Comments on: They said, “Let us win.”

By: Stephen M (Ethesis)

Stephen M (Ethesis) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:42:12 +0000

djinnn, so, your conclusion is that the troop surge is unrelated to the Central Government’s actions. May be.

I’m not calling it a victory either.

Though Al Sadr did leave for Iran after things got hot for him following his murder of another Shia cleric, and as far as can be determined, is still in Iran.

On the main point of the essay They’re not experts at deciding when a war should be continued or not. They’re not experts at deciding when a war should be started or not. the author makes a good point.

Part of good troops is a desire to fight to win, so that once they are committed to a battle by their commanders, they will strive. That actually gets in the way of being able to make a good judgment on whether or not they should be fighting.

Which leads to bad arguments, as noted.

As a final note, to djinnn, my thought is that a number of groups have finally realized they can’t win militarily and that all they were accomplishing was getting killed (while killing others, but by no means killing enough of their enemies to justify the cost). American losses have been less than the incidental deaths in New York or Chicago.

Except for the hideous moral and financial cost. I do consider, personally, the invasion of Iraq to be a tipping point that made the current financial crisis what it is, and that very well may cause even worse for the future. I hope not, but it appears to be happening.

By: djinnn

djinnn — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:24:45 +0000

Dear Mr. Stephen M (Ethesis) Muqta Al Sadr is gunning for the history books. He also is an Iraqi nationalist who never left (for Iran) during the bad Hussein days that killed his father. which can’t be said of the current Iraqi prime minister. I was thrilled when I heard that he stood down the Mahdi army, (fewer American deaths, fewer Iraqi deaths) but please please please don’t confuse that with something that we did. Which was what? Show up after significant areas of Bagdad had already been ethnically cleansed (i.e. Sunnis panically rushing to Sunni enclaves, Shi’a's the same), and declare victory? C’mon.

By: djinnn

djinnn — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:16:43 +0000

Please forgive the rather inexcusable typos in my last post.

That being said, I’d just like to answer Ed42, who conflates Iraq with Afghanistan. They are different wars. They are a long away from each other. They are being fought against different people. It is quite possible to be for our efforts in Afghanistan and vehemently against whatever it is that we’re doing in Iraq. Me, case in point. Further, one of the unforgivable side-effects of the “surge” was that we moved troops from where they actually made a difference (Afghanistan) to where they were nothing other than a hemisphere-away political theater.

Afghanistan YES, Iraq No No No No No

By: Mark N.

Mark N. — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:55:29 +0000

The determination as to whether or not the death of a soldier in a war is “in vain” or not has nothing to do with a resulting victory or defeat. It’s entirely possible that a nation who goes to war purely as a defensive move could be overrun by the nation launching the offensive, and none of the lives lost on the defensive end will have been “in vain”. The whole determination for whether or not any given death is “in vain” is determined by the justice (or lack thereof) of the cause for the fighting.

Were we really justified in pre-emptively attacking Iraq? If not, then (sorry to say) all of the lives lost on our side heretofore have been “in vain”. Whether we achive what some would call “victory” or not has nothing to do with it and won’t change that. Victory doesn’t serve as justification for anything.

Victory is nice for the victors in that it allows them to write the history books and assume Winston Smith’s place in society. But it doesn’t mean they were necessarily right.

By: Sam B.

Sam B. — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:00:54 +0000

ed42,
While the war is costly, unpopular, unnecessary, and altogether bad, spare us the tax-protestor/libertarian “taxes = gun to my head.” Besides being a bad argument, it isn’t even applicable: the government has funded the war through borrowing, not tax increases (and, in fact, has drastically and irresponsibly lowered taxes). That would seem to be the ideal way to fund a war for those who oppose taxation, no?

By: Stephen M (Ethesis)

Stephen M (Ethesis) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:04:44 +0000

djinn, good question of whether the surge was the reason the central government decided to push its own troops into combat or not, though those successes and other things have made a difference.

Whether or not the surge works doesn’t change the initial issues, though it does affect what we do now that we are in the mess.

By: djinn

djinn — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:44:02 +0000

Perhaps someone (who, me?) should mention that the only reason that it appears that the surge is “winning” (that doesn’t quite work in English, but you get the drift) is that Muqta al Sadr stood down the Madhi Army right about the same time the “surge” started up. That is, the guys in Iraq who were firing at us, they stopped firing at us because their boss asked them to. Plus the Iraquis all on their own got tired of the Saudis (al quaeda in Iraq) indiscriminately blowing up other Iraquis and took things into their own hands. With or rather myopic view, we may think the surge had something to do with it, but it didn’t.

By: CatherineWO

CatherineWO — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:26:05 +0000

Thank you, Ziff, for your very wise words. Like Eve, I am reminded of the very informative article in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly. I am not anti-military, but it is mainly because of McCain’s military background and ideology that I will NOT be voting for him. The phrase “win the war” (at least in the case of this war) is an oxymoron.

By: ed42

ed42 — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:05:23 +0000

By a raise of hands who thinks that we should continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Are you willing to back up your beliefs with action? Sell all you have, buy a gun and head over there.

Oh, you meant the royal we. You want agents of the government to hold a gun to my head and extract resources to pay for these mercenaries?

That’s why it unwise for military or civilians to decide when to start a war – because they will do it with other people’s lives and money.

Let’s move congress (and their families) to Iraq (outside the green zone) and see how fast this immoral war comes to an end.

By: Eve

Eve — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:12:47 +0000

Very interesting observations, Ziff. The question of whether a war is winnable and under what circumstances reminds me of this recent article about McCain's Vietnam experiences and his views of Vietnam and Iraq.