Who Lost Iraq? Nobody!

The Sunni Arab insurgency remains active and will continue to remain active for osme time, but shows no realistic capability of defeating the regime we installed.

I don't think this is really knowable. They don't have the realistic capability of defeating the regime now, but let's face it: when we leave, the quality and quantity of forces who could resist the Sunni insurgency/ies will decline significantly. The Sunnis were the Iraqi army and security forces, and so are probably both better trained and better equipped than the Shiite militias who would be trying to keep them down.

We lost in the sense that we lost our f***ing minds when we decided to go in.

I'm having a hard time remembering why we fought this war that we won. Oh, and what it is we won. I kinda always knew we were fighting this war to get contracts for oil locked up for American oil companies, and for the right to put huge military bases in Iraq so we could get more troops out of Saudi Arabia to help our pals in Riyahd.

While it is smart to declare victory and leave, it is unnecessary to alter the history of Vietnam to do so. We were not driven from Veitnam, we chose to leave because the continuing costs were not worth the perpetually elusive prize. That is the way defeat will always look in asymetric modern wars.

If our desired outcome was to improve the lives of the Iraqis, we lost. If our desired outcome was to enhance the security of the United States, we lost. If our desired outcome was to demonstrate our military might, not to mention the quality of our foreign intelligence, we lost.

I'd say that in order to "win" a war, you must achieve your strategic objectives. From where I'm sitting, we failed to do so.

There is no "2-way" contest to begin with in present-day Iraq.

I'd say that in order to "win" a war, you must achieve your strategic objectives. From where I'm sitting, we failed to do so. - dob

Ummm ... but what were our strategic objectives?

Seems to me one big problem in this war is that our objectives were not defined in the first place, nu? So we won't ever know if we won or lost ... or was that not a bug but a feature (i.e. so we can be "winning the war" while the GOP is in charge and as soon as the Dems. get power, we'll start "loosing the war" so that the loss can be blamed on the Dems.) ...

Still, why was Colin Powell, of his doctrine, on board with this?

I think Matt is right. From the point of view of your typical Fox News watching, jingoistic, not-interested-in-world-affairs, the US won a long time ago. Killed Saddam? check. Blew up shit and made Iraqis grovel at our feet? check. Demonstrated to the world that we are willing and able to deliver great harm upon our enemies? check. The problem of course is that in a continuous political effort to outflank their domestic opposition, the Bush administration and its toadies have set the bar so high that we can never win, not on the terms the Bushies themselves seem to use - a functioning democratic state capable of providing security to people of all local faiths and ethnicities without the use of indiscriminate violence? They really expect we will ever see that in the Middle East? Even Israel and Turkey have a hard time meeting those standards.

This is a fantastic frame for the issue - I confess to have been stuck on nailing Bush for having lost. But that confuses the success of the military with the failure of the executive. Much better to agree - we did win, but we won the wrong thing. Hopefully the "we won" approach will reduce some defensiveness on the right that's stopping us from examining what we're really getting from our ongoing investment in Iraq.
Unfortunately, I don't think that this frame will take hold because winning the wrong thing looks so much like losing. I'd like to declare victory and go home, but we need some event to motivate the declaration.

I have been saying this for a long time. We did succeed, the military were given a mission and they essentially achieved it.

Unfortunately, the mission itself was such a bad idea that even this "success" is nothing anyone would want to admit being associated with. So the mission keeps having to be ammended because, surprise, nothing turned out the way the Architects of the War wanted it to. Seriously, they thought Chalabi would run the place - truly a group of people with a fantastical view of how the world should work.

It is NOT declaring victory so we can go home. It is a true assessment of what the military was asked to do and then did. The failures are all political and are not fixable in any military sense of the word.

The unspoken truth is that war supporters have turned their mistakes into an ongoing critique of the military. I guess that is "supporting the troops" if you are a Neocon Moron.

This is silly -- we did achieve our strategic objectives, insofar as the President of the United States was reelected.

I'd file this post under, "Defining Victory Down." In the sense that we had any real strategic objectives, as far as I can tell they were to stabilize the region, relieve pressure from our Israeli allies (Road to Jeruslem is through Baghdad), enhance US military credibility in the region and eliminate WMD from Iraq. Eliminating Saddam Hussein doesn't rise to a strategic objective, a personal one for Bush but not strategic. We acheived only the last one because that was the status quo ante, as for the rest, well if you say so Matt...

The Sunni Arab insurgency remains active and will continue to remain active for osme time, but shows no realistic capability of defeating the regime we installed.

I would agree with this - at least in part - except for the fact that the US appears to be in the process of switching sides in the war, and has sacrificed the viability of the Shia lead government to its anti-Iran strategy. Washington is now in the process of re-empowering the very groups it removed from power.

And even if the government is able to survive, that government shows no promise of being able to establish sovereign control over most of the Sunni-dominated parts of the country. The Kurdish region will likely survive as an independent or highly autonomous entity. The question in the center and south is whether there will be separate Shia and Sunni entities, or whether intense US hostility toward Shia interests, and its attempts to block the government's efforts to reach out for assistance to its neighbors to the east, will lead to a collapse of the government and a re-establishment of some weird new fusion of neo-Baathist and Sunni Islamist rule over much of Iraq.

In the sense that we had any real strategic objectives, as far as I can tell they were to stabilize the region, relieve pressure from our Israeli allies (Road to Jeruslem is through Baghdad), enhance US military credibility in the region and eliminate WMD from Iraq. - AJ

But anybody with a lick of sense could have realized that, with the exception of the WMD issue (or maybe it's just that I, believing that there might have been WMDs in Iraq, had not a lick of sense either), the Iraq war could never meet these goals.

It was fairly obvious that deposing Saddam Hussein would light a fuse in an inherently unstable nation (so much for stabilizing the region), that (given SH's past performance) invading Iraq actually could have been a trigger for SH to launch WMDs (which it turned out he didn't have) at Israel (which makes me wonder how pro-Israeli the pro-war people really were ... unless they knew SH didn't have WMDs!) and that any slip-ups would undermine our credibility more than a successful war would strengthan our credibility.

So why did we go into this war anyway? And why were we who realized the objectives were futile deemed "unserious" and the deeply silly people who didn't realize this were deemed the only ones "serious" about national security?

Neocon goals #1 and #2 were to create a rump state for Israel, and to establish a free market playground wherein wages were bargain basement, profits were to the max and Starbucks and Bed & Bath ruled. In those respects- they LOST the War.

We lost the war in Iraq because we went in there at war with our own interests. Short of killing several million Shiites (and becoming an uber-Saddam in the process) there was no earthly way there was going to be a government there to represent our interests.

After we talked the Shah down from the throne and Iranian militants spit on us in gratitude, what did Bush think the result of deposing Saddam was going to be?

If we won the war, how is it that we're unable to control the capital, let alone the rest of the country?

It seems to me that war supporters (and I, like MY, used to be one, to my great shame) envisioned not only the breaking of the Saddamist regime, the Baath party, and the Iraqi Army, but also the imposition of a kind of U.S. mandate or Raj in the Middle East; at least that's what utopian liberal hawks (like myself and Beinart), hooked on the idea of imperialism as a force for revolutionary democracy, talked about. The Neocons simply wanted control for its own sake as well as that of Iraq's geological resources. Either way, the goal was control of an oil Raj in the heart of the Middle East, with gradual independence in a decade or two; kind of a modern Col. Blimp fantasy (there was a lot of talk in the UK in the 1930s about India and Nigeria and Malaysia and other "brown" colonies getting self-rule in the 1980s at the earliest) The objective was control of Iraq. We do not control it, and cannot, short of killing everybody -- and even Bush has his limits. In that respect, we lost. It's over. Except, unfortunately, for all the dying.

Shorter Matt Y.:

You win the war you have, not the war you wish you had.

Neocon goals #1 and #2 were to create a rump state for Israel, and to establish a free market playground wherein wages were bargain basement, profits were to the max and Starbucks and Bed & Bath ruled. In those respects- they LOST the War. - Trevor

While your "goal #1" certainly motivated many neo-cons to support the war, I don't think it was so much a goal as a marketing ploy. Not only did letting it be known "the war will be good for Israel" get many Jewish neo-cons -- whose mindset seems to be "if they are gonna think we Jews are a bunch of dually-loyal assholes no matter what, why not be assholes with dual loyalty and have some fun with it" -- and their fellow travelors on board with the war, but it also ensured that the reflexive anti-Zionists would be out in force opposing the war: thus allowing the war-backers to more easily discredit the opposition to the war as being anti-Semitic.

As to goal #2: did it fail? Until we have a full accounting of where our money is going in this war, we won't know ... but it looks to me like, even if Starbucks and Bed & Bath ain't doing well in Bagdad, the money's flowing to somebody, eh? Some people are making a profit off this war, and that's kinda interesting, ain't it? The only way that goal #2 has failed, it seems, is just in the inherent flaws of the free-market ideology: in establishing a situation in which there is profit, I suspect that goal has succeeded.

Matthew, we lost the war. We are 4 years in Iraq and still cannot control even the capitol. We lost.

"We are 4 years in Iraq and still cannot control even the capitol."

No, we control the capitol just fine--it's the capital we can't seem to control. Unfortunately for us, a lot more people live in the capital than the capitol.

To be utterly pedantic, I note that we do not control the capital, the capitol, or the capital, witness the billions for which we cannot account.

Do you really believe that the insurgency (really more accurately, insurgencies) "shows no realistic capability of defeating the regime we installed." I agree with the poster above that this is essentially unknowable, but I have little doubt that the Maliki government will face some serious difficulty keeping its tenuous grasp on power without U.S. and coalition soldiers garrisoning its citadel.

Matt-- These days, you can't really separate the war from the post-war. Read Tom Ricks' *Fiasco* on the subject. It says everything you need to know about the war's execution.

While your "goal #1" certainly motivated many neo-cons to support the war, I don't think it was so much a goal as a marketing ploy. (DAS)

The neocons were slathering over the oil pipeline to Israel deal Chalabi was selling- that was NOT a marketing ploy- it was a big selling point. If there was a marketing ploy- it was aimed at convincing American companies that Big Money was to be made in Iraq (the scene in "Fahrenheit 911" perfectly illustrates that). Naomi Klein's excellent "Harper's" piece shortly after the insurgency built up real steam shows how the real sharpies were the insurgents themselves- they knew perfectly well what this "War Of Liberation" was really about.

Damn! This is the best insight I've seen on Iraq, and how and why Americans are having such a hard time getting our collective heads around it.

The "success" of a pathologically incompetent Administration is just hard to accept for what it is.

You're basically right, if framed in terms of the original objectives that were used to justify the invasion, which arose out of a misguided fixation on state-sponsored terrorism. We verified the absence of WMDs and we overthrew a regime that had a history of developing and using WMDs, thus theoretically reducing the possibility that Iraq would be the source of state-sponsored terrorism. That actually was doable, at least temporarily; the dream of establishing a stable Iraqi government without a civil war was the pipedream. Of course, the byproduct of (temporarily) reducing the likelihood of state sponsored terrorism is essentially a failed state, thus theoretically increasing the likelihood of the type of non-state-sponsored terrorism that left 3000 dead in NYC. Kind of analogous to treating a brain tumor by amputating the patient's head.

I agree that it's probably a good idea for war opponents to quit talking about the war being "lost." This is a hotbutton for the victimology and resentment that is the right wing's stock in trade. The better criticism is that the continuing occupation of Iraq furthers a mistaken political strategy, e.g., staying in order to try to guarantee a stable government is an act of pride and arrogance that fritters away valuable resources and is unlikely to succeed.

This is a bit esoteric, and maybe speculative, but...Shorter David Brooks: "I may be a Neocon, but I'm not one of those crazy Straussian Neocons like my erstwhile acquaintance Scooter Libby."

(Straussianism is something mentioned prominently in George Packer's Assassin's Gate.)

In short, a Pyrrhic victory?

it was a big selling point - Trevor

Does this admin do subtilty that even in their own minds they can keep "marketing point" and "selling point" straight?

Certainly, the prospect of cheap oil, either for us or Israel did get some people on board, but -- and while I cannot speak for the real neo-cons -- the wannabe neo-cons I know certainly were not sold a bill o' goods regarding an oil pipeline: they thought this war was "the U.S. doing Israel's dirty work". Let's put it this way: if you were to repeat what some of these people were saying before the war in regards to why they supported the war, these same people would accuse you of being a Protocols of the Elders of Zion reading anti-Semite ...

And I don't think that getting these kinds of nuts to say this kinda thing so that other nuts would sound like they were quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a bug: call me paranoid and overestimating the strategic intelligence of an admin that cannot carry out even their best laid plans (although, this was domestic politics where the admin was doing quite well for some time there -- anyway, perhaps not controlling the, um, capital might not be a bug but a feature?), but I think it was a feature.

Capital spelled correctly and beyond control of the world's superpower tells me that something is desperately wrong with the way we understand ourselves to be a "superpower."

Matthew is wrong, as the point made on Brad DeLong's blog we have lost in Iraq even if we happen to win right now. This was a terrible defeat and we seem to have no idea why.

Sorry, Yglesias, here Weisberg is absolutely correct. A hollow victory here is no victory; it is a loss and a decisiveone at that. The consequences of this war is that EVERYONE perceives the limitations of American power; American unilateralism and bullying can occur only at unacceptable cost. America can not be dismissed; but the "New American Century" has begun with America having to find new means to project its power.

MY, if we won why are we still there? In fact the US has not won since victory was defined to be the establishment of a stable, friendly democracy. Since this is impossible, eventual defeat is inevitable and always has been.

No, I don't agree with any of Matt's argument either. America invaded Iraq and is getting chased out by the Iraqis. That's a defeat.

This is not Vietnam where the VC and PRVN drove US forces from the country,

Yes, it is.

toppled the US-backed regime in Saigon,

Here, Matt has the difference backwards. He says, "We installed a new regime." No, we didn't. Planting a flag and walling yourself off in a Green Zone fortress isn't even one-tenth of establishing a regime.

and unified the country under control of the Communist Party.

Iraq will never again be unified under anyone's control.

"This is not Vietnam where the VC and PRVN drove US forces from the country, toppled the US-backed regime in Saigon, and unified the country under control of the Communist Party."

Give it another three months.

I'm not that with it when it comes to world affairs...but if you have been getting your ass kicked and continue too and you are defending yourself by avoidning 'fighting', with no plan for a comeback, you're just getting the ref to count you out real slow like...and the US militarz won the BATTLE for bahgdad, not iraq.

Beyond the sad question of why we went to war and occupied Iraq, what I still do not understand is why we have lost and being in Iraq under constant threat after 4 years is a terrible loss. Why? Also, why did we lose in Vietnam? I do not understand.

One thing I knew about the war was that it could not possibly end in a clear cut victory. Why, because there would be no surrender. No table with dignitaries present to sign the papers and say the end. No government left to surrender. It seems likely that that sort of victory is a thing of the past.

It has been said and I agree that we made a gigantic mistake by not making Saddam sign some surrender after the first Gulf War. We stopped at the border and then let things just drift. This was very dumb. Forcing Saddam to surrender would have had stupendous negative political consequenses for him. It's possible he might not have survived.

America always seeks total victory. We can't accept anything less. There was zero chance that Iraq would offer total victory and an unconditional surrender. The war in that sense was doomed to fail.

It's all well and good to suggest we somehow won, and your point is correct. However it just won't sit with the manly men of conservatism. Since we can't win we will extract revenge. As the dead bodies approach and surpass a million remember it's the price that must be paid for not giving us total victory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-iraq.html

U.S. Commander in Iraq Sees Long Commitment
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and ALISSA J. RUBIN

Gen. David H. Petraeus warned today that U.S. troops face a long road ahead, and left open the possibility that even more soldiers would be needed.

The US won the war in Iraq? Just like the Soviets won the war in Afghanistan and Napoleon won in Spain, right?

Heck, if Matt thinks we've won in Iraq, why would he object to moving in to Iran or Syria? Maybe lost of reasons, but certainly it is militarily doable. A cakewalk.

Matt is right in one key sense: There is no North Vietnam that has a strong, imposing conventional army that can sweep the current Iraqi government off the board once we leave.
The Shites are armed (by us and also by Iran) and have control over certain key levers in the government. The Sunnis no longer have access to the heavy tanks, artiliery, and air power the needed to truly enforce order and control as a minority. And the Kurds will never be under the thumb of the Iraqi Sunnis again (absent malicious intervetion by Turkey and other neighbors).
So we did "win" the conventional battle against the Iraqi conventional army, and its power has been scattered to the wind. But, as well documented, we did such a craptacular job of picking up the pieces in the aftermath and let the place sink into anarchy, criminal gangs, and ethnic cleansing, that our victory does look pretty hollow. But the "two-way contest" is over. Now it's just a barbaric war of all against all, which is what classical political philosphy has accepted occurs when the state relinquishes its monopoly on violence.
It's a tragedy that the administration always used the template of WW II in its arguments on war and occupation. Saddam wasn't Hitler (he fought a stalemate against Iran and could only conquer tiny Kuwait, only to be booted out by the UN six months later), and there wasn't 6 years of total war to decimate the male fighting population, industry, and urban environments by the time the Saddam government fell. Instead, it was show to be a hollow and corrupt regime that quickly collapsed when faced with a fight against its betters. Of course, the proper analogy should have been Iraq and the British in the 20s-40s, but no one ever wants to analogize to a bloody and messy occupation...
I actually believe that if the US forces withdraw, then some of the fringe political/revolutionary elements in Iraq will find it more difficult to tar the elected government as stooges of the occupier. The sectarian violence will still be there, but the anti-occupation violence will be absent.

The insurgents have curtailed America's ability to shock and awe whomever and whenever they like. If an insurgency in Poland post Nazi Germany's 9/1/39 invasion had erupted similarly- it would have dealt as crushing a blow to Hitler's plans as the Iraqi insurgency's has done to BushCo. A successful War would have meant a free hand to launch Wars against Syria, Iran, etc. What was the stated neocon agenda? "Iraq is the strategic pivot...Iran (or was it Saudi Arabia?) the tactical pivot...Egypt the prize." Iraq was Step #1. And, it was blown up by one big fucking IED.

Sometimes I worry about bloggers thinking that just because they can write about anything, they are knowledgeable about everything.

Matt, you should defer to someone who knows about the military. In this case, a good source on the Iraq War is Thomas Ricks. Ricks said that the war was fought with almost no overall strategy and almost no Phase IV plan. Therefore, there was no desirable end point reached, so how could it be said that "we won" in any way?

Just a disclaimer: I've read Ricks' book, but I'm not a military expert myself. But your conclusion that we "won the war in Iraq" does not sound like anything I read in Ricks' *Fiasco.*

I don't think that this is a particularly valid argument unless we are *also* going to claim that the regime that we've set up will be able to withstand the insurgency (in the sense that they are withstanding it now) if we were to leave.

Remember, the problem with Vietnam was *not* that the Vietnamese drove American troops into the sea, or something. There was no Vietnamese Yorktown. Rather, the US *withdrew its troops* because of domestic political opposition to the costs of the war. In fact, there are still some crazy folks who argue that we *didn't* lose the Vietnam War -- when we left it was a stalemate, and then the silly South Vietnamese collapsed after we left.

It is now only a question of how the loss will be played out -it is still possible to waste many more lives and lots more treasure. Eventually the US will be "driven out" if only because the cost will have become too much (as it did in VietNam).

Iraq War II has had two quite predictable consequences: it uncorked a nasty sectarian civil war and strengthened Iran. The rest of it is opera.

The notion that whatever came after could be termed victory or defeat for any of the sides is almost quaint, as if the war was fought off on the Plains of Abraham and something was then settled.

As a thought exercise, what would have followed a successful internal toppling of the Ba'athist regime in April 2003? To me, the picture is pretty much the same, only without US troops on the ground to distort matters. The invasion was a deus ex machina. So Matt is right insofar as the US had then accomplished everything it could accomplish.

The argument that we won is a little like saying that the Japanese Navy's idea of attacking Pearl Harbor was a good one, because they sank a bunch of battleships.

Well yes they certainly won the battle, but should they really be given a pass in the department of: "unexpected extent of the consequences."

We won the war to lose the war.

Invading was the wrong thing to do from the get-go; a self-inflicted wound in the only objective that really mattered to the American public: preventing another successful 9/11-style attack.

I have felt this was the correct framing for several years now for anyone that has a grasp of English vocabulary.

Certain people used to frantically blog after each big incident (i.e., Falluja, UN office bombing, etc.): "there's no way we can win this now!" And I'd comment "what are you talking about, what is there to win, we already won what you could win, what we're doing is a terrible job at governing our new 51st state". And other commenters would just come back with more stuff on "but we can't win" as if they couldn't read English. I still to this day don't get what they want to "win."

Further puzzlement: if you don't buy into the ridiculous win/lose framing for an occupation, you can easily segue into the question of why a president who promised the U.S. would no longer go around "nation building" is still adamant about sending troops over to build a nation more than 4 1/2 years after he declared "mission accomplished" by our military.

The only reason I can think of for this distortion of the English language is that it's some kind of sick attachment to making sure anything associated with Bush is associated with the word lose or failure. If you can't give him the word win on techicality, you in effect lose a lot. No one "wins" an occupation.

Really Victory in America's wars has seldom really meant a perfect (or even a good) outcome.
Civil War...abandoned reconstruction leads to nearly a century of the ethnic minority being oppressed. South takes a generation to recover economically.
World War I....World War II
World War II....many of the nations in Europe that were free before the war end the war non-free
Korea...ends where it started
Cold War...collapse of Soviet Union in some ways made the world more chaotic, Russia has emerged as a non-friendly actor.
"War, what is it good for...."

Everybody should STFU about "frames." You read a book (or more likely a blog post about a book); congratulations.

artappraiser:

I share your frustration with the abuses of vocabulary we've been subjected to these past several years.

Russell120:

If we need to come up with an inane WWII analogy, a better one would be (allowing for the fact that Iraq didn't actually attack us) the US fighting Japan all the way across the Pacific, accepting their surrender, beginning an occupation with too few troops and then being gradually worn down by guerilla tactics. The military threat from Japan would have been eliminated (what I would consider military victory), but our ability to influence Japan's subsequent political development would have been zero (not a military defeat but a loss of interest in another country's internal affairs).

This is of course inane because Japan DID attack us, had a very homogenous culture, felt a keen sense of dishonor and accountability for their defeat and made no real attempt to resist once the Emperor had surrendered (and this became known to the remaining troops). No real resemblance to Iraq whatever.

Last week saw the first co-ordinated direct attack on one of the US "permanent" bases. It won't be the last.

There are only a couple hundred thousand US soldiers . There are millions of Sunni and Shia Iraqis, and we're working very hard to make every one of them hate us, and largely succeeding.

My prediction: if we don't pull out completely sometime before the end of George II's reign, we'll have another helicopters-on-rooftops situation like the fall of Saigon. I'd give it about a year, and then we'll be in real trouble.

And where will the American service personnel come from that will hold our positions in Iraq in the coming year?

Here's another apposite metric :

"When you become like your enemy, your enemy has won."

The goals were clear - establish a US-controlled, or at least US-friendly state in Iraq. Milk the living sh*t out of it for oil, money, and domestic political gain. Use that state as a base for US and Iraqi forces to invade/threaten every other state in the Middle East (i.e., to destabilize them, and to restabilize them in our interests).

Results: (1) Failure - we'll have a Shiite state allied with Iran. (2) Gain for the money (to GOP cronies), short-term gain for GOP political power, medium-term loss for GOP power. (3) Failure - much destabilization, but not in the interests of the GOP/US gov't.

i'm always amazed that the administration never clearly drew the line you just did -- we easily won the war, the reconstruction's not going so hot, but the iraqis share some/most/all of the blame for that. (if rove were near the genius some claimed, i don't think he would have missed that.)

To determine America's stated goals in Iraq, the relevant sources would be Bush's addresses to the nation before the war, which I link to below. I emphasize that these are stated goals because in these addresses Bush said a number of thinks which weren't true. (One I just noticed for the first time is his assurance that, "this will not be a campaign of half measures." Some half measures: insufficient troops, inadequate body armour, efforts to stop looting were limited to protecting the oil ministry...)

In his March 17 address to the nation, Bush reiterated his objective of eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and said that because of Saddam's repeated refusals to disarm, Saddam must step down or we would remove him from power. The WMD were destroyed in the 1990's, and Saddam was removed from power in 2003, so both the objectives Bush specified in that speech have been accomplished.

In his March 19 address to the nation, Bush says that our goals are "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." The first and third of these are the objectives listed in the previous speech, but "free its people" is new. Exactly what he means by that is unclear. He does not say he wants Iraq to be a democracy, though that might be implied by "free." At one point he says that, "helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment." On the other hand, he assures that world that, "we have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people."

I really wish we would limit our ambition in Iraq to "restoring control of that country to its own people" because all we have to do to accomplish that is to withdraw our troops.

The goal of a war is to get the other side to do what you can't get them to do otherwise. Defeating the enemy's army and maybe even removing its leadership doesn't matter. That's why you can make the case that in the long run we won the Vietnam War (I would say the fact that Nike shoes get made in Vietnam now with the help of union busting soldiers is at least as good if not better deal than we could have gotten if South Vietnam had prevailed), and we will have lost the Iraq War since our position in the Middle East is almost certainly going to be worse after we withdraw than it was when Hussein was in power.

We won a major battle in Iraq, that's all. If we apply your standards, then the Soviet Union won the war in Afghanistan.

We won the war? Mind directing us to when and where, exactly, the Iraqi Army surrendered?

Hard working hamsters (living on minimum wage) are kept up all night running the beauty in front of your eyes. They slave away powering Wordpress on the shiney new grid-server platform from the kind and loving people at MediaTemple. So if your considering stealing some content, please think of the hamsters. If that doesnt stop you, think about how far my lawyer can shove his foot up your ass.

thnaks

thanks four you floweras

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması

thans

very
nice...

thank you.

mirc script

Sağır Oda Fan Club
Türk
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
youtube video
forum
downloads
Haberler
küresel ısınma
dizi izle

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

bilgi yarışması yarışma arkadaş ara asp script indir hayvan resimleri asp indir php indir bil kazan seri ilanlar aşk sevgi resimleri yarış kazan kavak yelleri dizisi bilgisayar güvenliği genco dizisi asp script indir avrupa yakası dizisi ilan ver kaspersky antivirüs köprü dizisi hepsi bir dizisi php indir aşk sevgi resimleri resimler pusat dizisi sevgili ara yaprak dökümü dizisi php script indir kurtlar vadisi pusu dizisi bilgi yarışması

Ataşehir Çiçekçi -
Altunizade Çiçekçi -
Acıbadem Çiçekçi -
Aşağı dudullu Çiçekçi -
Altıntepe Çiçekçi -
Anadolu Hisarı Çiçekçi -
Altkaynarca Çiçekçi -
Altayçeşme Çiçekçi -
Atakent Çiçekçi -
Başıbüyük Çiçekçi -
Bağlarbaşı Çiçekçi -
Bulgurlu Çiçekçi -
Bahariye Çiçekçi -
Bakkalköy Çiçekçi -
Beykoz Çiçekçi -
Beylerbeyi Çiçekçi -
Bostancı Çiçekçi -
Bulgurlu Çiçekçi -
Burgazada Çiçekçi -
Burhaniye Çiçekçi -
Büyükada Çiçekçi -
Caddebostan Çiçekçi -
Çubuklu Çiçekçi -
Çekmeköy Çiçekçi -
Çengelköy Çiçekçi -
Çiftehevuzlar Çiçekçi -
Çamlıca Çiçekçi -
Çakmak Çiçekçi -
Erenköy Çiçekçi -
Esatpaşa Çiçekçi -
Esenkent Çiçekçi -
Feneryolu Çiçekçi -
Fikirtepe Çiçekçi -
Fenerbahce Çiçekçi -
Göztepe Çiçekçi -
İstanbul Çiçekçi -
Harbiye Çiçekçi -
Hasanpaşa Çiçekçi -
Haydarpaşa Çiçekçi -
Harem Çiçekçi -
Rahmanlar Çiçekçi -
Suadiye Çiçekçi -
Sarıgazi Çiçekçi -
Küçüksu Çiçekçi -
Koşuyolu Çiçekçi -
Kuleli Çiçekçi -
Kurfalı Çiçekçi -
Küçükyalı Çiçekçi -
Kurtköy Çiçekçi -
Kartal Çiçekçi -
Kozyatağı Çiçekçi -
Kızıltoprak Çiçekçi -
Kalamış Çiçekçi -
Kuzguncuk Çiçekçi -
Kandilli Çiçekçi -
Kavacık Çiçekçi -
Kayışdağı Çiçekçi -
Kısıklı Çiçekçi -
Kazasker Çiçekçi -
Merdivenköy Çiçekçi -
Maltepe Çiçekçi -
Moda Çiçekçi -
Paşabahçe Çiçekçi -
Pendik Çiçekçi -
Samandıra Çiçekçi -
Soğanlı Çiçekçi -
Soğanlık Çiçekçi -
Soğuksu Çiçekçi -
Selamiçeşme Çiçekçi -
Sahreyıcedid Çiçekçi -
Sultanbeyli Çiçekçi -
Selimiye Çiçekçi -
Şaşkınbakkal Çiçekçi -
Tüccarbaşı Çiçekçi -
Tuzla Çiçekçi -
Üsküdar Çiçekçi -
Ünalan Çiçekçi -
Ümraniye Çiçekçi -
Üst Kanarca Çiçekçi -
Yakacık Çiçekçi -
Yenisahra Çiçekçi -
Yavuztürk Çiçekçi -
Yukarı dudullu Çiçekçi -
Ziverbey
Akatlar Çiçekçi -
Arnavutköy Çiçekçi -
Akaretler Çiçekçi -
Aksaray Çiçekçi -
Ataköy Çiçekçi -
Ayazağa Çiçekçi -
Ayazma Çiçekçi -
Aydınevler Çiçekçi -
Beşiktaş Çiçekçi -
Bahçelievler Çiçekçi -
Bakırköy Çiçekçi -
Bahçekapı Çiçekçi -
Balmumcu Çiçekçi -
Baltalimanı Çiçekçi -
Bayrampaşa Çiçekçi -
Bebek Çiçekçi -
Beyazıt Çiçekçi -
Beyoğlu Çiçekçi -
Büyükdere Çiçekçi -
Cağaloğlu Çiçekçi -
Cerrahpaşa Çiçekçi -
Cevizli Çiçekçi -
Cihangir Çiçekçi -
Çağlayan Çiçekçi -
Çeliktepe Çiçekçi -
Çağlayan Çiçekçi -
Cevizlibağ Çiçekçi -
Çapa Çiçekçi -
Dikilitaş Çiçekçi -
Dragos Çiçekçi -
Edirnekapı Çiçekçi -
Etiler Çiçekçi -
Elmadağ Çiçekçi -
Eminönü Çiçekçi -
Emirgan Çiçekçi -
Esentepe Çiçekçi -
Eyüp Çiçekçi -
Fatih Çiçekçi -
Feriköy Çiçekçi -
Fındıklı Çiçekçi -
Fındıkzade Çiçekçi -
Firuzköy Çiçekçi -
Fulya Çiçekçi -
Galatasaray Çiçekçi -
Gayrettepe Çiçekçi -
Gaziosmanpaşa Çiçekçi -
Gülsuyu Çiçekçi -
Gültepe Çiçekçi -
Gümüşsuyu Çiçekçi -
İstinye Çiçekçi -
Kabataş Çiçekçi -
Kanlıca Çiçekçi -
Karaköy Çiçekçi -
Kasımpaşa Çiçekçi -
Kurtuluş Çiçekçi -
Kuştepe Çiçekçi -
Levent Çiçekçi -
Maçka Çiçekçi -
Maslak Çiçekçi -
Merter Çiçekçi -
Mecidiyeköy Çiçekçi -
Nişantaşı Çiçekçi -
Nakkaştepe Çiçekçi -
Ortaçeşme Çiçekçi -
Okmeydanı Çiçekçi -
Osmanbey Çiçekçi -
Ortaköy Çiçekçi -
Pangaltı Çiçekçi -
Seyrantepe Çiçekçi -
Sirkeci Çiçekçi -
İncirli Çiçekçi -
Sultanahmet Çiçekçi -
Şişli Çiçekçi -
Taksim Çiçekçi -
Topkapı Çiçekçi -
Tahtakale Çiçekçi -
Tarabya Çiçekçi -
Teşvikiye Çiçekçi -
Topselvi Çiçekçi -
Tozkoparan Çiçekçi -
Yeşilköy Çiçekçi -
Yeşilyurt Çiçekçi -
Zetinburnu Çiçekçi

realy nice article, thanks for very interesting informations

sohbet

thank you

ankara nakliyat

ankara nakliyat

ankara nakliyat

ankara nakliyat

ankara nakliyat

ankara nakliyat

sohbet
thanx mucu mucux

thanks

thanks

thanx owner

Thanks for you sites..

very very nice informations... thanks informations.. mr mk

I think you could debate about the Iraq war until we are blue in the face. It is a situation with som many different elements that it is really hard to understand.Atlanta Real Estate. This is very interesting information

thanks for all

thx

travesti

perde

jaluzi perde

stor perde

dikey perde

iso belgesi

iphone kılıfı

süper site

kozmetik

kolonyalı mendil

kolonyalı mendil

dolum

güvenlik kamerası

kamera

süper

sohbetim

joyturk tekstilkent joytürk mIRC Chat Video poşet imalat ambalaj paketleme iso güvenlik ıslak mendil

thanks
http://www.htmlkodlari.bloggum.com

thank you matthewyglesias

sexshop

sex shop

seksshop

porno cd

porno dvd

seksshop

seks shop

Ataşehir Çiçekçi -

Altunizade Çiçekçi -

Acıbadem Çiçekçi -

Aşağı dudullu Çiçekçi -

Altıntepe Çiçekçi -

Anadolu Hisarı Çiçekçi -

Altkaynarca Çiçekçi -

Altayçeşme Çiçekçi -

Atakent Çiçekçi -

Başıbüyük Çiçekçi -

Bağlarbaşı Çiçekçi -

Bulgurlu Çiçekçi -

Bahariye Çiçekçi -

Bakkalköy Çiçekçi -

Beykoz Çiçekçi -

Beylerbeyi Çiçekçi -

geciktirici -

sex shop

oryantal kostüm

gömlekçi

thenks http://www.penisbuyutuculeri.com Penis Büyütücü, Penis Büyütücü Ürünler,Büyük Penis, Cinsel Organ, Cinsel Performans, Erken Boşalma, Penis Geliştirici, Cinsel İsteksizlik,Kalın Penis, İri Penis,Super S, SuperSize, Super S Penis Büyütücü, SuperSize Penis Büyütme

thenks http://www.sexshopum.com: sex shop, sexshop, erotik shop, erotikshop, erotic shop, eroticshop, erotik market, erotikmarket, seks shop, seksshop, erotic market, eroticmarket, sex market, sexmarket, seks market, seksmarket, sexs shop, sexsshop, erotik, erotic, seks, sex, erotik magaza, penis büyütücü, penis büyütücüler, geciktirici sprey, geciktirici spreyler,göğüs büyütücü, göğüs büyütücüler, bayan azdırıcı damla, geciktirici hap, geciktirici, geciktiriciler, penis büyütücü haplar, penis büyütücü hap, prezervatifler, şişme bebek, şişme bebekler, şişme manken, vibratör, vajina, cinsel istek arttırıcı, cinsellik, geciktirici krem, cinsel ürünler, erotik ürünler

thanks for the help

thank you very good
mirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirc inndir
mirc yükle
mırc
türkçe mirc
mirc download
kameralı mirc
kaçak
kaçak script
kelebek
kelebek indir
kelebek script indir
indir
sohbet
chat
chat sohbet
sohbet sitesi
chat sitesi
film indir
divx film indir
divx indir
film izle
dizi izle
mp4 film indir

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc

Fibercement
Dış cephe
Hekimboard
Turksiding
İzokon
Dış Cephe Kaplama
Mantolama
Söve
Kaplama
Dışcephe
Dış cephe
Dışcephe
Güvenlik

http://www.izokon.com/hakkimizda.html
http://www.izokon.com/hizmetlerimiz.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler.html
http://www.izokon.com/hekimboard.html
http://www.izokon.com/turksiding.html
http://www.izokon.com/fblam.html
http://www.izokon.com/kalite.html
http://www.izokon.com/sove.html
http://www.izokon.com/referanslar.html
http://www.izokon.com/iletisim.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler2.html
http://www.izokon.com/sss.html
http://www.izokon.com/fiberust.doc
http://hekimboard.blogcu.com
http://www.izokon.com/style.css
http://www.izokon.com/sitemap.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunlergiris.html
http://www.izokon.com/hbteknik.doc
http://izokon.blogspot.com/2008/06/hekimboard-fibercement.html
http://izokon.blogspot.com

thanks for the new regime in Iraq

thanks a lot.

nice site thanks

thank you very good
mirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirc inndir
mirc yükle
mırc
türkçe mirc
mirc download
kameralı mirc
kaçak
kaçak script
kelebek
kelebek indir
kelebek script indir
indir
Lida Dai Dai Hua Jiao Nang Seo Yarışması
sohbet
chat
chat sohbet
sohbet sitesi
chat sitesi
film indir
divx film indir
divx indir
film izle
dizi izle
mp4 film indir
ilahi
ilahi sohbet
ilahi chat
islami sohbet
islami chat
ilahi sohbet
ilahi
limewire indir
türkçe limewire indir
limewire
limewire download

ı have followed your writing for a long time.really you have given very successful information.

thenkssss

thenksss