"Winning" in Iraq--Definition to Follow

By: Macduff
Published On: 10/26/2006 11:51:56 AM

Yesterday, in response to a reporter's asking whether the US is "winning in Iraq," Bush initially evaded a direct answer but, when pressed, declared "Absolutely, we're winning." (Washington Post (10/26/06, p.16)). 

Unfortunately, not even Tony Snow knows what Bush means.  Today's Washington Post report continues:  "Asked at an Oct. 16 briefing whether the United States is winning in Iraq, Snow said: 'I don't know.  How do you define winning?...Let me put it this way: The president's made it obvious we're going to win.'"

In otherwords, "winning" means whatever Bush (and cheerleaders like George Allen) says it means.  Since the White House has no definition for what it means to "win" in Iraq, it can claim to be "winning" regardless of the evidence and regardless of how badly even the military says the war is going. 

Sadly, assertions by Bush and his loyal followers, like George Allen, have descended to mere propaganda:  use words for results without concern about truth or reality. It's enough for Republicans that Bush repeatedly declares we're winning--regardless of whether his claim is contradicted by the facts and commonly understood definitions of the word. 

The day is coming when Bush will declare "victory" and either pulls out or dumps the mess on his successor.  It's a shame that so many Americans and Iraqis will die before Bush announces that we've "won."  It's a shame Bush (and Allen) went into this war based on slogans, without enough troops or a plan to secure the peace.  It's a shame Bush has stretched our military so thin, has so dramatically demonstrated the limits of military power, and has made the world so much more dangerous.  I don't know how to extricate ourselves with the least possible damage, but we can all agree "You've done a heck of a job, Georges Bush and Allen."  What a team!


Comments



Winning is staying (vote-left - 10/26/2006 11:16:43 PM)
From Dan Froomkin, WaPo:

"Absolutely, we're winning," Bush said. "As a matter of fact, my view is the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done."

With the body counts soaring, the country descending deeper into civil war and the central government consistently unable to assert itself, how can he call this winning?

The answer: It's becoming increasingly clear that Bush sees the war in Iraq in very simple terms. As he himself said, he believes that the only way to lose is to leave. Therefore anything else is winning -- anything else at all.

Even if no progress is being made -- even if things are getting worse, rather than better -- simply staying is winning.

So we're winning.

http://www.washingto...