Posted on 04/26/2008 6:25:52 AM PDT by moderatewolverine
The president's nomination of generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno to take command of U.S. Central Command and Multinational Force-Iraq, respectively, was obviously the right decision. By experience and temperament and demonstrated success, both men are perfectly suited to these jobs. Given the political climate in Washington, however, their nominations are likely to be attacked with the same tired arguments war critics used to try to drown out reports of progress in Iraq during the recent Petraeus-Crocker hearings. So before the shouting begins again, let us consider in detail one of the most important of these arguments: that no one has offered any clear definition of success in Iraq.
Virtually everyone who wants to win this war agrees: Success will have been achieved when Iraq is a stable, representative state that controls its own territory, is oriented toward the West, and is an ally in the struggle against militant Islamism, whether Sunni or Shia. This has been said over and over. Why won't war critics hear it? Is it because they reject the notion that such success is achievable and therefore see the definition as dishonest or delusional? Is it because George Bush has used versions of it and thus discredited it in the eyes of those who hate him? Or is it because it does not offer easily verifiable benchmarks to tell us whether or not we are succeeding? There could be other reasons--perhaps critics fear that even thinking about success or failure in Iraq will weaken their demand for an immediate "end to the war." Whatever the explanation for this tiresome deafness, here is one more attempt to flesh out what success in Iraq means and how we can evaluate progress toward it.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweeklystandard.com ...
bump for later
Excellent article but I think we need to be careful about what we expect them to do. Iraq's government should be doing what is in the interest of Iraq. I'd like to think they would an ally akin to Turkey but, like every country, they need to do what is right for themselves.
bttt
Excellent point! A good example is when the U.S. set a Benchmark that required "top down" political development. The Iraqi people ended up doing it from the "bottom up".
We will know we’ve “Won” when Muzzies around the world denounce the jihad and start putting their own terrorists to the sword. Until then its still open season on all the rest of us infidels. Don’t look for this to happen anytime soon.
And is being achieved.
These things don't happen overnight, but there is definitely forward progress continually being made on all of these objectives.
Why don’t we demand the same benchmarks and proof of success in the War on Poverty, the education system, and myriad other socialists programs that are expensive quagmires?
Ain’t nothing gonna matter if either of the two democrat idiots get elected
Because to these people,Bush is the enemey and if we have to lose the war for them to beat Bush, that's OK with them.
ping
At this moment, democracy in Iraq is a pipe dream.
“At this moment, democracy in Iraq is a pipe dream.”
No, I agree with the article. Which part of the following do you disagree with:
[we should note that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis continue to manifest their desire for representative government, as evidenced by the 8 million who voted in the last elections, the 90 percent of Sunni Arab Iraqis who tell pollsters they will vote in the upcoming provincial elections, and the sense on the streets that anyone who tries to eliminate representative government will do so at his peril. ]
bump
Simple.
For the Republicans success in Iraq is if we win.
For the democrats success in Iraq is if we lose.
Except that by any reasonable definitions, we're already winning, and mostly have been.
But the more things improve in Iraq, the more Dems say it's all just a big mess, Bush's war, we've lost, no victory possible, withdraw immediately, etc., etc.
For them, the math is pretty simple: victory means more Republicans elected to office, defeat means more Dems. Solution: define "victory" up, define "defeat" down.
And with the media's eager cooperation, that's Dems playing their game their way...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.