Why are Republicans so concerned about the appearance of defeat in Iraq?

[wuushew]

This country which is now very old has waged dozens(if not hundreds)of armed conflicts in its history. Some have been victorious, others defeats and the remainder inconclusive.

When watching Cspan the current popular talking point is how Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia, etc. have emboldened and encouraged American foes globally. How does one measure the effect of foreign policy on enemy morale? Is John McCain or Mitch McConnell psychic?

If a defeat emboldens an enemy does a victory weaken it? Militarily the first Gulf War was certainly a lop sided victory if measured in the conventional sense. What about the numerous positive foreign policy achievements of the Clinton administration? We still had conflict did we not?

Does the so called level of enemy emboldenment depend on the chronological occurrence of victory/defeats or is it based on the degree foreign policy importance? What about the "war" on drugs? Any sane person would tell you it is not winnable, but according to Republican logic the United States can never appear to lose anything. This view of course legitamizes perpetual war.

Why would any rational debate pit real figures for dead, wounded and war cost vs. the hypothetical and unprovable effects on the psyche on Amerikan adversaries? Why would one value this speculative motivational factor vs. more observable factors such as regional poverty, economic development or prevalent political views?


The answer of course is that most people are too prideful to admit defeat. Fearmongering about speculative future threats creates a false sense of heroism. A clever line of lying and trickery to be sure, but one which needs the knife of reason to dissect it. I just wish someone would make it in the halls of Congress.

[hobbit709]

1. More spin

Do you think they would admit the real reasons for going and staying. It's ALL about the money, they could care less about the wasted lives and reputation of our country.

[EFerrari]

13. I agree 100%. n/t

[gravity]

2. To cover up the fact that they are completely incompetent

[Sherman A1]

8. Well Said!

:toast:

[EstimatedProphet]

3. Because for the rank and file, it's the same as a college football game

Their base sees it the same way, and they don't want to support a losing team.

[Johonny]

6. I agree

One thing that seems to be universal to Republicans is a very basic black and white world view. You either win or lose a war.

[NNN0LHI]

4. Two words. War Crimes. What do you think Bush has been doing with all the bodies in Iraq?

Hiding them. That is what Bush and his minions have been doing. Once we leave someone will be looking into this. Remember the Nuremberg Trials?

Don

[JohnnyRingo]

5. Personally, I think they know the "war" is already lost

Buxh is trying to prolong the drawdown in a legacy saving attempt to hand it off to the next administration.

If he's forced to withdraw before retirement, this will go into the history books as "Buxh's War" from beginning to end.
If he can wait it out for the next President, he can try to claim that "We were winning when I was in charge" and hope history is more kind to him.

Like when Nixon "lost" LBJ's war in Vietnam.

[FormerDem06]

7. My dad is concerned about this, and he's an Army disabled Dem

It works this way. We pull out of Iraq, we have shown signs of weakness in the eyes of most of the MILITANT Islamic world, as well as some in the non-militant world. I have two family members in Iraq, and they say that the Iraqis already view us as weak for our "rules of engagement". They want the militants shot dead in the streets, they don't care about intent, etc. they just want the threat gone.

He says we should pull out, but that we should clear out Germany and Japan temporarily to boost troop count, and put one last hurtin on the insurgents that they'll never forget. He's not talking about native Sunni and Shia fighters (he doesn't think we can ever fix that, since the Sunni's committed atrocities on the Shias for 20 plus years and now it's payback time) he's talking about the idiots who came in from other countries to blow stuff up and agitate the local situation.

We should take six months, hunt them down one by one and eliminate that threat as much as possible and then leave. As a military strategy it might be hard to implement, but our beef was never with the guys from Iraq who are trying for self determiniation or self government now, it's with Sadaam and then the guys from Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia who are there to agitate.

As a military man, I found his strategy interesting to say the least.

The message is: "We're leaving but we sure as heck aren't weak".

[wuushew]

9. I appreciate your views, but isn't that rationale a war on happiness?

In order to make the enemy(legitimate terrorists, bombers, etc) unhappy we must poor vast amounts of blood and treasure into the meat grinder?

$1,000,000,000 + 3,3000+ dead >= X$ + X enemy dead?

If every frown counter acts a smile I don't think we are winning the equation. Every dead solider creates an American frown, while an act of martyrdom may not necessarily do so on the other side.

:) = :(?

[FormerDem06]

10. I see your point

War pretty much sucks and there is no rationale that can justify it.

This is one of the most complicated situations in World events since possibly the 1940s. The Cold War was contrived for Control (with some real threats sprinkled in), but this is way beyond that and sitting firmly on an irrational level.

I don't think there is a good way to fight a militant religious cause when people are so willing to die for something based on a religious belief. I saw a brief interview while I was in Canada a few weeks ago with a pretty militant Islamic leader from Vancouver. They asked him what would it take to pacify this movement.

The gist was that we'd have to pull out of the middle east and all Islamic lands completely (which is doable). But he also said we need to turn from our "evil ways" and stop corrupting their youth as we do it. I don't see anyone in the Western World giving up all of the things that Militant Islamic folks consider evil, so we are going to strike out on that one every time.

[kineneb]

11. nice idea, but won't work in ME

(I say this from having lived there, and having relatives that still live there.)

Nothing we can do in Iraq will change the situation. As long as there is sectarian violence, we are mere interlopers in what is a low-grade civil war. The outsiders are relatively few, compared to the locals who are now killing each other and the US soldiers. By removing Saddam, we removed the force that kept the separate political/religious factions apart.

Contemporary military theory falls apart when dealing with peoples with long memories who will fight over a difference that is a thousand years old. The US government has failed once again to learn the lessons of deep history.

[Ganja Ninja]

12. The GOP suffers from an inferiority complex.

Even when they were in the majority it still showed. Like a small man trying to act tough they overplayed their hand. Their constant military posturing has been something they've cultivated since the 50's. For them to go to war by choice without a genuine reason and then to have it blow up in their face the way it has is devastating.

[Jacobin]

14. well, it was an ill-conceived adventure to begin with

its doomed to failure and was from the start

[underpants]

15. Also-the carte blanche the military has had to "not make that mistake again" is over

that mistake was Vietnam. We have been told, promise, shouted down about that they have learned they know better now they are completely professional and....yaddayaddayadda

Well now we know different. They weren't doing a damned thing or at least when the stepped on the gas it turned out they had spent all their money (OUR MONEY) on a kick ass stereo system.

"Fiasco" spells this out rather clearly. Patreaus, Clark, and Abizaid are not the typical representatives of the US Military officer corp. They moved up through actually becoming studied on matters actually learning and the rest of them were reading Bass Monthly and playing grabass.

Sorry but it needs to be said.

[Bluedogvoter]

16. I don't see us leaving as a defeat.

Saddam has been ousted and an elected government is in power. We have spent many years training their forces to take over. Its time to let them stand on their own.

[radfringe]

17. Republican President + Republican Congress =

Republican war

if it's viewed as a defeat - it would hard to defend during 2008 (S)elections - which also why they are trying to spin it now as the DEMMIKRATS LOST US THE WAR

[ComerPerro]

18. its all BS to fuel talking points about Dems hating America and the troops

[wuushew]

19. But take just the crux of the idea for a moment

it doesn't even have to involve war.

Basically the Republican's current line of thought is "My actions are determined by what another person thinks, not what is actually happening".


I just want this exposed as the mental stupidity that it is.

[guitar man]

20. since they love spin so much

let's just spin it this way. Setting aside the fact we should have never gone there in the first place:

We invaded
Defeated the Iraqi military
Unseated and captured Saddam, who was ultimately executed
Had the purple-finger election
Left them with a new Government

Sounds like we "won" to me, what they do with it all is up to them now

(playing devil's advocate here)

[LSK]

21. what I cant comprehend is how someone could be so simpleminded

to believe all their BS.

[mmonk]

22. Iraq is not their end game, it is the door opening.