John McCain's and George Bush's Inability to Accept Victory

What exactly is a win in Iraq? John McCain and his writers apparently had trouble defining it to The New York Times's op-ed page, and all we really do know is that once we achieve it, McCain would be happy to have troops there for another 100 years. Or something.

Of course this points up that the "conditions on the ground" has the same problem as "timelines" in terms of giving the bad guys something to look forward to: If victory -- and departure -- are contingent upon, say, the various factions in Iraq not shooting at each other, it gives those groups reason to lie low, lick their wounds, rearm and wait for the Yanks to pull out. Then they can get back to killing each other without our interference.

Of course there are other reasons why neither McCain nor his sponsor, George W. Bush, are willing to declare victory and go home. Jack Farrell details them well over at RobertEmmet -- if you haven't read it, check it out.

Comments

[shystar]

Reason that both Bush and McCain cannot define the meaning of a win in Iraq is that winning the war was never the goal. The real goal is to target Iran.

[TRex86]

We won the Iraq War in 2003. Remember "Mission accomplished?" The rest has been an illegal occupation of a non-belligerent state with the hand-over of its oil to the Big Five and the slaughter of up to one million of its civilians. We completely botched our mission, permitting the armories to be looted--along with everything else but the oil ministry. We then installed a pro-Iranian regime, and amazingly enough can't find a way out.
Unfortunately for our prolonged occupation (longer than WWII and as costly) the locals have fought back, inflicting over 600,000 American casualties. Moreover, an occupation isn't won or lost. You dust your hands and walk away. Ending it isn't surrender. These words are Republican Newspeak. The only reason we stay on as uninvited guests is to extort the Iraqi government to allow permanent occupation ("status of forces") and a permanent agreement on oil development favorable to us. The painful irony is that we have squandered far more blood and treasure there than we can ever recoup with our neo-imperial wet dream.

[grendl]

John McCain's experience in Viet Nam is in large part the reason he has a hard time defining victory in Iraq.

Because his experience in Viet Nam was largely from the point of view of a prisoner of war. Enduring, outlasting the enemy, those are the most important aspects to his personal battle. Seeing the bigger picture, the fact that Viet Nam was tired of foreign occupation, the French and American's trying to instill upon them the virtues of Democracy, while keeping a boot upon their country's throat has never dawned on Senator McCain.

He seems to believe we can spread democracy with the same verve communism spread. But democracy must come from within a country's people, not be forced upon it. So he thinks tenacity, staying power , and militaristic might is the way to spread the doctrine of democracy. He's wrong.

Because Iraq is so tribal, so mistrusting of centralized government, so divided by sectarianism, the most important foundational tenet posited by our forefathers as self evidenciary is not a given there. In fact were they asked if all men are created equal ( not to mention women ) the majority of Iraqis would laugh you all the way to Mecca and back.

McCain sees this as a staredown, Sergio Leone style, the first one who blinks loses. He doesn't understand the Iraqi's aren't even considering the philosophical underpinnings of what democracy means.