re: "The Iraq War Did Not End on December 17, 2011–But the Peace May Be Over Soon"

JOEL B. POLLAK at Big Peace considered the endings of wars.

Money quote(s):

"I am disgusted by the media declarations and the presidential proclamations that the war in Iraq has ended with the departure of US troops. It is an erroneous conclusion, designed with political victory in mind--and heedless of the risk of projecting military defeat. "

Involvement by major numbers of U.S. ground troops has ceased.

That doesn't mean that the few remaining troops, or the U.S. civilians still there, are any less attractive targets for those who continue to wage war in Iraq.

"The Iraq War was a victory for the United States, for our allies, and for the Iraqi people. Our forces toppled Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, and defended nascent Iraqi democracy against Iranian-backed terrorists, including Al Qaeda and remnants of Saddam's regime.

Our soldiers maintained the peace of a country many feared would collapse into civil war--and which some, including our current Vice President, suggested should be divided. Against the plans of foreign enemies, and the pessimism of domestic critics, our forces prevailed.

The idea that the war ended today is absurd. If a war is not over until all your troops have withdrawn, then the Second World War is still being fought. If a war is defined by your withdrawal rather than your objective, you will always face defeat. And Iraq was not a defeat. " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"Victory in Iraq may not have come on May 1, 2003--the day President George W. Bush delivered his "mission accomplished" speech. But it had certainly come by November 11, 2010--the day political parties formed a new government, following Iraq's second democratic election. "

12/17

re: "The President Is No Churchill"

Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings ("Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!") noted some language deficiencies.

Money quote(s):

"Democrats are like the French in The Simpsons, for whom “victory” isn’t in their vocabulary, unless it applies to their domestic enemies."

Exiting (i.e., "retreating") as in "exit strategy" is not "winning."

As Chas. Sheen might add: DUH!

"To these people, wars are for “ending,” not “winning.” It was something that I and others noticed in the debates in 2008, but not enough others noticed. The funny thing is, I suspect that they even realize that we notice, but they just can’t bring themselves to use the word."

This speech defect is much older than merely 2008 vintage. I believe it was Sec. Rumsfeld who had a mini-tantrum where he spelled out that what was in fact appropriate was a "victory strategy."

re: "'Full Victory - Nothing Else'"

Crush at Blackfive ("The Paratrooper of Love") explains why mission statements are important.

Money quote(s):

"Gen. Dwight Eisenhower gives the order of the day "Full Victory - Nothing Else" to paratroopers about to board planes for the invasion of Europe. In a matter of months, our military would achieve "Full Victory" over Nazi Germany, while simultaneously engaged with Imperial Japan in another theater.

Today, our leadership (political and military) refuses to even use the word "Victory.""

&

"Our troops are undoubtedly capable of defeating our enemies. They just need leadership (political and military) willing to identify the enemy, state what their intentions are, and then allow the military to defeat said enemy. Our troops are warfighters after all, not diplomats."

""

re: "Victory defined"

Crush at Blackfive does something no one else has managed to do.

Money quote(s):

"In the case of our current conflict, the U.S. military is defending against (albeit with either one or sometimes both hands tied behind our backs) a supremacist movement that wants to kill/convert/subjugate those who don't practice their form of Islam.

And why should this struggle be so "confusing?" Our enemies have done us the favor of identifying themselves. All we have left to do is acknowledge their declarations of war and return the favor. We aren't fighting Muslims as many have wrongly suggested, otherwise we would have long since bombed U.S. mosques and Islamic centers. We are fighting jihadists. It's just that simple."

re: "Iran, Hamas, and deterrence"

TigerHawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") is drawing some conclusions about fighting Hamas in Gaza.

Money quote(s):

"Not only is our enemy Iran actively waging proxy war against Israel, but its Shiite radicals are, apparently, more than willing to do it through Sunni stooges. So much for that sectarian divide, which is supposed to preclude Iranian coooperation with Sunnis in armed struggle (see "myth" #7 in this Juan Cole post). Israel is our front line against those bastards, and anybody who thinks that they will suddenly go all peaceful once they have driven Israel into the sea is smoking something stronger than weed."

&

"This gets to the heart of Israel's geopolitical rationale, and its metric for "victory" in this context: Hamas was obviously not deterred before -- otherwise, it would have expected this overwhelming response to its rocket attacks. Hamas launched those rockets because it did not believe Israel's implicit or explicit threat to retaliate. Israel's objective is to reestablish that belief. Israel will have "won," therefore, not when it wipes out Hamas for all time (which probably is not possible), but when Hamas finally does expect massive retaliation for its aggression."