First, you’re very optimistic that democracy in Iraq will take root. Ha! A democracy is built up by the people, just as my ancestors fought against the British a couple centuries ago. The USA was an idea that was “homegrown” and not forced down our throats. Because the early Americans had an interest in seeing their ideas succeed and flourish, they were willing to make sacrifices against overwhelming odds. It is this energy that still keeps America great. Fast forward to Iraq today- I have no idea how an invading force (Bush) can tell the Iraqis that a democracy is in their best interest and then expect them to support it.

Imagine if Russia told the American colonists in the 1700’s that the new idea of democracy was doomed and that Russia would protect the colonists from the British empire builders…. What made the USA succeed was the fact that the colonists wanted to rule their land with their laws as they saw fit without interference from any other country, particularly countries with empire-building aspirations.

So if winning means having a democracy in Iraq- well, we won’t get it, in the Bush sense of a democracy. So losing would mean something other than a government that we like. Is that so bad? It may be, but it may not be. But I will point out that before Bush the USA got along OK with lots of different types of governments- not perfect and some folks will always be enemies, but the USA, when run by someone who values diplomacy can leverage its power and protect its interests in the world.

Second, you seem to assume that a loss in Iraq would somehow threaten the USA. Well, al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded. In the ensuing madness the we created in Iraq, we have also created in ideal training ground for terrorists to practice and train in. A loss in Iraq for the US does not mean a loss in Iraq for the Iraqi people. The Iraqis need to the ability (need to learn) to come together and make decisions that are in THEIR best interests and not be forced by the US (as an occupying power) to make decisions that are best for the US, even if the US believes that it’s in the Iraqi’s best interests. Once Iraq is able to provide its citizens with the basic necessities (food, shelter, security), then they can enter the world as useful citizens. But the Bush is so determined that Iraq follow his own roadmap and priorities that Iraq can’t stand on its own. How would you like it if a rice farmer held you hostage in your own home and made you eat rice (and only rice) for all three meals. Helps the rice farmer, but you’re not getting what you need. The US is like the rice farmer- holding the Iraqis hostage in their own country and telling them their priority is to follow the US’s directives. Rice isn’t all bad for you, so you do gain some benefit, just like our presence in Iraq does offer some benefit, but you don’t want to eat rice for the rest of your life.

Third, there’s the oil issue- Iraq has always been a huge producer of oil, but after the US invasion of Iraq, their production and transportation facilities are not the same as they were under Saddam. The last I heard was that Baghdad only had electricity a few hours of the day. They can’t meet their own energy needs, much less transport huge amounts of oil to the rest of the world. In the worst case scenario (which I doubt would happen) I don’t know what would happen if all oil did stop flowing from Iraq, but we are not as energy dependent on them as we once were.

So, just because the good ol’ USA can’t claim a victory in Iraq (and we consider it a loss) doesn’t mean that Iraq will develop into a situation that’s untenable to us. It just means that according to the USA’s goals we lost. What everyone should be asking is, “What would it take for the Iraqis to succeed?” I think a huge part of that means that the US gets out of Iraq and stop meddling. When the Iraqis are ready for our help they’ll ask.

Now I’m under no illusions here. If we pull out of Iraq there will be a price to pay (but then again we’ve spent years there, $1.6 trillion- including some hidden costs and future estimates- and lost thousands of Americans’ lives already- so we’ve already paid a price and are still continuing to do so). But we’re not helping (even though I am happy to see things calm down momentarily) by dictating to them. So after we’ve made a complete mess of their country we owe it to them to give them the room they need to make their own decisions, which are in their best interest. I think any military presence Iraq may ask for to help out should be strictly UN (not a single country).

So you’re concerned that a loss in Iraq would hurt the US? Well wake up and smell the roses (or whatever), because the US is already being hurt in Iraq and will continue to be hurt in Iraq until we get out. If we were to pull out tomorrow the situation in Iraq will get worse (but the US wouldn’t continue to sacrifice its treasure and lives), but the human spirit is amazing and I’m confident that the Iraqis will work things out- even if it continues its civil war and splits into three separate countries. Kurdistan would be pro-US (probably) and who knows what the other two would be- one may be Iranian backed. But you know that would be a lot better than the situation we are in right now. Maybe not ideal for the US but at least we’re not spending hundreds of billions of dollars and losing countless lives fighting a war in a country that wants us out.

“Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

I have no doubt you and I will cancel each other out, Sam, so it’s all going to come down to who the people who don’t pay that much attention to political details pull the lever for.

But if you want to be a Pollyanna- no one’s stopping you!

How about “the insurgency is in its last throes”?

LOL, the war is ALREADY a failure. They haven’t gotten a little help to establish a democracy, they’ve had tons of it and its not taking. This war is a failure in terms of lives lost, money spent and imbezzeled, chaos caused, time and energy wasted on a nation that we shouldn’t have cared so much about in the first place. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if Iraq turned into a stable democracy TOMORROW, it would still not have been worth it. It gets less so with every passing day, with every death and dismemberment.

This war is well over four years old and its no closer to being resolved than when we started, you seem to forget that.

By the way, nobody stepped up to answer my question: “what are the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq?”

Among independents, approval of the president’s war management has grown from 23 percent last December to 34 percent; strong approval has tripled, to 18 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301741.html

What’s interesting is that Keyes, being a Republican, moved to Illinois for the sole purpose of running against Obama fo rthe US Senate seat.

Keyes was one of those who had earlier, correctly, called Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger for trying to get the Senate seat and “represent” [sic] New York, mere opportunism and progression to the (official) Presidency.

He subsequently did the same thing himself, in a pathetic attempt (carpetbagging and “race card”-playing) to unseat a typical Chicago Dem machine Democrat.

Did anyone believe Keyes had a chance to win?

Isn’t Afghanistan a NATO operation now?

Perhaps there will be permanent bases in Iraq, there is about a 99% possibility, because the fledgling country will need some assistance before it can stand on its own. Much like the aftermath to WWII, in fact we still have military bases in Germany and nobody here seems to be wetting their pants about that.

These are such an easy answers, I’m surprised that it has escaped so many. Now for your side, what are the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq?

What is the Republican’s & Joe Lieberman’s definition of “winning” the Iraq war? Democracy in Iraq? A government favorable to the US and US interests? Protection of Israel? Having permanent bases in Iraq? The end of Iraq’s civil war? I’d really like to know.

Also, once we have the definition of “winning” the Iraq war, is it possible? Depending on what they hope to achieve, can the war even be “won” anymore?

I remember the end of the movie “Wargames” when the computer finally learns and says, “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”. I wish our government would’ve learned that lesson prior to us invading Iraq.

Presently we are merely controlling the violence in Iraq, and hoping that the disparate factions find a way to come together to form a cohesive whole that can defend itself and that won’t allign with al queda. We are paying a heavy price for that opportunity- in the hardening of moderate Arabs as they see the occupation become permanent, and in lives and material costs. We are still a long way from victory, although Iraq has a chance to succeed as long as we keep our forces there.

In the past, countries went to war for security reasons (Iraq did not pose a threat beyond Bush’s fantasies) or empire building.

PWT: Tell me what we are fighting for. And “to protect against terrorists” does not count.

I would hope that nobody posting would want the US to lose this or any war, regardless of the purpose.