|
If you can't win by killing people then why are the insurgents doing so well? They seem to be killing far more people then we are, most of whom are civilians. The point is moot anyway, as our intent has never been to kill people but to help them. We pride ourselves on the lengths we have gone to in avoiding civilian death and the efforts we have taken to try and improve peoples lives.
We never wanted to foster our style of democracy in Iraq, only a style of democracy. We openly accepted Islamist candidates and ministers for the Iraqi government since the war began, and never made a strong attempt to promote secular governance. We hardly made an attempt to promote federal governance, which would seem a necessary condition for stability in a country with demographics as fractured as Iraq.
Winning doesn't need to involve destroying Iraqi culture, unless you are referring to the culture of violence which has taken over the country. The idea that Arabs can't handle democracy is a racist myth, Iraqi's already showed themselves to be more then friendly to the idea. Don't forget that they have higher turnout rates then we do, and Americans don't face death in order to vote. Successfully establishing a basic democratic government is the one minor success the new Iraqi state has had.
What winning does involve is stabilizing Iraq. The question is whether or not the US can achieve this, or if it must be left up to the Iraqi people to fight for on their own.
|