How We'll Know When We've Won - A definition of success in Iraq.

Weekly Standard ^ | 05/05/2008 | Frederick W. Kagan

[neverdem]

The incessent whining and nagging began ONE YEAR after the initial invasion.

IIRC, David Horowitz, former lefty, calls his former comrades at only three months after liberation as the time that they starting undermining our effort in Iraq. The Not In Our Name crew didn't want to invade Afghanistan.

[Uncle Ivan]

Can we question their patriotism yet?

[FreedomPoster]

Good list. Also, Rumsfeld's press conference on the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom contained this:

Our goal is to defend the American people, and to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and to liberate the Iraqi people. Coalition military operations are focused on achieving several specific objectives: to end the regime of Saddam Hussein by striking with force on a scope and scale that makes clear to Iraqis that he and his regime are finished. Next, to identify, isolate and eventually eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, production capabilities, and distribution networks. Third, to search for, capture, drive out terrorists who have found safe harbor in Iraq. Fourth, to collect such intelligence as we can find related to terrorist networks in Iraq and beyond. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as we can find related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction activity. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian relief, food and medicine to the displaced and to the many needy Iraqi citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people, and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect by the Iraqi regime. And last, to help the Iraqi people create the conditions for a rapid transition to a representative self-government that is not a threat to its neighbors and is committed to ensuring the territorial integrity of that country.

Those eight objectives are nice analyzed here: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Military Objectives Met

[FreedomPoster]

nicely analyzed

[Just A Nobody]

Thanks for posting the two links prooving the information WAS and contiues to be out there for all who seek it.

One tiny error on the DoD site: Friday, March 21, 2002 - 1:36 p.m. EST

[Just A Nobody]

only three months after liberation

Wow...knowing the "peace" in our country did not last long, but seeing the proof in print is a powerful tool!

I'll be off searching for those links...unless you happen to have them handy.

[Just A Nobody]

Some interesting articles.

[FreedomPoster]

You’re absolutely right on the date, and that’s not a DoD site, that’s GlobalSecurity.org

[Just A Nobody]

Dang! It was the first of the links I clicked. When I posted to you all I could see in my head was - DoD News Briefing. Sorry for the error.

[neverdem]

I'll be off searching for those links...unless you happen to have them handy.

IIRC, I heard David Horowitz say something about the left undermining our effort within three months after deposing Saddam's regime during the last 3 - 4 days on the radio, WABC-AM 770 in NYC. Maybe searching "David Horowitz" with quotation marks would help? Maybe it was a taped recording?

[Just A Nobody]

So far the closest thing I've found is this, which speaks volumes:

Friday, June 18, 2004:
Prior to the inception of hostilities in Iraq in March 2003, the Democratic Party with honorable exceptions like Senator Lieberman and Minority Leader Gephardt was a party of appeasers, demanding more time and more offerings to the Baghdad butcher to avoid a military conflict.

From the day Baghdad was liberated in April 2003 and continuously through the present, the Democratic Party and its willing press have constituted a chorus of saboteurs, attacking the credibility, integrity and decency of the commander in chief, exaggerating, sensationalizing and magnifying every American setback or fault ... effectively tying the hands of American forces in the field and encouraging the enemy’s resistance.

The hard left actually celebrates this resistance. The soft and cowardly left merely encourages it while pretending not to notice what is doing.

Somewhere on one of my 4 computers, I have a file containing articles in which John al-Murthawi and Ted Kennedy, IIRC, first described Iraq as a quagmire. Again, IIRC those dates were around March 24, 2003. Yep, 5 days after military operations began. Scum...all!

[Tolik]

Frederick W. Kagan:

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

<... Long list of facts to support his opinion and to be ignored by the anti-war-mongers...>

...These facts will surely not put to rest the debate over definitions and measures of success in Iraq. Certainly, the American people have a right to insist that our government operate with a clear vision of success and that it develop a clear plan for evaluating whether we are moving in the right direction, even if no tidy numerical metrics can meaningfully size up so complex a human endeavor. As shown here, supporters of the current strategy do indeed have a clear definition of success, and those working to implement it are already evaluating American progress against that definition every day. It is on the basis of their evaluation that we say the surge is working.

The question Americans should ask themselves next is: Have the opponents of this strategy offered a clear definition of their own goals, along with reasonable criteria for evaluating progress toward them? Or are they simply projecting onto those who have a clear vision with which they disagree their own vagueness and confusion?

Here is a gauntlet thrown down: Let those who claim that the current strategy has failed and must be replaced, lay out their own strategy, along with their definition of success, criteria for evaluating success, and the evidentiary basis for their evaluations. Then, perhaps, we can have a real national debate on this most important issue.

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[Tolik]

I hope your argument is not with Fred Kagan, because the phrase you are quoting is not his opinion, but what the opponents of the war are saying, it is their argument he lists here and then proceeds to deconstruct in this article, very methodically and thorough.

[okie01]

The simple explanation:
1. When Iraq can GOVERN itself
2. When Iraq can SUSTAIN itself
3. When Iraq can DEFEND itself
Our Troops will come home with the honor they deserve!

Errrr...if you'd read the article, you'd realize that's what Kagan was arguing.

Pssssst! He's on your side.

[okie01]

yeah, okay, BUT [Dean says] McCain’s still totally wrong - that ANY continued U.S. presence there in whatever capacity will mean continued attacks and more lost lives are inevitable.

Well, actually, Dean's probably right about that. Until we win, of course.

But who cares?

[llandres]

“Well, actually, Dean’s probably right about that. Until we win, of course.”

You’re right, who cares, except that he’s constantly in the media ragging on JSM about this. See, Dean’s saying we’ll NEVER win because he says there’ll never be an end to violence against us as long as we have any kind of presence there, even a peaceful one.

[tpanther]

When I overhear a liberal yapping at work about it, I ask, what’s the rush to another vietnam in proclaiming defeat?

Saddam had 12 YEARS of resolutions, and hypocrats yapped about rush to war...soooooooo?????? Explain your hypocrisy!

OR why the desire for a defeat? Since the war started in 2003, and is winding down...AND it would be another several decades to reach Vietnam casualty wise, what’s the rush to declare defeat...you screamed not to rush to war, but propose a rush to defeat?

Why do you want America to lose?

Why do you hate America and don’t want Iraqis to be free?

Liberals simply hate America, there IS no other explanation...first it was vietnam, and when it was clear that wasn’t going to happen with Bush, Brian Williams made a huge deal about it lasting longer than WW2.

I point out it’s still some 5 years short of vietnam though, and short also of the war for Independence.

I also keep in mind the war for semantics and use Liberation of Iraq...which is immediately unnerving for liberals...they sputter and spew idiocy right from the beginning, not that they don’t anyway...

Why aren’t Iraqis worth it, are you a bigot?

All of these are worthy questions...a few O’Reilly should have asked Shrill btw!

The simple answer is they’re INVESTED in defeat, simple as that, to be right these loons actually have underminned this president, our troops and our country from DAY ONE!

THANKFULLY they’ve failed, and people of questionable moral character that vote for hypocrats at this point NEED to be frequently challenged and reminded of this because they’re simply wrong-headed dangerous people with NO business AROUND government or access to voting for dangerous subversive immoral criminals!

[llandres]

“Liberals simply hate America, there IS no other explanation...first it was vietnam, and when it was clear that wasn’t going to happen with Bush, Brian Williams made a huge deal about it lasting longer than WW2.”

tpanther - WELL and eloquently said, you made SO many excellent points! Yes, I likewise remind my lib loon “friends” that we’ve NEVER been at war with Iraq and its people. It’s about liberation. Glad you brought up, the Independence thing - even though some might call it a stretch - these people ARE making efforts and progress to be a free, democratic country (though congress and the MSM will NEVER admit it, even when faced with black and white, first-hand facts from Petraeus/Crocker). Our own Independence struggle took 8 years of war and another 6 to draft a constitution! Would never happen today. AND if we had to fight WWII today, with this disgraceful congress and media, we’d all be speaking either Japanese or German.

[Skooz]

bump