Harry Reid claims that Iraq is lost. If one defines "lost" in terms of failure to achieve a major objective then Reid may be correct. We have thus far failed to bring stability to certain parts of the country, and may not be able to do so. Even using this definition, though, Reid's assessment may be premature. We have significantly increased stability in key neighborhoods in Baghdad without having yet completed the troop surge. A less partisan, more sober Senate Majority Leader might wait for the surge to be completed before declaring defeat.
But the more important point is that Reid's implicit definition of "lost" is misguided. A loss doesn't occur just because you fail to succeed with respect to one important objective -- a loss occurs when the enemy achieves its major objectives. And that clearly hasn't happened it Iraq.
Al-Qaeda's objective is to drive the U.S. out of Iraq in order to gain ascendancy in Anbar province and/or elsewhere. That hasn't happened. Indeed, the best evidence is that Al Qaeda is losing ground in Anbar province, as local tribal chiefs, with our support, turn increasing against the terrorists.
The Baathist objective is to drive the U.S. out of Iraq in order to regain ascendancy, if not over the entire country then over certain parts of it. That hasn't happened. The Baathists can inflict violence in some areas (many other areas are relatively peaceful) but that's not the same as having control.
The objective of the radical Shia militias is to drive the U.S. out in order to gain control of the central government, and (it appears) cleanse Baghdad or many of its neighborhoods of Sunnis. They have not succeeded in gaining control of the government. Indeed, recently the radical Shia element withdrew from the government. Shia radicals have had some success with "cleansing" and revenge, but Sunnis now are returning (though probably not in large numbers) to their old Baghdad neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the Shia militias are struggling to maintain control over their neighborhoods in the face of the surge. But even if they were to regain undisputed control, their ambitions extend much further.
The only way our enemies can reasonably expect to accomplish their major objectives is for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq or to stay but do little. Otherwise, the best they can hope for is some sort of stalemate in the case of the Shia radicals, and worse in the case of the others. The pull out that would grant some or all of our enemies victory is the course advocated by Harry Reid and most of his party.
This uncomfortable truth explains, I think, why Harry Reid declared Iraq lost. He knows that if his party has its way, Iraq will be lost in the true sense of the word. One answer to this reality would be to argue that the lose wouldn't be that consequential or, more honestly, that avoding true defeat just isn't worth the price of remaining. Reid and his left-wing supporters have adopted a less honest solution. To dodge criticism for inflicting defeat, they have chosen to declare, contrary to the evidence, that Iraq is already lost.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. If Harry Reid was in his position during WWII, we would have surrendered/pulled out of Europe after Normandy and out of the Pacific after Iwo Jima.
joxley at 3:25PM on Apr 23rd 2007
2. I want to know exactly what the republicans have done for this war that is so great? You vote to give Bush unlimited funding year after year and on the other side hold him accountable to nothing. Accountability is a big word for this administration, because there has been none sence Bush too office. So you republicans keep on voting to give this man billions of dollars that are spent on god knows what, certainly not on Iraq, because by now we have destroyed all infastructure in Iraq and all of the citizens have flead the country. Our presence in Iraq brought the terrorists, they were not in Iraq until US troop arrived. Bush may as well have painted bulls eyes on our troop backs, he sent them to die. We have enough problems in the United States, why are we out in the middle of this desert again fighting ghosts. I know Bush does not read, but could someone please give him a history lesson. This war has made us so much weaker at home. With our military depleated and torn apart, if we sustain a large scale attack at home, i question wheather or not we have the resources to secure this nation. If you think we are safer now sence this war started you are a brainwashed Bushy and have mercy on your soul.
Jared at 3:36PM on Apr 23rd 2007
3. joxley,
Go to http://www.juancole.com/index.html right now to see what Mirengoff won't tell you. Now. Go.
lil_turk at 4:16PM on Apr 23rd 2007
4. Thank you Jared for your uninspired and largely unreadable post. Due to your numerous misspellings, I was able to determine that you have no grasp of the History that you feel Bush needs to learn. Please enlighten us with more of your illiterate rants.
There were terrorist camps in Iraq when Saddam was there and this is well documented. The fact that you are unaware of this is just more proof that you are one who just emotionally reacts to anything without first gathering facts.
Feel free to respond but I have already moved on to sites where the respondents are educated enough to spell. This excludes You.
orestes at 12:35AM on Aug 10th 2007
5. Where's McCarthy when you need him?
JamesonLewis3rd at 10:12PM on Apr 23rd 2007
6. Won't we lose if we underestimate the level of resistance? Oh wait...
Sadaqat at 11:30PM on Apr 23rd 2007
7. NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
February 24, 2006 2:51 PM
It Didn't Work
By William F. Buckley Jr.
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes—it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.
Steve J. at 12:07AM on Apr 24th 2007
8. I was on leave from the Navy in Tennessee during the 1980 census helping my grandmother fill out the form. She had made her money in real estate and working with the mentally disabled in Michigan, so I knew that she wasn't an ignorant woman. The problem was that as I read the form to her she would order "Don't answer that" over and over again. I kept thinking to myself, "How can the government do it's job if you don't answer that questions?" As a good soldier I filled out the form exactly as she wanted me to, but I felt as though something was wrong. It later came to me that 'loose lips sink ships' they say in the Navy.
My grandmother knew and understood that there were elements in the government that could not be trusted, so it was vital to keep vested information to one's self. Personal, private and secret information doesn't stay that way in the wrong hands.
As time has past and I have had the misfortune to see how parts of the government work and how the loose lips of people like Harry Reid work, I am put in rememberance of why my grandmother did not trust certain aspects of the government! When you have cowards like Reid, who will not vote to defund the war as a political manuver and are still willing to make the kind of statements that weaken the knees of our service men and women by claiming that the war is lost without giving the surge a chance to work and refuse to come up with a better plan to achieve victory is unconscienable. Reid is unworthy of the one square of toilet tissue that Cheryl Crow wants to allot him, even if it was previously used!
dalosophy at 2:12AM on Apr 24th 2007
9. Senator Reid is not a defeatist. He is a realist. The violence in Iraq has been rising steadly---the last three months were the most violent since the start of the war. So how can anyone claim the surge is working? And now I hear we were going to try building a wall but al-Maliki shot that idea down. It's just the latest gasp of a string of failures and lies from WMDs to Ahmed Chalabi to de-Baathification to Abu Ghraib to purple fingers to training Iraqi forces to killing Zarqawi to executing Saddam to the Surge to etc., etc., etc. Why, after all these shifting stories, is there any reason to believe that victory will come in Iraq? It's been four years and it is as bad as it has ever been. It's not unpatriotic to say this---hell, it's unpatriotic not to! And I think many of our "soldiers on the ground" are saying the same thing, as are many of the original generals in charge before Bush fired them and replaced them with pliant ones. Senator Reid is simply saying the truth that there is no way to win in Iraq. Many people are now saying this, including Republicans. We have to make Bush stop---with timetables for withdraw if necessary.
JosephP at 4:23PM on Apr 24th 2007
10. First victory was democracy in the Middle East, then democracy in Iraq was good enough, then we decided all we need is security in Iraq, now all we have to do is stay in Iraq and the enemy will lose. There is not much encouragement here for the future. If we lower the bar any further it will be under ground. Air power alone can keep away the terrorst camps. Explain why 80-100 dead Americans a month is worth it.
Phil at 6:16AM on Apr 24th 2007
11. The only realist that the military service men and women care about is their enemy and it looks like Harry Reid as they pull the knives out of their backs. As the blood soaked kris was thrust through I'm sure they were each thinking, Harry really backs his warranty; guaranteed defeat!
dalosophy at 2:44AM on Apr 25th 2007
12. Yet again. No plan. Lots of jingo. Lots of blame. No plan.
To 'win' this war is a lie.
Mr. Mirengoff, you don't have a clue what we're doing over there. You don't know the objectives, the deliverables, the plans, or who's responsible. You just say "win" like .... like nothing. If were playing Candyland, they'd define for you what it means to win.
But for Bushbots "win" war? Nothing but bull scheisse. Isn't that right, Mr. Mirengoff?
KDP at 3:34AM on Apr 25th 2007
13. Paul, you and John are so out of touch with the American people and with Iraq that you're just not worth reading anymore. I hear key Repubican senators up for re-election have horrible approval ratings. When they lose their seats, it will be because they strained themselves to the limit to continue to support the rot and corruption of the government we have had from 2000-2006. Thank God Congress is finally putting their feet to the fire, and getting increased approval ratings each time they do it - all the posts from the 30% crowd notwithstanding. So, I guess you not "getting it" is a good thing overall for the country.
Phil at 3:54AM on Apr 25th 2007
14. #2 AND #9
You are exactly what is wrong with America and this war. You are worse than the enemy (you are the enemy). You just wait and see...if you succeed in making sure that we lose this war. You will all eat your words when they are emboldened and attacks happen all over the USA. If the democrats would just support our troops, and stand firm together against this enemy, we could take them out and win this. Your arguments that the american people say or the soldiers on the ground say...is getting very old. All of the blogs that I have seen coming from the soldiers is in defense of what they are doing. How are all of you soooo stupid???? The american people are going to see through this facade that you demos have going and then your party is going down the tubes. If we lose this war, the blood is on the democrats hands, because they singlehandly caused us to lose by constantly undercutting our troops and the commander in chief. Don't you see that you are playing into these peoples hands. They are laughing so hard that you are so stupid and moldable. Why do you think they hate bush? Because he fights them!! So, therefore these terrorists are going do everything they can to make sure that we get out of there so they can take over. Please tell me you are not that stupid to just play into their hands. They know exactly what to do to push your buttons and you perform beautifully. Wise up and help us defeat these horrible people.
jk at 10:40PM on Apr 25th 2007
15. I would be shocked if the republicans would admit their fault in IRAQ. They sure love to blame everything on the democrats. Grow up and admit you "screwed the pooch" on this one. Place the blame where it belongs. Maybe if Iraq was a labor union the republicans would have succeeded in destroying it.
chazack at 4:33PM on Apr 26th 2007