Full Version: An acceptable level of violence
As we all know, Bush made a “surprise” visit to Iraq (though, in my opinion, a visit to the heavily fortified and protected Green Zone is hardly a visit to the real Iraq). Today he made a speech.
In your opinion, what is an “acceptable level of violence” in Iraq in order for the US involvement to be considered “successful”?
Per the terms specified in the clip (violence, oil, electricity, etc.), how long (realistically) will it take for Iraq to “succeed”?
Was this very short overseas visit necessary, considering what it must have cost the American taxpayers?
QUOTE
President George W. Bush, fresh from a surprise trip to Iraq, on Wednesday sought to lower expectations of what should be defined as success in the country while sketching out a future strategy that did not appear markedly different from the past.
Americans should not have a “zero violence expectation”, Mr Bush said in a news conference.
“Winning means a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself, and an ally in the war on terror, and we will help this government do that,” he said in a significant departure from the rhetoric that accompanied the 2003 invasion.
Asked if the US had a specific target level of violence in mind that would be deemed acceptable, Mr Bush answered: “Enough for the government to succeed.”
Success should also be measured in terms of economic progress, the president said, mentioning production of oil and electricity, which are hovering at less than pre-war levels, mostly due to sabotage and corruption.
Financial Times
Americans should not have a “zero violence expectation”, Mr Bush said in a news conference.
“Winning means a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself, and an ally in the war on terror, and we will help this government do that,” he said in a significant departure from the rhetoric that accompanied the 2003 invasion.
Asked if the US had a specific target level of violence in mind that would be deemed acceptable, Mr Bush answered: “Enough for the government to succeed.”
Success should also be measured in terms of economic progress, the president said, mentioning production of oil and electricity, which are hovering at less than pre-war levels, mostly due to sabotage and corruption.
Financial Times
In your opinion, what is an “acceptable level of violence” in Iraq in order for the US involvement to be considered “successful”?
Per the terms specified in the clip (violence, oil, electricity, etc.), how long (realistically) will it take for Iraq to “succeed”?
Was this very short overseas visit necessary, considering what it must have cost the American taxpayers?
QUOTE
In your opinion, what is an “acceptable level of violence” in Iraq in order for the US involvement to be considered “successful”?
In my opinion, an acceptable level of violence would be when the violence does not threaten the stability of the democratically elected government of Iraq. QUOTE
Per the terms specified in the clip (violence, oil, electricity, etc.), how long (realistically) will it take for Iraq to “succeed”?
I don't know. It depends on whether the people can survive the interference of tribal and religious factions wishing to destabilize their nation. I hope it will be a quick process once the 'snow ball' really gets underway but I fear the heat of Iraq's balkanisation may yet melt any chance of a long term peace (I'm thinking of Northern Ireland, Beirut and Bosnia as examples of what happens when sectarian violence gets the upper hand). Some how I don't think the USA has the strength of will to remain in a violent Iraq for many years. As soon as GW Bush is replaced an excuse will be found to bail out. I would therefore hope the USA has the strength of will to at least support the process of building up Iraq's democracy in the mean time and stop complaining about Iraq as if the problem is simply going to go away.
QUOTE
Was this very short overseas visit necessary, considering what it must have cost the American taxpayers?
Yes. It is necessary for the American leadership to affirm its commitment to those Iraqi politicians who are risking their lives (and the lives of their families) to establish democratic rule in Iraq. That the USA must bear the costs of this is an unfortunate, but necessary, aspect of the post cold war legacy. The cold hard truth is, America has a debt of responsibility to Iraq for the years it supported Saddam Hussein. This is an unfortunate tragedy for those who are killed in the mean time, be they soldiers or civilians, but unfortunately, whilst evil ideology stills stalks this planet, then freedom must be fought for.
QUOTE
In your opinion, what is an “acceptable level of violence” in Iraq in order for the US involvement to be considered “successful”?
How's this: an acceptable level of violence is a condition in which the President would be able to have announced visits to Iraq without fear of attack. That sounds reasonable to me, eh? When the President can say I'll be meeting the Prime Minister of Iraq at Starbucks on the intersection of Uday and Saddam Street in Baghdad without fear of being killed then Iraq's condition has been reduced to an "acceptable level of violence."
QUOTE
Per the terms specified in the clip (violence, oil, electricity, etc.), how long (realistically) will it take for Iraq to “succeed”?
God only knows. Restoring the infrastructure of the country is a job in and of itself, but when you couple it with the sectarian violence and the general state of the country, it becomes even more Herculean. So, I have no idea how long it will take for Iraq to succeed.QUOTE
Was this very short overseas visit necessary, considering what it must have cost the American taxpayers?
It would be unfair to criticize the President for visiting Iraq under any circumstance, and hypocritical. Of course this visit was necessary and it shows the President cares about his soldiers and the general state of Iraq.CP
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.