Sometimes When You Win, You Really Lose.

I've tried to stay away from war topics, because I think it's all a bit preposterous, really. There's no legitimate debate because there is no legitimate information, and you can't have a legitimate debate without legitimate information. Supposedly some video exists that was made 5 years ago showing Bin Laden with (warning: convenient surprise ahead) the same guys that the US is now transporting to Guantanamo on (warning: convenient surprise ahead) the 5th anniversary of 911 for implementing the attacks. The fact that this video is just now surfacing raises a few questions: 1) where was it before; 2) who took it; 3) are those really the people who you are telling me they are; 4) was it really made five years ago or are you lying to me and you just made it last week so that you could show it to the American public to drum up support and evidence for a cause that you've been getting dragged through the mud on at a time that is shortly before general elections where you are probably going to get slaughtered at the polls because of your whole mishandling of the thing you are showing me? I'm not saying it's a fake - hell, I've never even seen the damn thing, I've just heard of it. All I'm saying is that time and time again there are pretty amazing coincidences that show up right around the time that ol' Gee Dubya steps in front of a television camera. But that's not really the point of this post. I'm just pointing out that the information we are supposed to debate is not entirely reliable and therefore the debate is kind of pointless and why I've stayed away from really commenting on the whole she-bang.

But.

After hearing for a few months now that pulling out of Iraq means we haven't won, I'm beginning to wonder what the definition of "won" means. NPR was running an interesting story about IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and how they have evolved since the beginning of the war. The interviewee was the foremost expert on these things and how they are set off. The interviewer asked him if there would ever be a point where they (the IEDs) were 100% ineffective because we had developed technology to either prevent them from exploding or at least prevent them from doing damage. The interviewee's answer was "probably not" because there's always a reason for The Enemy to keep building them, so, They will keep building them and working around our work-arounds that make the IEDs ineffective. That while we can mute the impact of the IED, the Raison D'Etre for their very being is cultural and until we win the socio-economic battle, we would never win the IED technology battle.

So, to me at least, that raises the question: can we "win" in Iraq? If you think back to WWII or even Korea, you'll see that wars are "won" - someone is declared the winner and everyone splits up the spoils, and the loser has to deal with the consequences and everyone lives more or less happily ever after (in a sustained cold war that causes panic and nuclear stockpiles). But there's a document of the event. Someone has signed a piece of paper in front of international witnesses that says "I Lost." It seems to me that this event is unlikely to occur in this war. First of all, who would sign it? Bin Laden? He doesn't really have anything to do with the war going on in Iraq (oh, I'm sure there's something that would link Bin Laden to the Iraqi dissident uprising - in fact there's probably a video of the meeting sitting in a vault somewhere in the CIA right this very second that shows the meeting with giant presentation easel in the room that reads "Plan: Death to the Western Infidels. Signed Bin Laden and the Iraqi Dissidents. Dated September 12, 2001.")

Anyway. My bigger point is: what are the terms of "winning" this war? A self-sustaining democratic government in Iraq that is freely elected in a peaceful, well-run election where all of the groups have pro-rata representation? We don't even have that here. A Constitution, President and governing body with police force and judicial system? That can't be it, because they have that and we're still there (i.e., we haven't "won" yet). Killing every member of any rebel group that is causing massive unrest? Doesn't seem like that's the answer, because much of the reason that they are even uprising is because we're there in the first place.

It seems that the US is waiting around for the Iraqi police and military to stop being corrupt and finally get around to policing themselves. But it's a chicken-and-egg situation - they can't support themselves until we leave, and we can't leave until they support themselves. I think the answer is this: they have plenty of reason to want to support themselves - and those reasons are scattered around the country and producing 20% of the world's oil. So, if left to the natural devices, it seems to me that those charged with deriving that oil would want a stable government to ensure that they could sell that oil. Since, we got rid of the unstable government and set up the skeleton of one that can work, all that's left is to hand over the keys and walk away. At some point, King Oilfield is going to have to drive the country off the lot, so to speak - even if he can't drive a stick shift.