So, we've been tangentially discussing this issue in a number of other debates, but I think the topic is sufficiently unique to bring out in its own thread.

What do you believe the criteria for success in Iraq are (or should be)?

What do you believe the criteria for failure in Iraq are (or should be)?

In other words, can you enumerate your thoughts as to what it takes to succeed in Iraq. Can you enumerate what it would take to consider Iraq a failure? Do these thoughts coincide with the current administration's position?

Edited to add: Please include a timetable if you can.

I believe current operations in Iraq can be called success when the Iraqi government says it is confident that is can hold secure elections and exercise some degree of central authority.

Failure is anything short of this.

That said, it should not end US involvement, I hope any administration will keep sending aid and expertise as well as reconstruction aid, the troops, however, would largely be done with their work in that country.

What do you believe the criteria for success in Iraq are (or should be)?


Success is the creation of a stable Iraqi government, able to support itself and maintain security in Iraqi with only limited US assistance.

What do you believe the criteria for failure in Iraq are (or should be)?


Hmmm....lack of success? Failure would be the inability to install a stable Iraqi government, creating a power vacuum and an inability for Iraqi's security forces to maintain order.

I'm not sure if I need/want to put time frames around these....if success is achieved, I don't think it will really matter how long it took. If it takes too long, lack of support will force the US to withdraw/cut back its troop commitments, leading to the failure conditions. Personally, I think next year will be make or break--if things are continuing to get worse a year from now, that doesn't bode well at all. However, I am by no means pressing the panic button currently--resistance was expected to be strongest at the beginning of Iraqi control, as the insurgents would view that as their best chance.

*Ability of Iraqi forces to fight pitched battles in the streets against militia forces and defeat them with little U.S. aid or help

*Democratic participation by women in the new government

*Giving an equal voice to Kurdish, Sunni, and Shi'ite interests

*Ability to say how they should run their economy according to their own dictates

*Acknowledging the value of Islam to their culture, but establishing a separation of church and state.



*Inability of Iraqi forces to defeat rag-tag street gangs without overhwelming U.S. power.

*Appointed political leaders, not democratically elected ones

*Little representation of women in positions of power

*Inability of coalition forces to even drive through a given city

*Inability of the Iraqi government to run electricity and other matters competently and on par with Saddam's old regime

Timeline?

-Four years tops.

I suppose what I'm wondering: can there be failure in Iraq if there are ambiguous criterion such as "maintaining security". At what point do you consider security maintained? At what point do you consider Iraq supporting itself? These seem like vague demarcations.


So, are you stating that taking too long is also a criterion for failure? Is this time next year what you consider the endgame? Do you think you would push the line further into the future in a year's time (will it always be a year away)?


All evidence points to Iraqi resistance increasing not decreasing. And while I'm glad you are one of the few pro-Iraq invasion folks I know who foresaw the inevitable insurgency, I do not believe that this was a widely held view during the propaganda phase prior to the war.

Sorry, logo...wasn't trying to be vague. My criterion here would be that, even if US troops remain, the Iraqi government could maintain control without their assistance--ie, Iraq could maintain a sovereign government by itself soley through its own security forces.



I don't think taking too long is a criterion by itself. Rather, that will tend to increase the chance that we would pull out before success is achieved, thereby leading to failure. A 'sooner is much better than later, but later is far preferred to never' kind of thing. Currently, I see the true test being sometime next year...lets say the middle of next year around June. Elections would have passed by then, and that government would have had a few months to gain support and establish control. If things are still getting worse after that, that won't bode well at all. I think the elections there are key...that should help remove the impression of the 'puppet' government and give some insurgent groups a chance to have representation.



I always felt insurgency was inevitable...whenever a minority group has control, there will be factions who will fight violently to keep it, as well as long repressed opposition forces who will be equally eager to fight to get it. This is why the elections are key....that will be the first step towards giving these various groups true representation and a no-violent means of addressing their concerns.

Rumsfeld Misleads on Iraqi Security Forces

Bush is saying that the Iraqi vote is scheduled to be held in January next year. For that to happen, the Iraqis will have to have their own security force in place. Last time I checked, resurgents of some group(s) have been bombing and killing recruits in front of police stations. This does not look like success to me.

criteria for success

I recall reading a book in my daughter's elementary school library on the history of tyrants. As I recall, the very name "tyrant" is derived from one of the early rulers of Babylon. (Modern day Iraq) Among other things that were mentioned in the book in reference to that nation, is that the people of Iraq were very proud of the fact that no invading country had ever succeeded in retaining control of their country. I had referenced in another thread that Machiavelli advised against invading a country unless there was something in common that would allow you to rule it, such as a language, a tax structure, an economic structure, a common form of government... The only way for a "Prince" to conquer such a country, he argued, was for the "Prince" to remain in the country and be able to actively resolve the day to day problems which arose. By historic standards then, to "succeed in Iraq," "Prince George" would need to go there, learn the language, learn the customs, and be the one swinging the sword when someone was beheaded. Unfortunately, the "timetable" for such a "success" would likely result in our having to leave Iraq when he died, unless he is able to persuade the devout Muslims of that region to accept a Princess as an heir to his throne...

criteria for failure

My personal criteria for failure in Iraq, was the need to invade the country to begin with. GWB was not patient enough to confirm the reasons he had for invading the country. It had been spelled out in the Republican Platform 2000 that Saddam Hussein, and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a threat to the United States; and that was "intelligence" enough for GWB to commit the United States to invade a sovereign nation. The weapons have not been found. Over a thousand American soldiers have died, and the press is not valuing Iraqi lives enough to even report the number of dead Iraqis...

or the number of dead soldiers from the other countries which joined the Alliance of the coerced...

The only casualty reports we consistently receive are the number of Americans who have died, and come home to be buried in secret. If for no ther reason, a President who fails to recognize that his wars have caused soldiers to die, and their families to grieve should be considered a failure...

Please why must we use historic standards in a modern political reform of Iraq? I think all you have said above is not success in Iraq as I would hope for..but rather failure. If our true intent is to bring liberation and democracy to Iraq then the first and most important point of success would be for "Prince George" to not rule Iraq. This is the new standard we must hope for..that the Iraqi people will rule themselves.

I am not even going to attempt to make such predictions..there is just so much involved in all this..so much complexity..but I think our current needs for success will be to pull off elections..and to make sure all those who want to vote will be able to vote. I think any signs of failure on this event will be catastrophic to the new Iraq.

I think I needed to be more clear in my questions. I'm not interested in generalities or philosophy with regard to Iraq. What I'd like to know is exactly what are the goals we wish to achieve and when do we achieve them. I'd like to know if the goals can be stated in such a way so that they are clearly measurable. I'd like to know what those measurements are and at what threshold we consider success to have been achieved. Most importantly, I'd like a clear delineation of when a given criterion has not been met (i.e. failed). Do all goals need to be met or only some? Should any not be met is the policy as a whole a failure? You tell me (or us). Identifiable, measurable qualities.... Let me give a few examples:

Example 1: Stability

1. What are the criteria for stability?
2. When is it achieved?
3. How long after we achieved stability can we claim that we are really stable?
4. When is Iraq unstable?
5. How do we measure this?

Example 2: Democracy

1. What are the criteria for achieving democracy?
2. When can Iraq be considered democratic?
3. How long after democracy has been achieved can we consider Iraq to be really a democracy?
4. Should Iraq backslide have we failed?
5. How do we measure this?

Example 3: Safety

1. What are the criteria for being "safe"?
2. What techniques can we use to verify this?
3. What happens when the measurements either confirm or deny the claim?
4. What do we do if we are less safe?
5. What do we do if we are more safe?

It's all fine and good that we can argue about whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified. What I'd like to know is: the goals, how we achieve them and, if the standards we hold to achieve them are not met, what do we do then? Should the policy change? Should the policy remain the same? Why?

It doesn't matter to me if you support in the war or not in this context. What I'd like to understand is: how we can know we've achieved the goals we've set out to achieve. And, more importantly, do we have verifiable, measurable standards? What are the time intervals we're looking at for each and every goal mentioned.

What do you believe the criteria for success in Iraq are (or should be)? I am in the middle of reading an interesting CSIS report on this very subject (it's a PDF). The five criteria they are using to measure progress, or "level of success" are security, governance and participation, economic opportunity, availability of basic services, and social well-being (access to health care and education). I think those are reasonable guidelines. The opinions and perspectives of the Iraqis themselves are the measure of success in those areas. If most people are relatively safe and content, that would be a success. Obviously, there's a way to go.

What do you believe the criteria for failure in Iraq are (or should be)? Civil war would be the worst, of course, but continued banditry, government corruption, limited religious freedom, limited protection of the rights of women and minorities, ect.

Why? I don't necessarily see the correlation. Democratic elections can be held with US security forces in place, although getting Iraqi security in place as quickly as possible is still the goal.

Democracy in America has developed over a period of centuries, because the people who settled this country wanted to be free of Kings, dictators, economic conditions, or whatever. We came together as a melting pot of people who, for the most part, migrated from other countries and other forms of government.

Now, we are engaged in a great war, attempting to instill democracy in a foreign culture in a few months, because our President and his party believe that God wants them to do this. We are losing American soldiers and civilian contractors alike because he wants to give them Democracy as part of "God's gift to the people of the world." We are fighting people who believe not in God, but in Allah. We are struggling to change the form of government of people who still resent Christian Crusaders who arrived on horseback, wearing armor, and fought with swords. At the same time, the Patriot Act dictates that the libraries and bookstores must keep a record for the government of what we, as American Citizens, are reading! Osama Bin Laden is no longer a priority of this administration. "Major Hostilities"in Iraq were declared to be at an end months ago. The President goes to crowds of faithful Republicans, speaks of his failures, and is rewarded with chants of "Four more years!"

Somehow, this administration has "led" Congress to support them in a war based on bad intelligence, false premises, and a constant view through the Rose Colored Glasses of a Commander-In-Chief who has no peripheral vision, and no ability to admit doubt or a mistake. When Saddam Hussein was captured, Bush should have declared victory and got out. Our continued presence is not building a democracy, it is an occupation by an invading army. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will be viewed as such. When we leave Iraq, the rebel groups will claim that they drove out the infidels, and there will be a call for us to also leave Saudi Arabia, and any other nation in the region. If we leave, will we still be able to purchase the crude oil that fuels our economy?

I personally have not seen any plan for success put forth by the Bush administration, and the pundits and talking heads on the telly seem to agree that we have to "stay the course now that we're there." I tried to say that I don't see any current scenario for success. We needed to have the world work with us. We needed to be certain of what we were doing. Once we invaded, we had already failed.

In the history of the world, democracy is really a rare form of government. There has been a long pattern of kings, dictators, and corporate managers who expect you to do as you're told. In our country, voters are allowed to periodically go to the polls and give our government a job performance review. Frankly, it's time to fire this President, and a large portion of Congress that has rolled over and let him run this country with no sense at all of what an average American has to deal with.

Well thanks for the Curmudgeon cliffsnotes on Iraq..

Much is off topic but I will ask you this...the US had invaded Iraq before, the US was essentially already an occupying force in Iraq with sanctions, strict air space control , oil for food and not to mention all that enforcement of Western imposed borders on Iraq too. Was success to you ever an option?
I often wonder..Americans were not ignorant of their country's history and dealing with Iraq and specifically Hussein..what did they really think was going to happen...what outcome were they hoping for? Was success ever the goal..how is containment ever a solution? And for how long can you contain your mistakes?

Iraq was not a sovereign nation..it hadn't been in well over 12 yrs and we have already gone through 3 presidents and the situation remains the same..we fail Iraq every time.

Thought this http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/mep/BP0904.pdf might be of interest . . .
It is a report from the Royal Institute of Internaional Affairs about the prospects for success in the rebuilding of Iraq. . .

Success in Iraq is nothing other than establishing a stable government that they can maintain without, for lack of a better term, any babysitting. After all, we went in there, undoubtedly tore the place up, time, effort, money, and most importantly, lives to get Saddam out of power. There's almost no way Hussein is going to regain power. So why not do our best to ensure that no other dictators get into power?

Failure is anything short of success as far as I see it. There is no middle ground. It's hit or miss, and let's hope it doesn't turn out to be the latter of the two.