[Rhodes22-list] Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif/Let the games begin.

[Herb Parsons]

Sorry Dave, but I disagree.

"Certifiably" by WHO? The left was yelling and screaming that the death toll for our soldiers would be in the 10's of thousands. It didn't happen. So, they began the "Bush lied" mantra.


Herb Parsons

S/V O'Jure
1976 O'Day 25
Lake Grapevine, N TX

S/V Reve de Papa
1971 Coronado 35
Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast 

>>> DCLewis1 at aol.com 11/13/2006 2:12:29 pm >>>

Herb:
 
Re your statement " If we lose this war, it will only be because of leaving  
before we win.", that's true of any foreign war isn't it?  And of course it  
doesn't preclude the possibility that we might never win, right?  Whenever  we 
leave, if we'd just stayed a little longer we might have won, right?   The 
issue then is whether it's worth the pain and cost.  Now you would  think that 
had been sorted out before we went in - but clearly that wasn't the  case 
because the Administration was certifiably clueless about the pain and  cost, and 
even the end goals, so we have to sort it out anew because they didn't  even 
begin to do their homework.  Frankly, I resent having to do that after  the 
fact; but that's the way it is, right?
 
But OK we're there,  let's win.  What does "win" mean to  you?  We started 
out to get rid of their WMD, but there weren't any so  that's done.  
Actually, that's a "win", right?  Another goal was to  get rid of Saddam; well he's 
not gone yet, but he may be going unless he's  re-elected President, so that's 
another "win".  The "goal d'jure" now is to  establish Iraq as "an oasis 
of democracy in the middle east" - where did that  goal come from?   Who ever 
decide to make Iraq "an oasis of democracy  in the middle east"?  Is that 
practical over the short or long term, and  why do we want to spend thousands of 
lives and hundreds of billions of dollars  to achieve that nebulous goal?  Did 
the Congress authorize going to war in  order to establish Iraq as an oasis of 
democracy in the middle east?  Who  besides the neocon purists have signed up 
to that idea of win?   Do we  really have to completely buy the version of 
win the political purists spring on  us?  Maybe we (the nation, not the neocons) 
should negotiate, define, and  understand exactly why we're in Iraq and the 
criteria for getting out ( if it  was just WMD we ought to be out today) - that'
s the job of the Congress, not the  press release office of the President.  
If we do that, I suspect the end  state vision of establishing Iraq as "an 
oasis of democracy in the middle east"  will probably go out the door and winning 
might become a lot more  feasible.  For example, an alternative end state 
might be whatever  government(s) that works that can provide for the common 
defense and ensure  domestic tranquility - and if partitioning gets it done with 
tribal warlords  running each partition, that's what it takes and we'd have been 
gone a year  ago.
 
My point is, if everyone doesn't know exactly what "win" means, it can be  
real hard or real easy to win, and the definition of win can morph repeatedly,  
as it has.  We may never win the war in Iraq, because the end state just  
keeps changing.
 
Dave
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list