What Does Victory Look Like?
by KevinNovember 29th, 2006
So Bush says we are going to stay until the mission is complete, even as Sadarists leave the Iraqi coalition government. I have a question though: what defines victory? This isn’t snark or sarcasm — this is a legitimate question. I have no idea what defines victory in the minds of the right wing war supporters. It cannot be democracy, because there have now been two rounds of elections that went pretty well and there is the form of parliamentary democracy in the country. If it is “security” or “securing the democracy”, then someone needs to explain what that would look like. A given level of violent deaths? An Iraqi Army able to defeat the militias? The defeat of the militias? Without a solid definition of what victory looks like we as a people have no means to judge the steps our government is taking to achieve that victory. Just as importantly, we have no way to say to our politicians: “Okay, we have reached the point you said was victory — now come home or give us a damn good explanation for why you won’t”. In other words, no clear definition of victory can mean never leaving, or not leaving as long as one political faction thinks it has an advantage by staying. And that is not acceptable in a functioning democracy.
So: just what, precisely, constitutes victory? And why won’t the Bush Administration answer this simple question?
Silly Kevin, It’s victory when they say it is.
Of course, on the flipside, it’s automatically defeat in some peoples minds when the casualties reach a certain number, or the war becomes too costly, or the conflict last over a certain number of days.
(My position, of course, is complicated, and it starts with the same questions we asked when things went bad while we weren’t paying attention in Somalia. Namely, why are we there? What’s the mission? I’m sure the answer to those questions isn’t as simple as “Transplant Freedom” or “Cheap Oil”, or in the case of Somalia, “Feed the Starving” or “Nation Building”.)
It should come as no surprise that an administration that was vague about the reasons for going into Iraq, would be equally vague about what constitutes “victory”.
“Regime change” has been accomplished, but this doesn’t mean democracy has been established. Granted there have been two rounds of elections, but elections in and of themselves do not establish a democracy. A more credible barometer would be acceptance of a loyal opposition, respect for the rights of minorities, rule of law etc. all of which would be impossible to ascertain during a civil war. And as the internecine violence continues to escalate, we probably will not be able to gauge the stability of Iraq’s new “democracy” anytime soon. Of course, the administration was equally vague as to their expections of an Iraqi democracy, given the country’s historical and cultural framework.
Could it be the administration intends to “stay the course” for the next two years…and then it’s someone else’s problem?
Victory in Iraq will consist of a GOP held White House, Congress, and Supreme Court. It will consist of endless cash giveaways to corprate buddies of GOP members of above institutions. When the president is given sole athority to whatever he wants, then we have won in Iraq.
At least that what I can tell from the actions and words of this president.