The High Five Friday Rant » Winning the War in Iraq

03.27.2006: Winning the War in Iraq

Category: Political

Posted by: Jed Herzog

I am going to start High Five Friday’s revitalization by discussing Iraq. Although I have promised myself not to let HFF become a dump for anti-Bush rhetoric, I find it a difficult subject to avoid since today’s current political situation deeply disturbs me and consumes a lot of my thought.

One week ago today was the 3rd Anniversary of the beginning of the US military action against Iraq. To mark it I joined 10,000 other Portlanders and attended a March for Peace. I have to admit it exceeded my expectation and turned out to be a sensational time. To see that so many other people were also concerned about our current foreign policies was uplifting. The march was entirely peaceful and the message and feel was supportive and positive. We can make a change by coming together and letting our representatives know how we feel both now and at the polls. No one took to anger which is hard with such a heated topic.

I only saw a few people disagreeing with the marchers, and their premise was that we were disrespecting the troops by protesting the war. I don’t understand why disagreeing with the War in Iraq is disrespectful or unsupportive of the troops.

I wanted to mention my feelings on this march and encourage everyone to also take part in any similar opportunities. Not only does participation send a positive message but it also can be therapeutic for oneself.

View Pictures of the march here.

Sidenote: Jed’s Best Protest Sign Award went to: "Nice War, Ass Brain"

So instead of ranting about the Iraq war I want this post to be a question. I continually hear from all politicians about "Winning the War in Iraq". What does that mean?

Is "Winning the War in Iraq" achieved when there is stability equal to:
+ 0 chance of an insurgent attack
- 1 chance of a civil war
+ 1 stable democratic government?

If that is "Winning the War", does anyone believe the equation is solvable though military operations and occupation?

On the other hand, if the pieces of the equation for "Winning the War in Iraq" are actually less definable values (i.e. more vague), then I say we’ve created the exact expression of our current state of affairs. Hence let’s end our occupation of Iraq now.

Comments

Enter email address to subscribe to comment on this item
Click here to manage subscription

DAD wrote:

Happy to see Friday Rant has returned! Looks like Portland had a sucessful march.I really enjoyed the pictures. The photographer that took Jed's picture in frame 03 & 68 must have been a professional and the person taking Nyco's picture in frame 04 & 69 must have been an ameteur--- On to the question--- I feel there is no one sentence answer to "Winning the War" question. I join millions of people in wishing we weren't involved but we are! Exiting Iraq now would be certain diaster without a recognizable form of Iraqi goverment and stability in place. It appears that civil war in Iraq is a certain possibilty. Since the Kurds, Sunnis and Shities can't seem to agree on getting along, why not have three "States" within Iraq with three different leaderships under the control of a General or Central Goverment? There has to be some form of leadership and control or the Persian Gulf wll run red from the ensuing slaughter. We are certainly in a quagmire and without doable answers on how to get out of this mess. This situation is far worse than Vietnam when we decided to pull out and left the Vietnamese people fend for themselves.

03.31.2006 22:35:48

Webmaster wrote:

I thought your comments were well written and thought out but I still must disagree and reiterated my intended message.

"Exiting Iraq now would be certain disaster without a recognizable form of Iraqi government and stability in place."

I will agree with you, that is a possibility. However my stance is that staying in Iraq will not change that situation. Occupation is not stability and continual occupation will not do anything to strengthen a post occupation government. Considering that, lets pull out now. I can not think of a stable democratic government that was formed by invasion and occupation of a foreign government. Stable democracies are born from the citizens of a country rising up and demanding it.

I fear bloody civil unrest in Iraq also. If there is a way we can help the Iraqis I am all for it. I do not believe our current course is or will help them.

04.01.2006 10:41:18

Russ wrote:

As stated before, there will be no "winning" associated w/ this situation. Should we "stay the course"? Yes for now. Will it change anything? No. The problem is that we will have on on-going saga of "Iraqs" played out from now untill the end of time. We'll just name them differently..Iran/South Korea/China/whatever... I think that we nee to focus more on blowing up things we hate and less on justification for war based on predisposed threats(WMD or whatever..)so we can hope to look better from the global view. I feel bad for the people who get caught in the crossfire, but I feel just as bad for people who are starving or homeless. The only way to come out on top of these things is to go in full force and stop pussyfooting around the politics. If the leadership in any country refuses to play by the rules; nip it in the bud! It's just a long game of chess out there. Sooner or later we need to bring out the queen and start clearing the board. The only advantage we have now is that we know who's moving what. Let that slip and it's just a game of checkers.

04.04.2006 17:10:38

03.27.2006: Winning the War in Iraq

Comments

DAD wrote:

Webmaster wrote:

Russ wrote:

Add Comment

Sidebar