Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

By       Message Kevin Sysyn     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory Before victory can be declared in any conflict, it must be defined what exactly a victory would be? In Iraq a picture of what victory would look like is particularly, and spectacularly, unclear.

For me, victory in war is defined by the achievement of your war objectives. By this measure one can rightly claim that victory in Iraq has already been achieved several times, and the boy soldiers should have withdrawn and come home each time. But for reasons we may never know, Bush & Co have changed the war objectives after each victory finally leading to the present confused quagmire clusterf*#! with any idea of what a victory would actually be long forgotten.  

The Stumble-Bum-In-Chief, like being born with the golden spoon in his drooling mouth, unwittingly, through no fault of his own, won his stupid ill-advised illegal war several times but has stubbornly persisted long enough to lose it, which is a certainty. (I for one am glad he's taking the Republican Party with him when he goes.) Here's how Junior Bush snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  

Victory #1. The original war objective was to “disarm Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction” for the sake of American security.  Prior to the invasion a few hundred million people across the Earth marched in protest that this had already been done, and as that fact was being established by Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors Bush ordered them out of Iraq or risk being killed by the US Death Machine.

Of course Iraq had been disarmed of WMDs during the Clinton years, as pre-invasion critics said,  and that became obvious even to the blockhead himself a few weeks after the invasion. So Bush's objective, and therefore victory, was achieved, (even if before he went) and accepted by all (except for Dick Cheney); and the troops should have come home in glory, 20,000 grievously maimed wounded ago. But no!....wait! …Bush suddenly changed the war objective, (out of stubborn stupidity or embarrassment?), and it became “regime change”.  

Victory #2. Regime change was a simple by-product of the invasion and was pretty much an assumption at about the same time it was established there were no WMDs. Saddam was captured, his sons killed, and it was assured that he would never rule again. He could have been removed to Guantanamo Bay and there would have certainly been regime change, and the American troops could have come home rightly claiming glorious righteous victory, 500,000 Iraqi deaths ago.But no!....wait! …Bush suddenly changed the war objective a third time, and it became “democracy and freedom”.  

Victory #3. Now it was going to be the establishment of democracy and freedom. So the troops stayed and the appointed US military junta (the new regime) was ordered to hold free and democratic elections, which they did. A democratic government was duly elected, a Constitution approved, and both referenda were certified by Bush and Co. The troops could have come home, 3,500 American deaths ago, and rightly declared victory number three.

But no!....wait! …Bush suddenly changed the war objective a fourth time.  The new objective was, and remains, to establish security across Iraq and with this, finally, Bush found a (very profitable) conflict he could not win…; sort of the Peter Principle* Commander-in-Chief. *The Peter Principle is the theory that, in the work-place, through progressive achievement “one rises to his level of his incompetence”, where he stops, and that position is poorly filled by him thereafter, and he advances no further, which in turn of course degrades the company and him. 

This new objective is where the USA has been bogged down for years now, the war lost, because it is impossible to achieve. It might be likened to a 90-pound weakling inciting a barroom brawl, between two drunkgiants, which was none of his business to begin with, and then jumping in and trying to stop their fight-to-the-death by rassling them both to the ground and holding them down until they sober up, calm down and regain their rational senses, none of which they have ever done in their lives.

Before too long, he becomes the object of their attention and ire, and the blood-enemy of both. And it turns into a riot he cannot hope to win because he lacks the strength and energy to defeat or outlast them. In fact he can only lose since he has no real stake in the outcome anyway.  At the bottom of all of this, is the fact that the Iraqi people, Sunni and Shia alike, do not crave democracy and freedom, as we know it. It is not because they are jealous of Americans, nor do they hate Americans' freedom.  It is because fundamentally, democracy is at odds with their religious beliefs. They believe in theocracy, or should I say simply, rule by God’s law (the Koran) and not rule by man's law (a Constitution). Sort of like the dullard American Christian Taliban GOP base (or is it base-GOP?) desiring to rule America by Biblical edict rather than the US Constitution.

Bush may have removed the human dictator but he failed to realize that God is a dictator, and a dictator the Iraqi want and welcome.  All religions, in fact, are dictatorships. The Koran, (or the Ten Commandments for that matter) was not debated and enacted by an elected parliament. It is religious edict, or, a dictate from God. The Pope is not elected, and does not abide, by the vote of the rank and file Catholics. God’s the boss. Period!  

The USA will never ever win this war for security. It is utter madness and they have neither the military might, money, will nor the authority to change it. And it’s none of their business anyway. But they lose mostly because there is nothing to be gained by America.  So the questions that remain are, in this futile stupid fiasco of a war, what has been won and lost by Americans and America:Has it been worth the cost? Is the security of Americans more assured or further risked? Has freedom, democracy, justice and the rule of law, advanced in America or been degraded? Has America’s moral authority and leadership of the free world been enhanced or sacrificed?Has the US Constitution been enforced and adhered to or has it become a meaningless rag?Have international treaties and human rights been observed or violated?Have Americans’ dignity, privacy and rights been protected or destroyed?And finally what was the real motive for this war against Iraq?These are the questions that need to be addressed when deciding what victory really means. For me the answers all define defeat. koolmuse

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

I am an atheist socialist+- heterosexual feminist liberal father musician man.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

"Experts" & the Decline of the American News Media

Why is NATO in Afghanistan?

Congress Can't Violate the 4th Amendment Either

Why Isn't Campaign Finance THE Major Issue In 2008 Election?

Pseudo-Bill O'Reilly, Bloviator Extraordinaire

Bush/GOP's Conspiracy Against United Nations, Treaties & Allies