Vote: have we lost in Iraq?

[Fabius Maximus]

As of today, is the outcome inevitable? If so, what outcome? Please explain why you believe this is so.

I have written 20 articles on the Iraq War, going back to Summer 2003. Initially pessimistic, like Lind and Prof. van Creveld, moving to gloomy, then certain that we've lost. The only remaining questions are when we'll give up, and how much we will have lost in blood, money, and influence.

My articles are at DNI. Here is the latest, with links to the others at the end:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_iraq_sitrep_11-2006.htm

What are your views?

[bspeer]

"Contributed to Defense and the National Interest by Fabius Maximus, an amateur military historian."

Well, I skimmed your article.....

...your analysis is vastly flawed and filled with inaccuracies...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting off on SWC with your first post being a personal attack is not a good thing.

Since you clearly disagree with FM's linked material, then the appropriate reply is to post a substantive statement addressing the perceived weaknesses of the other's material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Fabius Maximus]

my forecasts -- however gloomy -- have proven fairly accurate. Certainly more accurate than those of the War's proponents. Perhaps that is more important than the external details you mention.

Also, my comments are not unique or distinctive. The A-team writers on DNI, the real experts, seem to share my views: Lind, van Creveld, etc.

So, bspeer, why not share your views. Correct our facts, give us your analysis and forecasts!

[jcustis]

bspeer,

(moderator hat on) If you have a deeper axe against what Fabius has written and linked to, please take it to PMs. Otherwise, feel free to expand on your thoughts by outlining any believed inaccuracies, so others can reflect as well.

[Ray Levesque]

Although I did vote, the question brings up the issue of how do we define success in Iraq? What is a win or what is a loss? Are we talking about a military win or a political win?

Personnally I believe that wars are fought to achieve political goals (shades of Clausewitz). Therefore any win in Iraq must be based on the political goal, which is a liberal democracy. The military is part of the solution and the military strategy should help lead to the political goal.

Sooooo....the point is.....in any discussion about whether we're winning or not we each may have our own definition of what the "win" is.

Just a random thought..

Ray

[Fabius Maximus]

Great point. Here is an excerpt from Part 2 of my Sitrep on Iraq (posting later this week):

"Victory will be the day when the Iraqis solve their political problems and are up and running with respect to their own government, and when they're able to provide for their own security."
Vice President Cheney interview in Time Magazine, October 30,2006

Victory would mean producing in Iraq "a government that can defend, govern and sustain itself."
President Bush, the day after the election

I suspect President Bush means or intends for the Iraq gov't to be allied with us. Would a gov't headed by bin Laden meet his vicotry criteria?

These statements are far more modest than our two previous goal statements.

First there was, according to Bob Woodward, a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive signed August 29, 2002 entitled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy.”

Second there was the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” announced by President Bush on November 30, 2005.

[Ray Levesque]

Yeah, my problem with the 2006 comments are that they represent a political change to the definition of victory. As you noted, they are "more modest." If you move the goal posts far enough you can claim Vietnam was a victory for the U.S.

Not that moving the goal posts isn't common -- after all, we tend to forget that the reason we went to war against Germany in WWII was because of their invasion of Poland (oh, and the Russians invaded, too). Yet, in the end, Poland was still an occupied state -- occupied by one of the original invaders.

Ray

[Tom Odom]

I would say that it is not only a question of defining victory. It is inherently at this stage also a question of defining defeat. Both of those issues were either poorly defined (victory) or not addressed at all (defeat). In a regional context and a local context, they play against us, heavily. The opposition--again another one of those ill-defined concepts that has as we all know evolved over the past several years--does not have to define victory. They simply have to avoid losing, that being defined as their destruction and/or the mobilization of what constitutes an "Iraqi society" at this stage--yet another ill-defined concept to say the least.

And at the risk of saying I have said this before, the truly operative defintions are those set by the "Iraqi" people. If they first redefine themselves along ethnic and sectarian lines then they are very much altering the right and left limits of what we discuss as victory or defeat. And that paradigm also affects how they define their own victory. When it was a case of insurgency, then as I said above victory for the insurgents was a case of the insurgents not losing. Victory for the remainder of Iraqis was determinable by how they aligned themselves in that fight. For the majority as is the case in most insurgencies victory was simple survival in the hopes of betterment for their lives. In the situation now with ethnic and sectarian fault lines grating, victory and defeat for the "Iraqi" people is no longer truly operative. Victory and defeat are according to group and that is a zero sum game--the classic dillema in such conflicts--because any win means that somebody lost and lost big. In that case they can no longer hope to win by avoiding defeat; they have to win in absolute terms, knowing the alternative is absolute defeat.

best

Tom

[bspeer]

I am sorry if my comments were viewed as a personl attack. My point is and always will be that posting in anonymity is not the way legitimate historians approach issues, especialyl if they expect serious discussion of their points.

Once again, I apologize.

bs

[ssfeldjager]

...after all, we tend to forget that the reason we went to war against Germany in WWII was because of their invasion of Poland (oh, and the Russians invaded, too). Yet, in the end, Poland was still an occupied state -- occupied by one of the original invaders. Ray

"We went to war"? Who is the "we" in this context? The US? The UK? France? Remember, the US didn't have a war with Germany until after 7 Dec 1941, when Germany declared war against the US; the US didn't declare against Germany first. It was reciprocal.

[Culpeper]

"We went to war"? Who is the "we" in this context? The US? The UK? France? Remember, the US didn't have a war with Germany until after 7 Dec 1941, when Germany declared war against the US; the US didn't declare against Germany first. It was reciprocal.

Welcome to the forum.

I took it meaning "we" as in "World" War. It doesn't change the context. Poland still ended up behind the Iron Curtain, the world considered WWII a victory, we lost an ally in that war and gained an enemy throughout the Cold War. The "we", is the United States, Britain, and France, et al. I understood the premise of the post without going down the road heading towards FDRs "Europe First", Churchill's unlikely chill up his back on 7-Dec-41, and the look on de Gaulle's face knowing he would have to take a back seat because the Americans were now totally involved. The end to the mean was a victory for the allies. Including the USSR. The so-called mindset of today would consider the outcome of Europe after WWII a major screw up. But that doesn't make it so. The world generally looks upon the end of WWII as a victory. That would also include Germany, Italy , and Japan that was rebuilt. They certainly are no longer our enemies. The only people grumbling about it might be certain Middle Eastern countries/cultures that loved Hitler and hated Churchill. Which bring us to such dealings with fascist Baathists and today's newest battles following Word War II's footsteps. Historically speaking, not much as changed since the first world war. Except the people, places, and things. The first and second world wars were victories, Korea a stalemate still going on today, Vietnam may have been a defeat until it too dies on the vine, and so on but they can all be tied together one way or the other. The victorious war to end all wars ended up creating more wars. "We" win some and "we" lose some but there is always the next one.

[RTK]

As of today, is the outcome inevitable? If so, what outcome? Please explain why you believe this is so.

I have written 20 articles on the Iraq War, going back to Summer 2003. Initially pessimistic, like Lind and Prof. van Creveld, moving to gloomy, then certain that we've lost. The only remaining questions are when we'll give up, and how much we will have lost in blood, money, and influence.

My articles are at DNI. Here is the latest, with links to the others at the end:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_iraq_sitrep_11-2006.htm

What are your views?

Upon further review of your posts, do you use SWJ to bolster readership on another site? If so, doesn't that violate some of the premise of SWJ? Additionally, why not fill out a little bio information to give your positioning some credibility and relevance?

If you've written 20 articles in three years, that's about one every two months. Do you travel to and from Iraq regularly and embed with units in theater? Where do you get your info? Or are you a blogger who has no operational context to place things in?

These are honest questions, since your history of starting posts in the last 6 months seems to suggest an intentional bias not to discuss and suggest, but to take the perverbial baseball bat to the beehive for personal gain.

What's the deal?

[Uboat509]

Upon further review of your posts, do you use SWJ to bolster readership on another site? If so, doesn't that violate some of the premise of SWJ? Additionally, why not fill out a little bio information to give your positioning some credibility and relevance?

If you've written 20 articles in three years, that's about one every two months. Do you travel to and from Iraq regularly and embed with units in theater? Where do you get your info? Or are you a blogger who has no operational context to place things in?

These are honest questions, since your history of starting posts in the last 6 months seems to suggest an intentional bias not to discuss and suggest, but to take the proverbial baseball bat to the beehive for personal gain.

What's the deal?

+1

Many of your posts are dripping with a combination of sarcasm, condescension and arrogance. There is a great deal of knowledge and experience on this board and these guys don't respond well to anyone who talks down to them. It is one thing to have a differing opinion but quite another to state that "The number of votes for "brilliant, useful" suggests that America is doomed. I recommend that we all get dual citizenship with some refuge nation, perhaps an isolated communist State up in the hills. Like Albania, or Berkeley." That's not the way to get your point across. It is however a good way to turn people off.

SFC W