douchebaggery

Bumped. I'm not sure I agree (see my comment), but it's an interesting question. --Mike

Yesterday, while standing in line at my bank (to get some quarters, because, well, why else would I actually need to consult a bank teller?), I heard the familiar & eerie voice of the presumptive Republican nominee. The voice was coming from the two televisions above the bank windows, which are constantly tuned to CNN, & from that voice I heard something like this:

"I would rather lose an election & win a war ... Barack Obama would rather win an election & lose a war ..."

(The statement was followed, of course, by that creepy smile, which flashes as embarrassingly as an "applause" sign above a studio audience.)

This line of argument (or rhetoric) is an example of imprecise thinking for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that, in the context of Iraq, the clear dichotomy between winning & losing is not evident. Also, another less obvious, but still paramount, fact to understand before launching into a tirade about anyone "wanting us to lose", is that, technically, we already won the war.

The War on Iraq (or the "Iraq War", or "the war for the liberation of Iraq") was executed masterfully by Coalition forces (led by the American military) in 2003. We invaded (on 20 March 2003) & toppled Saddam's Ba'athist in something like 26 days, with Baghdad falling on 9 April 2003, & the invasion declared "over" on the 15 April. & while "Mission Accomplished" was some sort of cruel hyperbole, it was not inaccurate to say we had achieved, militarily, what the Bush Administration had set out to do. (Here, I'm trying to suspend my understanding that, for all intents & purposes, we were probably lied into this war, & that we should have been focusing on al Qaeda, etc., but, you know ...)

Then came the occupation & the attempt to set up a stable, democratic, peaceful Iraq with the ability to defend herself, principally, from insurgents, many of which were former Ba'ath Party members, as well as members of the military who were purged during "Jerry" Bremer's de-baathification. Ostensibly, while military operations are still going on in Iraq (though the "surge" may have ended), it is not precise (nor is it accurate) to use terms like "winning" or "losing" or "victory" or "defeat" with regards to the situation ... All we have are benchmarks, or key attributes, that we hope the Iraqi Republic can attain to someday. I hope they can, honestly, so something good can come out of this ill-conceived conflict.

The question is, & this election will be a referendum on this, what is the best road, now, for Iraq to follow in order to become able to govern & defend herself, to promote employment, modernization, religious pluralism & moderation, & to be a stable, democratic model for other countries in the region? (Although, I must admit, I am skeptical that what has been termed "Jeffersonian democracy", including ensuring the basic freedoms we cherish in this country, can ever take root there, but I'd like to be proven wrong ...)

My feeling is, when our troops withdraw, Iraqis will stand up & take ownership in each of these areas, & not the reverse. They've already told us they want us out. Now (& this, I think, tends to be Obama's view) this will not mean total disengagement from Iraq, but we do need to take an American face off of this occupation, & replace it with one that is less detested in the region & specifically in that country.

Is that "losing", or "admitting defeat"? Absolutely not - it's intelligently & purposefully trying to find a decent & honorable end to conflict that probably should have never been waged in the first place. It's also, incidentally, a responsible way to promote Iraqi self-governance (& sovereignty) &, ultimately, stability in the region.