public in the years leading up to the invasion. Nor was Iraq's participation in that held up, at the time, as a reason for invading Iraq. It would have been idiotic to do that, since many Arab nations and some U.S. allies were offering similar support. Iraq's support of the Palestinians certainly does not establish that Iraq was an ally of Al Qaeda.

It contributes because this war has been declared by the US govt, how is the US govt's definition of what constitutes international terrorism less of a contribution than your ramblings about 17th century semantics ?




How the US gov chooses to define it is important when considering the value and worth of this US govt's foreign policy.

In context of Iraq and this debate the Palestinian "struggle" is not a national cause, it is an international one and the argument that it was state supported international terrorism on Iraq's behalf is easily made. You have not shown any evidence that shows this not to be true.

I am not arguing against the Palestinian people as a whole, collective group as you are trying to present my argument. I have chosen and am singling out select groups of Palestinians namely, Hamas, PLF, Islamic Jihad. All of who are all well known "international terrorist" groups, who reside on many nation's lists as terrorist groups and who have wide known international appeal, support and funding , even once from Saddam Hussein himself. They have all been known to operate and carry out attacks outside their own national concern for Palestine or what you refer to as... "waging international war by terrorist means."

I also suggest you look into the operations, activities along with financial and logistical support of another international terrorist group called Hezbollah and reconsider your affirmation that al Qaeda is unique.

While I disagree with a lot of Vladimir's ramblings, there is one point you made that requires correction.

Firstly, I see no obvious reason why support for Palestinians should be considered 'international terrorism'. Was US support for freedom fighters in Poland, or the Mujahadeen in 1980s Afghanistan 'international terrorism'? If not, how exactly does this deserve that appelation and not other examples of other nations doing the same thing?

It is a bloody civil war, and no question terrorism is being used against Israel, and thats objectionable, but it hardly qualifies as 'International terrorism'. Besides, has Israel ever asked for the help and support of the US in dealing with these matters? Has Israel ever asked the US to intervene against Iraq for funding the families of suicide bombers? No, I think not.


BUT There is a flipside to that argument. Regardless of the lack of foundation behind your assertion, lets pretend for a moment, for the sake of argument, that support for Hamas, the PLO and such organisations DID count as 'international terrorism'.

In that Case, Iraq was the single LEAST supporter of International Terrorism of ALL the major states in the Middle East. In Fact Saudi Arabia ALONE (that staunch US Ally) provides more funds to these organisations than EVERY OTHER NATION ON EARTH COMBINED.

So suddenly the argument of funding the Palestinian uprising as 'international terrorism' falls apart.



Oh, so now your definition of 'International terrorism' is groups that have international appeal and funding?

Well, that certainly puts the IRA high on International terrorism list. The ANC under Mandela would certainly qualify as International terrorists, so would Solidarity in Soviet Poland, and the Mujahadeen in 80's Afghanistan, as well the Contras in Nicaragua, and a dozen other similar groups. And according to your definition, the nation that funded these groups would be a supporter of International terrorism. Hmm, pop quiz, which nation do you think provided the lion's share of support for all these groups, and thus according to you was supporting international terrorism? (Hint: It wasn't Iraq)


By the way, you keep listing indirect Iraqi funding for the PLF as one of its sources of 'International terrorism'. Well, you might want to back that one down. The PLF recieved most of its funding from the Palestinian authority, and the Palestinian authority recived most of ITS foreign funding from the United States of America. So, I guess, by your own argument, the US should really have invaded themselves? At least they KNEW for a fact that the US actually had WMDs...

I don’t understand your need to always “yell” in debate. It is not out of necessity as you have bold or italic for emphasis. I think it is not only disrespectful but shows a lack or desire to debate but instead to aggressively push your own ideas.




Firstly I didn’t say support for Palestinians in general or for the concept or idea of a Palestinian state. To quote myself again to show I have already made clear the distinction I am making, which makes me wonder what purpose you have for ignoring it?
“am not arguing against the Palestinian people as a whole, collective group as you are trying to present my argument. I have chosen and am singling out select groups of Palestinians namely, Hamas, PLF, Islamic Jihad. All of who are all well known "international terrorist" groups,”

Are you claiming that one must support these groups I have listed above in order to be a true supporter of the Palestinian cause?


No I already gave the source definition I am using to make this definement. What does it matter if Israel publicly requests our help or assistance, I think our military aid and financial support show that cooperation between these two allies is more than established. Regardless these groups have been known to carry out operations, funding, logistical support and training outside Israel. I think they more than qualify using the US gov. definition I provided earlier.



You are always banging the war drum for KSA, but somehow I don’t believe it. I don’t believe for a moment you would support a war in KSA. So why make such a moral demand? Also I never justified the Iraq war under the guise of support for international terrorism, I just am disputing the claim it was a fictional relationship.

Once again I already provided the definition of “international terrorism" I am using. Perhaps if you are going to dispute my argument with all this yelling and such you should at the very least make yourself better familiar with what my argument is based on.



Hint: IRA has carried out operations and attacks outside Northern Ireland and the UK. I think it would be fair to label them “international terrorists” under the US gov. definition.



Sorry no, I am not going to back down from that claim, you can yell all you like. Support for the Palestinian state and her established political system has always carried the risk of association and support for terrorism. In fact it was part of the Oslo accords that the US agreed to remove groups like the PLO from their list of terrorist groups in order to offer support and commitment to peace and cohabitation. Is this what you are now arguing against? America, the UN and the Western governments attempts to address the issue of Palestine? Are you now begrudging our sacrifices for peaceful existence?

I'm sorry, are you serious? I always yell in debates?

In my last post I put eight words in capitals. If you search my last twenty posts, that munber of words rises to twelve. Is this the 'constant yelling' you needed to point out, and then refer to again and again and again throughout your post?



Really? Wow, I'd best check my inbox. If by capitalising eight words I have been showing such obvious disrespect to the whole board, and been so agressively pushing my own ideas, I will certainly have a strike or warning from a moderator. No? Well then at least my inbox will be full of other AD patrons infuriated by my lack of respect in capitalising eight words, and vehement over my constant need to agressively push my own ideas by this same eight words.

No?

Before you try and get on a moral high ground, best to actually check and see if you are on high ground. Which do you think is more disrecpectful to the community, my capiutalising eight words, or you pretending to speak for the collective several hundred people and voicing your apparent moral outrage about this silly non-issue?

Sometimes I capitalise for emphasis. Sometimes I bold. Other times I both bold AND capitalise. If this is so terrible for you, then please feel free to report my posts to a moderator. I am sure they will give your complaint the time and attention it deserves.





That is pure and absolute semantics and you know it, and you used it to completely evade my point. You know what I meant, financial indirect support for palestinian extremist groups, same as the US supplied in Poland and Afghanistan.

My question still stands.



Yes, and I pointed out that your definition is silly, as it includes such 'International terrorists' as the ANC, Solidarity, the IRA, and pretty much every other domestic resistance organisation that has ever existed. Heck, it even includes the Sons of Liberty.



I have never once proposed, suggested or supported war against KSA. I do however often bring up the nation to expose the blatant hypocracy of those who would guise the struggle in Iran in terms of 'freedom for women', 'opposing international terrorism', and such terms, by pointing out that that good ole buddy of the US continues to be far worse than the rest of the midle east in all these categories. Or are you disagreeing with that fact?



Ignoring the repeated offense to your sensebilities by captalising eight words... none of which were in my response to this point by the way... yes you have provided your definition, well actually two definitions. One was silly, as I pointed out above, and you ignored. The other was to cite the Cornel law site's definition of international terrorism. However according to THAT definition, any acts which occur outside the US are international terrorism, period. If that is honestly your common definition of use, then you are not even arguing for your own definition.

Oh, sorry, I capitalised a word. I'm sure you will be horribly offended again.



Hint: you should really read your own definition. Any attack carried out outside the US would qualify under international terrorism under it.



Again, another belittling reference to those capitalised eight words. You must really have been mortally offended by them to keep bringing it up again and again in every paragraph.

No, I am doing none of the above, I am just pointing out that according to YOUR definition, which you seem unfamiliar with, the US supported international terrorism, in the case of palestine just as in countless other cases... according to YOUR definition of course...

All caps has always been considered rude and abrasive on line. It is just common courtesy to attempt to not use this style of typing and as I said before there is no reason for it. If you doubt my “moral high ground” you can consider this helpful piece of advice from the America’s Debate survival guide:
> Avoid all capital letters (I AM AN AMERICAN). It is considered SHOUTING and there is no reason for that in a civil debate.



It was not semantical you deliberately misrepresented my argument and I had every right and reason to correct you on this.

You seem to wish to use an extreme form of realism to view, represent and discuss politics with. And I reject that, you and I have a very fundamental and most basic divergence of political views. I don’t believe as you yourself called them , the Polish “Freedom Fighters” are comparable and like exchanges to groups like the Islamic Jihad or the PLF or the Taliban. Why would you present them as such and claim hypocrisy when rejected? Why do you feel we must ignore national interests, historical relationships and even the very basic mechanisms and intentions or risk contradiction? Why this moral equivalence that is so extreme that even the very basics of each comparison’s nature and purpose you ask us to ignore or risk hypocrisy?

Are you going to honestly support your collective comparison of America’s support for Poland's solidarity to that of Afghanistan’s mujahideen? Do you really feel each has the same value and is morally equivalent? Because I don’t and I will not debate and address each as such.

See what you neglect to understand is, I am not uncomfortable making clear and distinct judgments on the government's of nation states or political movements and their morality and then basing a policy in accordance. This is not hypocrisy as you wish to portray it, it is what is often referred to politically as idealism.


It is not my definition it is the US Govt’s and it has been used since the early 1980s to define and decipher data and make analysis.

Don’t you think perhaps the US gov. takes a variety of conditions into consideration when applying their definition of “international terrorism” ? In fact the first qualifier is the definition of terrorism itself, then the consideration of it’s scope: local, national or international would come into consideration last. If you’re even interested in considering my argument here is the US govt’s definition of terrorism Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

What is your recommendation sir? What do you propose the US govt. use to analyze and define events and political movements? Should they just approach each and every occurence without thought or consideration to history, nature and purpose of each groups motives? Should we just adopt this idea of moral equivalence for the greatest superpower on earth and put aside all this nonsense about universal human rights and moral obligations?


Oh I know you don’t that is why I pointed out. I understand perfectly your argument and how perfectly it is flawed. I disagree, moral equivalence has no place in the United States of America’s foreign policy and every time it ever has we have paid dearly for it.

Again this is not hypocrisy it is idealism. And how is anyone who supports freedom in Iran (why are you discussing Iran here?) lying about their reasons for such support and ultimately not concerned with human rights and their importance in our world and path to peace and security? Why do you so devalue and doubt the ideals of the idealist?

Eight words. But by all means, continue to devote more time and space to this. As I said, if you genuinely feel my capitalisation of occasional individual words for emphasis is disrespectful and insulting, then please feel free to report my posts to the moderators. They will give your complain exactly the time and respect it deserves.



It is COMPLETELY semantical and you still have not answered the question.



Bucket, I know you are a smart person from your time here on the boards. So don't play dumb, it doesn't suit you. You know very well I never compared these groups. What I did, was point out that according to the definition YOU use, these groups are all international terrorists. I do NOT think they all are, but then, I don't use your definition do I?

Furthermore, as I also pointed out, you don't seem to use your definition. The definition you linked to is not the same one you are arguing. The US definition you cited lists all acts of terrorism outside the US as international terrorism; all of them. Thats not what you have been arguing, so perhaps you had best check your own definitions...



I don't. But when we engage in this type of action, we cannot then turn around and use obviously hypocritical and invalid arguments to support our actions.

You can't have it both ways Bucket, I'm sorry. There is no need to play the game of moral equivalence, unless the perpetrator (or their defenders) tries to couch their actions in a moral blanket. Once they do that they open themselves up to the blatantly true charge of hypocricy.



Well then you had best change the definition you use for international terrorism then hadn't you? Because right now, you do. Again, you can't have it both ways...



It depends on what political movements of actions you are referring. If you start talking about the evils of, say women's opression in one country, while tacitly supporting a worse opression of women in another country, then sorry to have to tell you, but it is hypocricy, and it is invalid. Same with international terrorism, and dozens of other topics too many hawks currently use to preach their war.



Not according to you. After all it is your definition as you cited it of international terrorism we are talking about. I can only suggest you read the citation you are currently arguing for. Besides, the whole point here is the classification of international terrorism and its support.

You know what? I bet the US clearly does not see its support for the Contras, or the Mujahadeen, or half a dozen other terrorists groups as support for international terrorism. Right now there are agencies in the US calling Iran's support of Hamas 'support for international terrorism' while ignoring that at the moment, both Iran AND saudi Arabia have pledged to fund the Hamas government. But the fact that they do not see the contradiction in their actions (nor apparently do you) does not mean such a contradiction does not exist.




And thats fine (well, its not fine, but its less objectionable) as long as the government and its suporters does not then turn around and start using the morality it just abandoned to defend its actions.



Again, please don't act dumb. As is dead clear from my statements, I never said anyone who supports freedom is lying. That is such a staggering (and uncharactaristic for you) mischarictarisation of my words it makes me laugh. I bears no resemblance at all to what I said.

I do however have problems with those who couch their desire for conflict with Iran, or even their condemnation of Iran, while quietly ignoring worse crimes of the same nature committed in nations the US supports. I do this in exactly the same way I would mock an ardent, fanatic animal rights activist who wore a fur coat. Not because animal rights is not a valid issue, but because blatant hypocracy never goes down well with anyone.

If winning the war in Iraq does indeed mean staying there for another 10 years, is it worth it to stay the course?

Well I would need a definition of winning the war. If it is creating a secular western style democracy that is a model of stability and a model for the rest of the middle East, I don't think that is practical. We have, BTW already won the war in Iraq. We need to turn Iraq over to a sovereign government, and offer assistance to a well-behaved government for internal and external security for the country and issue stern threats to countries that might try to interfere.

The financial costs of continuing in Iraq for ten years are clearly not worth it to me. The secondary costs of continuing to subvert American values in the name of perpetual war and a perpetual need for secrecy, undemocratic methods of gathering information, police state methods of collecting political prisoners with no access to due process as should be protected, not by the Constitution but by natural law, and other disturbing trends going on with our government today in the name of national security and at times rhetorically and hypocritically in the name of democracy, are costs I think are much too dear to be paid by the people of planet Earth.

Staying the course is another way of saying I refuse to say I was wrong. The course needs to be redefined and realpolitikal objectives need to be established for extricating ourselves from Iraq while maintaining our basic national security needs in the Middle East. We are in danger of creating a growing problem instead of putting it down.

I don’t know why there is so much difficulty understanding the difference to code and policy.


You ignored this or did not address the other definition I offered also from US code for terrorism. Why do you feel this definition is not an important consideration when determining what international terrorism may be? Obviously it is, so something occurring outside the US is not an automatic qualification for terrorism, it just qualifies the international bit.

Regardless I don’t think the US foreign policy has to rely solely on the definitions listed within it’s code, I think policy can and is based on other factors.

Which is what the whole debate is about isn’t it? Policy and it’s worthiness. As I stated from the beginning I felt that ..
”If transforming our policy and if altering how we interact with and deal with despotic regimes and regional threats in the Middle East will takes us 10 or more years, as I always suspected, then yes it is worth it. We needed a change, we could no longer pursue our political needs, national interests and support for human rights and democracy without taking a drastic change of course and a complete alteration of our foreign policy.”

I focused on the definition that is listed in US Code because this definition defines how my nation collects information, foreign intelligence, shares said info. with other nations, classifies data and keeps records and lists on terrorist groups. I think that is an important factor when determining what states or citizens of states do and do not support terrorism and of what nature the terrorism is. Yet it is obviously not the one and only sole indicator or consideration. Foreign Policy also plays a major role in defining our foreign relations and how we react to the collection of such information and data.

You seem to be so focused on how this data is defined and collected, which is not the essential issue of worth, our policy towards that information is. And I support and find worth with any policy that defines regimes like that of Saddam Hussein’s as supporters of international terrorism


That makes no sense. You say there is no need for moral equivalence and then say when we take action to defend a morality we feel worthy we are hypocrites..how? I think you do believe in moral equivalence, obviously, and you feel no one has the right to claim one morality is greater than another when in my opinion that is terribly untrue. Obviously some morals are far better than others and the one moral I am currently pushing is international human rights. Am I hypocrite then?





Where, where have I done this? What you fail to understand again is the difference and importance of definement and policy. One is consistent and universal while another is a variable dependent and adjusted to a great many factors. Why should we have one policy and reaction to Poland versus Iraq or even Iran? They are not equivalent.




Again you still have not taken into account the definition used for terrorism itself. Also again I must remind you this is not my definition. It is the one from US code and it is the one used to determine how to classify, collect and contain data and foreign intelligence. And no that is not the whole point as it was the policy or reaction to that data and it’s classification that we are being asked to place value on.



Hamas is international terrorism. I doubt you would find anyone in this admin or it’s critics that support KSA’s funding of Hamas.

Again you fail to understand idealism. Iran has other factors that determine how our policy and reaction to Iran differ from that of KSA. That whole Hezbollah thing perhaps, a connection I remember you denying. There is also that issue of nuclear proliferation.
Also our political history with Iran is far different than what it is with KSA as is our current political relationship. All states and foreign relations are not morally equivalent.


There is never a need to call someone dumb (several times) in a honest and well intentioned debate, not that you seem interested in keeping it as such.

You most certainly did allude to the idea of concept of deception, it is hardly a misrepresentation on my part, you said:
I do however often bring up the nation to expose the blatant hypocrisy of those who would guise the struggle in Iran in terms of 'freedom for women', 'opposing international terrorism', and such terms,

To guise is to give a false appearance and I think everyone understands that to be a form or lying or deceiving