Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity  So is it fair to say we are losing the occupation when such a thing isn't taking place? I don't think so at all. And I think you'd agree with me on that point. |
In the barest terms on not being removed from the country, the occupation could not be accurately described as "losing." But as you said before, our goals for a successful occupation were pretty much in the can.
Quote:
|
So it seems our argument is with the measure of success achieved during the occupation. If i'm reading yours right, we will lose the war (or rather the occupation) if we don't achieve the measure of success and stability that we want. And that's where I disagree. I don't think we are in danger of losing simply based on less-than-stellar success.
|
As I recall, the Iraqi government last year only achieved 33% of the criteria they agreed to with the US on measures of success. That's not less than stellar. That's failing. Remember that occupations is merely a tool for political goals. No one has an occupation for the sake of an occupation.
Quote:
|
The point I am trying to make is that all this is subjective.
|
I don't know about
all but I'll agree
much of it is. I remember people saying that the conflict was going well in 2005 based on the number of dead terrorists. They judged success by body count. Also there a gray zone of neither winning nor losing.
Quote:
|
We were never losing. While our success rate and stabilization is debatable, saying that we were on the verge of military defeat is not correct. Again, I think you'd agree. I think Aquapub would not, based on his arguments against my statement.
|
I'll agree that we were never on the edge or anywhere close to military defeat, but military action is merely a tool for political goals. People tend to forget Clausewitz's primary point that force and violence should never be a purpose unto themselves.
Re: ABC, CBS, NBC Skip Report of Benchmarks Met in Iraq 
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
