[GWB00]

Maybe we are not winning, but I don't hear anybody talking about victory as an objective.

[af_vet_rr]

Maybe we are not winning, but I don't hear anybody talking about victory as an objective.

Nobody wants to come up with an end-game and/or victory conditions, because they are very long-term conditions IMO, and politicians generally don't like to talk about things beyond their administrations. The conditions aren't exactly neat and tidy either.

If Iraq is stable, friendly, and vaguely democratic/republic 10 or 20 years from now, we'll have won, and it would have been worth it. If Iraq resembles Afghanistan from the 1990s, 10 or 20 years from now, then we've lost.

I like what I'm hearing from Gates. He is not spreading the B.S. around too thick, I like his stance on Taiwan, and I like his stance on not leaving Iraq if it's not stable.

[varon]

Maybe we are not winning, but I don't hear anybody talking about victory as an objective.

Well then, what is the objective? What is the latest spin from the WH as to why we are there at all?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Maybe we are not winning, but I don't hear anybody talking about victory as an objective.

The victory-objective was to oust the Hussein government. This was achieved in 2003, hence, we won "The Iraq War".

Our military presence there now has a bunch of (not-really-warfare) objectives involving safeguarding the new government. Since it's not "the Iraq War" anymore, "victory/defeat" per se don't enter into it. So it's normal that it doesn't look like we have victory as an objective.

[FreedomPoster]

Now THAT says it, about the Dem's approach on this.