Per my earlier point on the SOFA with Iraq, Hot Air has Perino calling the situation, "the victory that we've had so far."
Allah notes that even Petreaus has refused to use the word "victory" in regards to Iraq and feels the unmitigated weight of "mission accomplished". For once, as much as I think Petraeus has been a brilliant leader, I have to disagree, though I understand that it is not really the place of the Generals in the field to call it: it's a political call. One for the President. Who, I believe, also has a mighty fear of "mission accomplished".
So, I guess I say, "Screw it!" If the pols are too scared and the generals aren't going to leave their lanes, let's call it "victory", celebrate it ourselves and enjoy the fact that we did not give in or give up.
Allah notes that even Petreaus has refused to use the word "victory" in regards to Iraq and feels the unmitigated weight of "mission accomplished". For once, as much as I think Petraeus has been a brilliant leader, I have to disagree, though I understand that it is not really the place of the Generals in the field to call it: it's a political call. One for the President. Who, I believe, also has a mighty fear of "mission accomplished".
So, I guess I say, "Screw it!" If the pols are too scared and the generals aren't going to leave their lanes, let's call it "victory", celebrate it ourselves and enjoy the fact that we did not give in or give up.
The possibility that the enemy still has a last gasp effort left in him is the cause of all the “guarded” optimism and muted celebration of the successes achieved so far. The American people cannot be allowed to have any positive thoughts about the war.
Unenthusiastic, hesitant, unconvincing, caveated asterisked footnotes do not a victory make. By the time triumphalism has been made safe by the course of events, nobody cares. Victories that have been made politicaly incorrect to acknowledge and celebrate are victories denied.
But my muted sense of success is because... this isn't a binary outcome war, no matter how much we would prefer a nice clean ending.
The reality is, in this kind of war, we can get a clean ending by losing, but winning will be measured over years and decades.
Just as the triumphalism of the victors regarding WWI was, shall we say, somewhat overshadowed by the unanticipated Part II?
Literally, we have a lot to do to finish shoring them up in the next three years, but today, their future success is no longer about our combat capabilities, but about their own will.
That is, in fact, victory based on our original goals.
All of this fluffy-bunny feeling is a good mosque bombing away from backsliding.
This wasn't the kind of war that was going to have a ticker-tape parade down Madison Avenue. Even going into it.
This is one that was going to come to us on the patter little feet, over time.
All of this fluffy-bunny feeling is a good mosque bombing away from backsliding.
There are still some car bombs and other activities going on and I am aware of that. The question is two parts: 1) is the Iraq government still capable of holding? I believe we have reached and went beyond the "tipping point" where it will take a lot more than one mosque bombing to end it. 2) I believe the SOFA makes any "backsliding" Iraq's responsibility. It was always going to be so one day. We have to accept that it is.
Ticker tape parades? Wouldn't that be nice. But, there is no way, regardless of what we say here, that the incoming administration would have wanted to do so. As cannoneer notes, it would seriously undermine their entire political platform. Other wise, there is no good reason not to have recognized in any small way the contributions of our men and women in Iraq.
But, I suppose, given the current politics, they will have to wait the years until Afghanistan is over to be given even cursory recognition and, even then, it will have to be the vicarious enjoyment of the end of that theater. Which, as #4 notes, will be too late and long gone. No one will care.
It is somewhat like the Roman legions. Eventually, their were not great victories or triumphal parades, just a bunch of bedraggled Romans in armor returning home to little acclaim. Eventually, the legions lost their appeal and recruiting power to civilian enterprise and the defense of Rome fell to what amounted to mercenary forces with no allegiance accept money.
We know what happened to Rome.
Would you have avoiding celebrating VE Day in May of 1945 because the Japanese had not yet been defeated, John?
I seem to recall GEN Schwartzkopf leading a victory parade, and Desert Storm had to be done over 12 years later. At least the Germans had to go home and breed up another generation before they could do World War, Part II.
Voluntarily muting our sense of success also mutes our appreciation for those who bought us that success with their blood, sweat, and tears, reducing their psychic payoff and denying them and those who supported them and their mission a well-earned morale boost. Perserverence should be rewarded if we expect to have any in future conflicts, but 52% of the American electorate don't value the sacrifices made on their behalf in the Iraq Campaign.
I recall celebrations and parades in Paris, when Paris was liberated, but that's about it - because the job wasn't yet done.
Desert Storm? Inapt comparison, especially as it really devolves more to the WWI paradigm - celebrating a victory that really just sets up the next phase. That said - the objectives for Desert Storm were pretty clear (if perhaps incomplete, but complete may have been politically impossible back in 1991, too) - clear the Iraqis from Kuwait and restore the Kuwaiti government. A "Mission Accomplished" parade then wasn't inappropriate. The fighting was clearly over, objectives met and we were coming home, except for the brigade left in Kuwait to make sure Saddam understood that a repeat wasn't going to be allowed.
That is not yet the case in Iraq.
Like it or not, the job is not yet done, and the endstate *is* ambiguous, hence why we're having this discussion at all. The victory is not yet secure. Doesn't mean things aren't looking good though. I'm not hedging my bets, I just see things differently, seems.
What better way for the vanquished to deny the victors their triumph than to mentally fornicate them out of daring to consider themselves winners.
If we're never going to "win," why bother? Which was the purpose of the Morale Operation all along.
I thought the purpose was to wear down Islamic terrorism by demonstrating that Muslim Arabs could, in fact, govern themselves in a reasonbly free and democratic matter. I think most of the troops understand they won, and our appreciation for them isn't "muted."
I'll even disagree that "52% of the American electorate don't value the sacrifices made on their behalf." True, there are some deranged lefties out there, but most of them just want the sacrificing to stop. They honestly believe that war doesn't solve anything, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, and most problems really can be solved by people talking things out.
In other words, they understand the sacrifice, but consider it tragic and unnecessary
I believe, No. 4, that the grunts, leathernecks, zoomies, and even the occasional squid on dry land know exactly how well they've won the war, by watching Iraqui children grow up <i>normally</i>, instead in the world described by Luke Stricklin. They don't need ticker tape to understand that.
Kat, I really don't think the Legions failed because they didn't get fancy parades. Say rather the Legions failed because became subject conscripts, instead of free volunteers.
It's not fancy parades, it is about recognition and validation of their purpose, their relationship and, in some degree, their necessity. I believe that the last part of your comment flows into that since no subject conscript could feel the pride or necessity of battling for a nation that is not their own nor appreciates their efforts.
The military is always a tool of political will. However, I believe there is a danger where the concept of "tool" becomes the paramount description of any military, legions included, as opposed to an integrated and respected part of a citizenery.
When you tell your citizenry "thanks, but no thanks" for their service, why should they bother to fight at all?
A well trained soldier will fight well and may even win, but, unless he has a grander purpose, he is no more than a body and, at any given time, his ability to fight well may not translate into the will to fight or win. In a democracy, the will to fight does not solely rest on the idea of defending a geographic place with a name, it is about believing in serving "the nation" as in "the people" and the ideas the people hold dear and "the nation" represents. A piece of land is worthless without them and a military fighting for something worthless is a defeated military.
I suppose to some of you guys it's a bit shallow. I suppose all parades and shows are to a degree but it sure beats spit and cold shoulders doesn't it?
Hmm it s a good question. How much do you guys appreciate a parade? Or is it just a waste of time to you?
Negative, Casey. The purpose of the Morale Operation that is being run against us is to diminish our national will to endeavor to perservere. Jacksonian Americans still believe in quaint concepts like victory, defeat, winning and losing, and get disgusted with half vast, lackadaisical, route step efforts. If a war is worth fighting, and worth losing American warriors over, then fight hard, kill the enemy in great numbers until the hearts of their women are on the ground and they resolve to fight no more forever and come in and touch the pen and stay on the reservation so long as the grass grows and the water flows.
In war, there is no substitute for victory.
War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.
War has never solved a thing, Casey, . . . .except slavery, fascism and communism.
Leathernecks? Please. That's a magazine.
And there have been many good homecoming events scattered about the country, as deploying units come home.
And welcome home rallies are well attended.
And the troops get greeted at the airports.
And there are a lot of volunteer organizations doing their bit to provide support both overseas and at home.
The troops may feel that the Press and liberal establishment isn't all that supportive (though I'm not sure it's the job of the press to be so) but I would also say the anti-war left is muted and no where near as successful as they were in Vietnam - and, as importantly, the counter-demonstrations, mounted and/or attended by many here, are also a visible manifestation of support that more the Korea and Vietnam-era vets didn't have.
We're gonna hafta agree to disagree here. This war isn't, and wasn't (except, perhaps in Secretary Rumsfeld's mind) a binary event that was going to have a clear delineation. That may have been how it was orignially envisioned, until events on the ground gave lie to those assumptions.
You want to declare victory, Zombietime invites you to join with them tomorrow. I'm not going to stop anyone from posting it here.
It just won't have my name on it, because I'm all subtle and nuanced, and... squishy.