Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
My posts don’t generally get too many comments, but if you’re perusing, I thought I’d take a survey on the question: What is success or victory in Iraq? (President Bush reiterated today that US troops would not leave until the task is accomplished) In the nearly 4 years since the war was launched, that definition has shifted a bit–at first it was to prevent Saddam’s Iraq from developing and using weapons of mass destruction, and then there was some goal of establishing democracy. I think for a while the talking points on success said that it would make America and the world a safer place. For a while, they were also talking about rooting out all the terrorists. I’m curious to hear what people’s perceived answer is to that question…
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts: |
i would say at this point, “success” in iraq would be leaving the country with a self-sustainable, independent democratic government. basically, our troops are gone and they’re not in civil-war.
I think I agree with win8x. I would add that the democracy behaves as a true democracy with concern for minority rights, operation under the rule of law rather than the rule of the masses, and that no private or party militias exist. I’m open to seeing the country split into three — Kurds, Shiites, Suniis — as long as those three states agree to peace between each other. I’ll also add that the country would be able to curb the development of militants and terrorists. Those are the thoughts off the top of my head.
Eddy, why is the clock on your blog set to Mountain Time?
I didn’t even notice that… (it’s fixed!)
I don’t think there is a definition of success in Iraq. What is success in America? is the same type of ambiguous question.
I don’t think a war can be successful, especially not a war that is so FUBAR. It’s just a matter of when we will get the heck out and leave the Iraqis on their own. It’s a lousy situation, but lousy situations tend to arise when you start an unjust war that no one can finish.
Eddy, why is the clock on your blog set to Mountain Time?
I’m with Samer.
Can’t quite figure out what win8x and Tyler are getting at. Repeating idealistic slogans won’t change things in Iraq.
Tom, I didn’t know I was “repeating idealistic slogans.” Could you show me what those slogans are? I could expand on the measures of success I described, if that is what you want. Second, I didn’t know I was trying to change things in Iraq — I was answering Eddy’s question.
Samer, I think you saw off the limb you’re sitting on. First you say that the definition of success is too ambiguous and then you say that any war cannot be successful and the Iraq War in particular cannot be a success. Clearly you have some kind of definition of what success is to be able to make your conclusion. What are those criteria you’re using to make your conclusion? Yes, success is an ambiguous term, but that doesn’t mean we cannot reach a definition for specific contexts. I would argue that wars have been successful, depending upon the criteria one uses for success. For example, the Revolutionary War was extremely successful — from the U.S. point of view — at establishing the newly-born U.S.’ independence from the U.K. The Allies in WWII were successful at thwarting and removing the Nazi regime. But WWII was a miserable failure as “The War to End All Wars.” The criteria of how we measure success in the current Iraq War is what Eddy is asking for, I believe.
I don’t believe at all that I am sawing off the limb I’m sitting on. I don’t believe wars can be successful, especially when I believe that there are always other options besides war. That may be a bit idealistic, but I don’t see a better option.
One assumption I was writing with was the measure of success from the point of view of the aggressor, ie, the one who starts the war. If you look at WWII from the Axis side, in the end they didn’t even last, let alone achieve their objectives. The revolutionary war, again from the point of view of the Brits, didn’t go well for them either. And even in the case of the US in Iraq, we won the military battle handily, but the aftermath has not gone as well as Mr. Bush purports.
Wars seem to be started with grand objectives that are not achieved. So even at the very basic level of achieving stated objectives, wars are not successful. When you compound it and consider lost life, property, and the opportunity cost of funding a war over anything else, then wars are really unsuccessful for the people who seem them as worth starting.
Samer, I respect your position, as it is more clear to me, but I do disagree with you. If by success you mean an absolute win-win situation for all parties involved, then you’re correct that no war will be successful. For that matter neither will any competitive game, sporting event, school, economy, etc. Sadly, that is the nature of a war. Enemies fight for superiority. I’m not saying I prefer war or even think it is a moral good, but I am not a pacifist, and so I do think we can come up with some criteria that shows how a war is successful. Even with success, there will be tragic losses for all sides. War is and should be, in my opinion, always the option of last resort, meaning that all other methods of solving a crisis or problem peaceably are first exhausted. War has a great cost. Indeed, it is perhaps the costliest human endeavor. It is fair to evaluate wars before and after hostilities and ask, “Was this worth it? Did the costs outweigh the benefits?” That is being responsible human beings. I still wonder what are the costs of WWII that we’re still paying for here in the U.S.? What happened to us as a nation when we dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets and how have we been changed? I said on my blog at the 60th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, “I wonder if any nation that participated in World War II came out of that conflict with its soul intact.”
I think we’re in agreement that success is a relative term, i.e., people will come with different definitions. I would say that WWII was a failure for the Axis, and for that I am extremely grateful. The logical inverse to an Axis failure would mean an Allied win. (Unless it was a Dr. Strangelove scenario where neither side wins and both kill themselves in the process, which was possible. So maybe a lose-lose situation was possible, but I’m not sure what a win-win situation would have looked like in WWII.) The Allies did succeed, and I will grant that it was a relative success. Millions died and many of those died unnecessarily and unjustly by the hands of the Allies. Still, I think the world is better off without the Axis in charge. That’s not to say the ends justify the means, but that a success does not have to be absolute in order to be a success. To make a crass analogy, a basketball team still wins the game whether they blow out their opponent by 40 points or the squeak out a 1-point win by hitting the last second shot.
I’d like you fill out this statement more: “Wars seem to be started with grand objectives that are not achieved. So even at the very basic level of achieving stated objectives, wars are not successful.” Again, I fear that you’re dealing with an all-or-nothing mentality. Can we extend that criteria to other areas? Are colleges not successes because they do not graduate every student who enrolls? Are automobile companies failures in delivering a useful product if all of their cars don’t work perfectly? I think success in war as in most areas of life is on a continuum and war is included.
I’ve been arguing a theoretical point here. I want to make it clear that I do not think that the Iraq War has been successful by most measures. As you stated, the initial military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime was successful, but the aftermath has been a failure by most definitions. In my first comment I offered what I think success would look like in Iraq, and I can say that sadly, few of those measures have been achieved and those that have seem to hang on by a thread.
wow, i hadn’t looked back on these comments since i posted mine. i apologize for writing in a confusing manner (the quotes around “success” obviously didn’t get my point across). i was actually trying to say the same thing samer said in his first comment, but from a different angle.
anywho, i hope ppl wouldn’t judge me (or others) based on one sentence. i can’t state my full opinions in the context of a blog comment. so please don’t make assumptions (not to say anyone has) about my views based on one sentence–i’m not a politician here.
at first i was tempted to take tom pratt’s comment as being an attack towards me. but then i decided that perhaps just as he may not have fully understood what i meant by my comment, maybe i didn’t fully understand what he meant by his. unless we’re given the space to write 90-page essays, it’s inevitable that a short comment will leave 99% of our thoughts unspoken and it’s unfair for a reader like me to assume the intent and values of the writer. i shouldn’t assume what the other 99% is based on the 1%, especially if i don’t fully understand the 1%.
Hi!
Nice info, big thx.