Irrelevancy of Winning in Iraq
Yes, it is irrelevant if we are winning in Iraq. It only matters at the end of the day who wins. We were losing the whole duration of the American Revolution. We had our capitol burned to the ground in the War of 1812. The Union was losing for most of the Civil War. Certainly we were losing for most of WWII.
The question must not be whether or not we are winning in Iraq but what must be done to win in Iraq. Though it may seem like a word game remember that words are thoughts. A simple change in phrasing can change the whole world. Liberals run around crying that we cannot win in Iraq. How can we not win in Iraq if we choose to do so? We outnumber the Iraqis 11 to 1. Our GDP is 460 times greater than Iraq's
GDP. If we were to dedicate 1% of the nation's income to winning in Iraq we would have the buying power of four and a half times the amount of goods and services that Iraq produces in a year.Iraq Total Population: 26,783,383
USA Total Population: 300,000,000
Iraq GDP: $25.5 Billion 2004 (whitehouse.gov)
USA GDP: $11,733.5 Billion 2004 (econstats.com)
In short the real reason we have not won in Iraq is that we don't want to win (at least not yet). Now hold on before you get all sad and depressed. We are choosing to not "win" now so that there will be a lasting peace. Sure we would like to destroy the insurgency but we don't want to do many of the things necessary to destroy it. Sure we could shoot every military age male in Iraq and the insurgency would be effectively over. But we don't want to do that. It would have a detrimental effect on the formation of democracy.
In short we can win whenever we wish regardless of what panzie liberals will say. But as the Bush administration has clearly laid out. (not that the liberals have actually read the plan before disagreeing with it) The solution that we are involved in is going to take time. We are building a lasting democracy. The liberals say its impossible but we say that it is possible it simply is going to take time.
We can win whenever we want to and are winning as we please. That is the power of our 11.7 trillion dollar economy. (Note: we reportedly have a 13.1 trillion dollar economy now)(Further note: that increase is equivelant to the GDP of India, Indonesia, AND Iran)
reported in by Think Tank Commander at 12:32 PM
3 Comments:
Great post. However, at times, I fear we are all speaking to those who will not hear!
Yes, indeed. Patience people, give it time. I'm amazed at President Bush's intelligent persistence in the face of the MSM, the pollsters and even those in his own party who haven't the patience to do this right. It's only the most important thing happening in any of our lifetimes.
Two bi-polar takes on this come from Mohammad at Iraq the Model and TMLutas at Snapping Turtle. Mohammad wonders why we aren't coming in guns blazing, troops tripled to get on with it in his country. TM says President Bush and his generals know what they're doing with their deliberate pace.
ITM: America's worst mistakes were hesitation, failing to invest the initial victory in Iraq and Afghanistan and not using her power and influence to achieve more. America simply did not act like a winner but instead stood idly like a weary giant doing nothing but complain about mosquito bites.
Snappingturtle: I've been writing about how the US and Al Queda are fighting on a meta-battlefield of serialization and parallelization since at least 2003. The US is fundamentally trying to slow things down, occasionally biting where it chooses, chewing, and swallowing chunks of Al Queda and company at its convenience. Al Queda tries to make it politically impossible to maintain a sustainable pace so that the US is forced by political realities into burnout, leading to an opportunity where Al Queda can actually claim a durable military victory.
Given that well established dynamic, Glenn Reynold's post on losing momentum is so badly framed that it's better to toss it out and start over again. The US Army is now taking 42 year olds. This is a sign of force stretching that is currently manageable but it's a warning sign that Al Queda's efforts are not without effect. Al Queda wants us to speed up, overextending ourselves. We're not there yet but we could get there. Additional force commitments will get us to Al Queda's preffered scenario. So count me as having a different opinion than both Glenn Reynolds and Mohammed of Iraq the Model who would like the US to move much faster. Unfortunately, Mohammed is engaged in magical thinking. We aren't going further and faster because we can't sustain that sort of effort.
I lean toward ITM, but to help keep the military from becoming overextended, I'm going to join up.
The Army raised the age to 41.9 and I'm joining up at 40.5, I wonder what impact having a bunch of rookie older guys joining will have. I'm looking forward to getting the hell out of Chicago and getting with some people who actually understand what is at stake. -GlobalCop
This is the best explanation I have read anywhere! Thank you!
I found you through your post at DevilDog's place.
You are bookmarked now!
Post a Comment
<< Home