I'm going to wade back out into the whole Iraq/Afghanistan debate and ask people to define what they mean by victory and/or success in these conflicts.

[yes, I already put on my flame-resistant suit and kevlar!]

To some, these questions might seem to have self-evident answers, but my guess is that there are some major differences in opinion out there.

Some things to think about...

Is there any difference between victory and success?

Is there a difference between short and long-term success?

My goal is not to start a flame war, but to get our unspoken assumptions out in the open, so we can have a common frame of reference.

I'll open the discussion...

I believe that we've already had a military victory in Iraq, but that our mission there is not yet a success. It's possible that it could be successfull in the long term if the people of Iraq take advantage of the relative stability that international troops provide to build a stable government.

In Afghanistan it's a bit different, since the Taliban is still an active quasi-military force. But as in Iraq, it's possible for our mission to be successful if the people take advantage of the opportunity.

What are your thoughts?

I think you're right on an essential point: whether there will be success in Iraq - a stable, democratic, peaceful, multi-creed state - has yet to be seen and is ultimately not in our hands.

I think the paradigm (or pipe dream) for a successful outcome in Iraq would be an ethnically, religiously tolerant, de-Baathified secular government with a sustainable economy, a reasonably well-functioning infrastructure, courts that will dispense justice equitably, and a dedicated police/military force with the ability to contain the country's inevitable tribal conflicts and the will to fight and die for their country. Whether that's still an achievable goal at this point is questionable.

Much the same for Afghanistan, and it's a difficult mission there, too. Karsai is a weak leader. In Afghanistan, we now seem to be in a post-post-Taliban era and earlier successes have been lost to the resurgence of Taliban fighters. The proximity to Pakistan and its safe havens for both Al Qaeda and the Taliban complicates the situation greatly. So does the fact that so much of the Afghan economy is drug-dependent. And while the coalition tried to transform the social and economic structure of the country, the Afghan people themselves still have a hard personal moral struggle between the modern world and their Islamic traditions.

I think the discussion is not for us to determine. It is left up to citizens of each nation what their future will be like. Military success is without question in my mind. We have the industrial might to continue the conflict. both countries have very beautiful histories and cultures to offer the world as a whole. I support the effort as whole but merely wish we had a Marshall Plan of our own generation. Too often we get drawn into the muck of dogmatic politics.
The dream of free nations can only be achieved by those willing to keep them free.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
I think the paradigm (or pipe dream) for a successful outcome in Iraq would be an ethnically, religiously tolerant, de-Baathified secular government with a sustainable economy, a reasonably well-functioning infrastructure, courts that will dispense justice equitably, and a dedicated police/military force with the ability to contain the country's inevitable tribal conflicts and the will to fight and die for their country.

I like to think that this is what we in the US would like to see in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

What if that's not what the population in each country chooses? Can we still have a successful mission if, through democratic processes, either or both countries decide to become, for instance, an Islamist state?

quote:

Originally posted by CrazyPoet:
Can we still have a successful mission if, through democratic processes, either or both countries decide to become, for instance, an Islamist state?

Certainly not. That would be anathema to our interests.

A religious dictatorship of any stripe is not a valid form of government, regardless of whether it came into being democratically. 51% of the population may not vote the rights of the other 49% out of existence.

The thought comes to mind of the Vietnam war.Talk about winning the battles and losing the war.Same sort of situation here.Sad indeed.

quote:

Can we still have a successful mission if, through democratic processes, either or both countries decide to become, for instance, an Islamist state?

As long as there's reasonable certainty the election was a fair and free democratic process, we have to accept that outcome, don't you think? Whether or not that would define success or failure in our mission is irrelevant (though just getting to the point of a democratic election would be at least a partial success).

I think we need to be prepared for the possibility of an outcome we don't like, and the necessity of living with it. There's really no moral alternative. We can't remake countries into our own image.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottological:

quote:

Originally posted by CrazyPoet:
Can we still have a successful mission if, through democratic processes, either or both countries decide to become, for instance, an Islamist state?

Certainly not. That would be anathema to our interests.

A religious dictatorship of any stripe is not a valid form of government, regardless of whether it came into being democratically. 51% of the population may not vote the rights of the other 49% out of existence.

In this instance, would you feel that we could legitimately intervene?