Assume for a moment that the United States secures a clear victory in Iraq within the next twelve months.

How does that change the political landscape heading into the 2008 U.S. national elections? Have the Democrats banked too much on defeat, or the Republicans too much on distancing themselves from the Iraq issue?

What would a "clear victory" be? A peaceful and united Iraq, with its oil reserves privatised and in US ownership - prompting moves towards counter-revolution in Iran, and making Israel feel safe enough to allow progress on the whole Palestinian thing, with the collapse of China through oil-starvation imminent, along with general agreement worldwide that, yes, greed is good... ?

I imagine, first of all, that Clinton would start loudly pointing out how she had, in fact, voted for the invasion. Also that when she spoke of 'withdrawl', she just meant some combat troops as Iraqis took over - not the embassy/fortress or the 'enduring' bases.

Actually, when you get down to it, and with some notable exceptions, there isn't a lot of difference between presidential candidates on either side of the party divide over Iraq. Most of them are hedging their bets, and could easily spin themselves through 180 degrees - although "victory" in Iraq really doesn't look likely.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
Assume for a moment that the United States secures a clear victory in Iraq within the next twelve months.

And assuming, for the moment, that my aunt is a man she'll be my uncle !

Why don't we start a discussion in this manner of something else e.g 'assuming for the moment that the Sun goes round the Earth' or '...that the Earth is flat'?

The US will not have a clear victory in twenty years, if only because she'll have pulled her troops out long before that reasonable time and her leaders will have called the then state of play ' a victory'. (The British have just had a 'victory' , though we were not so stupid as to call peace 'a victory', in Northern Ireland. The mission officially ends today, July 31st.It's taken just 38 years to achieve)

OK, assume then, for a moment, that I asked the question in a way that its premise is not debated. It is a year from now, the Iraqi government is in control, insurgent fighting has for the most part stopped - something slightly better, say, than Dublin in the 1970s

Based on the past, I would predict that:

If the outcome is better, both sides would take the credit.

If the outcome is status quo, or worse, both sides would blame the other party.

Realistically, it is most likely to be as bad as, or worse than - now. Or Fred's aunt grows new equipment. IMHO.

Democrats are in control of both houses AND the executive. You and Scotty have to be content with the SCOTUS. Victory in the Iraq mess is a pipe dream.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
It is a year from now, the Iraqi government is in control, insurgent fighting has for the most part stopped - something slightly better, say, than Dublin in the 1970s

Dublin in the 1970s? Blimey, no wonder you Americans can't tackle an insurgency. More faulty intelligence!

So far as I'm aware, O'Connell Street has been peaceful since 1923 Unless you count the visiting English drunks, of course.

Interesting to speculate, though, what the future does hold for Iraq. Bush's "victory" is maybe not achievable, but need we be as pessimistic as this guy?

Did I say Dublin? I meant Belfast - sorry, slight difference

Straws in the wind -

On the one hand:

'The vice-president's bullish remarks on Iraq followed a much-discussed article in the New York Times this week, from two previous, self-described critics of the administration's Iraq policy.

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, from the centrist Washington thinktank the Brookings Institution, said the US was finally getting somewhere in Iraq.

"As two analysts who have harshly criticised the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with," the two wrote after an eight-day visit to Iraq.

While acknowledging that the surge could not go on forever, the analysts said there was "enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008".' www.guardian.co.uk

On the other hand:

'Earlier this summer the Commission released its annual report on worldwide religious freedom. The report found that for the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein, freedom of religious worship in Iraq is under threat. The report notes that most abuses are carried out by gangs and sectarian militias, but also pointed out that the Iraq government has been a party to some of the violations, ignoring attacks on Sunnis and other religious minorities...' www.ipsnews.net

And...

'On May 30, the Coalition held a ceremony in the Kurdistan town of Erbil to mark its handover of security in Iraq's three Kurdish provinces from the Coalition to the Iraqi government. General Benjamin Mixon, the U.S. commander for northern Iraq, praised the Iraqi government for overseeing all aspects of the handover. And he drew attention to the "benchmark" now achieved: with the handover, he said, Iraqis now controlled security in seven of Iraq's eighteen provinces.

In fact, nothing was handed over. The only Coalition force in Kurdistan is the peshmerga, a disciplined army that fought alongside the Americans in the 2003 campaign to oust Saddam Hussein and is loyal to the Kurdistan government in Erbil. The peshmerga provided security in the three Kurdish provinces before the handover and after. The Iraqi army has not been on Kurdistan's territory since 1996 and is effectively prohibited from being there. Nor did the Iraqi flag fly at the ceremony. It is banned in Kurdistan...' www.tomdispatch.com

If some kind of stability is achieved in Iraq, is it likely to be one of ethnically cleansed, antagonistic regions - in fact, no Iraq at all?

It wouldn't change the landscape for the Presidential race. The way the President and his hooligans handled this war is something we can all agree on.
His own party has shyed away from him. His aproval ratings are the lowest in history right?

If a miracle happened and we got victory in Iraq, we would once again be declared a super power and not a country considered to be occupiers.
The rest of the world looks at us right now like we're stupid and a big joke. You all know what they're thinking.
We're in there not to establish democracy but for business reasons and possibly some revenge on behalf of our stone cold idiot President trying to finish something his daddy couldn't do himself.

I'm so sick of this war, what good is it, we can't fix thousands of years of deep religious beliefs. There was less death when Saddaam was in office.

But since we're in there we are stuck, and I don't recomend a pull out now. We broke it we fix it, and we now must be stuck in there forever till the day we finished what we started. Too bad that it's now going to cost thousands upon thousand of lives.
And now this fool has his eye on Iran and North Korea. Man before this idiots term is up in the Oval Office he's gonna try to start World War III.
Then we're stuck with the problem while him and his drunk daughters sit back and roll in the money hey made for them.

Whatever happened to a sit down? LIke I said before, howcome street people like the Mafia can solve their deepest disputes with a civilized sit down a handshake and a kiss, but the suppsed civil government we have can't do it without threats of violence and stuff like that.

Whoever runs this election year I'm voting Democrat. Republicans have screwed things up way too much.