vic‧to‧ry /ˈvɪktəri, ˈvɪktri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vik-tuh-ree, vik-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA PronunciationIt is time for ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' to end. It is time for ''OPERATION AMERICAN VICTORY'' to begin.
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.
2. an engagement ending in such triumph: American victories in the Pacific were won at great cost.
3. the ultimate and decisive superiority in any battle or contest: The new vaccine effected a victory over poliomyelitis.
4. a success or superior position achieved against any opponent, opposition, difficulty, etc.: a moral victory.
5. (initial capital letter) the ancient Roman goddess Victoria, often represented in statues or on coins as the personification of victory.
[Origin: 1275–1325; ME victorie
This could not have been prevented by more American troops. It could not have been prevented by more American aid. In the end, the Sunnis would never acquiesce in the reduced status and power which was the inevitable result of the overthrow of the Sunni despot Saddam Hussein. And the Shi'a woudl never permit a return to the situation before, nor will they ever willingly surrender or share, in a way that non-Muslim Westerners might agree to share among themselves, power or money. And whatever promises might be extracted by the Americans will be broken just as soon as the American aid or presence is no longer deemed necessary. This is something our almost comically ignorant makers of policy will not recognize. How can they? For if they did, then the entire enterprise, save for the part about scouring for major weaponry,would be seen to be based on false assumptions, on nearly criminal negligence in the lack of attention paid both to Islam and to Iraq. All that ails Ameican foreign policy, including the care and feeding of all those "experts" at think-tanks quick with pronouncements and prognostications based on very little, and certainly not on sustained and quiet study, removed from the hectic vacancy that is encouraged by those very think-tanks, and those interviews, and those rich consultancies to televisiion channels, and those seminars sponosred by a Center for Advanced International Blah here and there, when what is needed is less media exposure and more midnight oil.He understands the reality of the situation... posted by YIH @ 8:52 PM on Sunday, November 26, 2006 :
The utterly unsurprising becomes, for some, a series of amazing surprises. A tragicomedy of error after error, because based on two basic errors: about the definition of the enemy (and hence of the rightly-defined goal), and about the understanding of Iraq (and hence of how the specifics of Iraq can be naturally exploited to further that rightly-defined goal)
Coming. Home. Chickens. Roost.
WASHINGTON — President Bush and Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are facing a decision whether to keep their scheduled meeting next week in Jordan at the risk of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr making good on a threat to pull his Shiite faction from the fragile coalition government.We were so obsessed with ''bringing freedom to the Iraqi people'' that we had no idea who or what we were ''bringing freedom'' TO.
So Bill where did YOU find that little gem?That's the truth, I can't take credit for discovering it, credit belongs to The Inquirer. It has what I call it's ''suprise link'' that doesn't appear every day but when one does show up it ONLY appears for that day. I saw the video and thought ''I'm putting THAT up! RIGHT AWAY!!!''.
I got wind of it from The Inquirer, saw it and said ''OH YEAH! THAT'S going on my blog!''.
Back on Nov 1st.
Had to hack the HTML code a bit to make it work like a YouTube Video...
I used to be for "stay the course" in Iraq or something like that, however, I'm beginning to agree with you that we need to redeploy to Kurdish areas.Originally I was going to respond to this in the comments, then I realized that there is a point that had to be made ''in the blog main''. I can only assume this is the same ''B.Poster'' that I've mentioned before.
Had we commited enough troops to secure the country and if we allowed the ones there now to actually fight, we might have been able to actually establish a western style deomcracy. As ii is, our troops are having to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. More troops will not be coming to Iraq. It is likely that we do not have them. Even if we did, the American people would not stand for it.
For better or worse we will be redeploying to Kurdish areas soon. I predict all of our troops will be out of Sunni and Shia areas by the end of July 2007.
B.Poster | 11.16.06 - 1:59 am | #
Bailing out of Iraq won't result in increased radicalism in the Middle East. (Though we're told that invading the place did result in increased radicalism.) "Redeploying" won't convince the radicals that we're cowards who have no staying power and can be worn down in a long fight. It won't convince the radicals that they can attack us with impunity and that the price of doing so won't be catastrophe for them.This is an example of the ''junk food conservitism'' that I often rail about. That is we do anything BUT ''stay the course'' then ''the terrorists win''. It also suggests (by using the term ''Redeploying'' in a sneering way) that somehow, just somehow, if we just keep doing whatever we're doing in Iraq that someday in the future this fantasy future Iraq will somehow become reality.
One thing that bothers me is when it comes to Iraq that you seem to belive in myths and fantasy.I added the links on posting it here. Harsh? You betcha, but if you visit Chizumatic you will also discover my criticisim of SDB is also quite accurate. posted by YIH @ 7:15 PM on Sunday, November 12, 2006 :
And for you that's understandable. While this past two years I've been studying Iraq and what is ACTUALLY going on over there you have been watching DVD after DVD of anime.
I advise you to go to Jihad Watch and read the writings of Hugh Fitzgerald. Or ParaPundit and any post on Iraq. The mytholgical Iraq you visulize that is stable, ''westernized'' and functioning as singular US-friendly state is as realistic as teenage girls that can cast magic spells.
A 101 dead Americans this past month alone who were following the orders to try to create what is clearly a fantasy is obscene.
We do indeed need to what you sneeringly call 'redeployment' to bases on the northern and southern Kurdish borders. And allow the rest of Iraq to emerge from anarchy any way it can.
There is no vaugely defined 'victory' to be had in Iraq. Not with an adminstration that is still committed to ''winning the hearts and minds of the (fictional) Iraqi people'' and leaving 100,000 of our fellow Americans to essentially be target practice for any one of dozens of competing factions. Read up on the reality of Iraq or pop Dragon Ball Z back into the DVD drive. Your choice.
Another myth you cling to is that anything but ''stay the course'' is only a far left-wing view.
Is Wm. F. Buckley a raving liberal moonbat? Or George Will? Or Diana West? There is an increasing number on the right that see getting our fellow Americans killed and mamied in persuit of a fantasy is quite literally insane.
Simply Orwellian: Cutting and running from 'stay the course'When I read this in my local paper, there was nothing I can say to disagree with him... posted by YIH @ 7:01 AM on Friday, November 03, 2006 :
A.K.A: A new course on 'staying the course'
BY LEONARD PITTS JR.
'The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -- if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. `Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' '' -- from 1984 by George Orwell
''I'm here to tell you we're going to stay the course.'' -- George W. Bush, Nov. 28, 2003
". . . We've got to stay the course, and we will stay the course . . .'' -- George W. Bush, April 5, 2004
''The United States of America will stay the course . . .'' -- George W. Bush, Nov. 21, 2004
''We will stay the course; we will complete the job in Iraq.'' -- George W. Bush, Aug. 4, 2005
''We will stay the course; we will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed.'' -- George W. Bush, Aug. 31, 2006
"Listen, we've never been stay the course . . .'' -- George W. Bush, Oct. 22, 2006
''Orwellian'' is a word you toss out to prove you stayed awake in freshman English. Often, it is used to evoke a world in which all people are always under surveillance, as was the case in the totalitarian state George Orwell depicted in 1984, his 1949 masterpiece. But as you know if you read the book, surveillance wasn't the most chilling aspect of the world Orwell foresaw.
No, the thing about that world that made your skin creep on your bones was the shameless intellectual dishonesty of its leaders, the brazen way they savaged objective truth and dared anyone to call them on it. Nobody did. The people simply accepted what they were told.
In the world Orwell invented, words had no objective meaning beyond that assigned to them by the Party, whose slogans, not incidentally, were, ''War is Peace,'' ''Freedom is Slavery'' and ''Ignorance is Strength.'' In that world, there was no past -- or rather, the past was what the leaders said it was, and it was a waste of time to check for yourself, because all books, newspapers and other records were constantly being updated to reflect whatever the new reality was.
Thus, ''Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia.'' Much as we now learn that the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq has ''never been stay the course.'' And never mind that the president and his henchmen have spent three years pounding that phrase like nails into the public consciousness.
''Stay the course'' doesn't work anymore, not with most of the nation united against the war, so the White House announced last week that the phrase would no longer be used. That's their prerogative. But it's quite a leap from won't be used to never has been used.
So did we dream these last three years? Is ''stay the course'' just something we mumbled in our collective sleep as we twisted in our collective sheets? Or do we learn something here about the administration's level of respect for our collective intelligence?
It is not, by now, surprising that the president and his surrogates rewrite the past. We've seen that before, after all. Seen it with John Kerry the war hero ''traitor,'' with John Murtha the Marine ''coward.'' Saw it with WMD, which, it turned out, were not the reason we invaded Iraq. (Where'd we ever get that idea?) What's painful, though, is that we see it so quietly, see it, as the citizens of 1984 did, with apparent acceptance.
The truth is being stolen right before our eyes. Yet there are no mass demonstrations at the executive mansion. There are not a million headlines saying, "Wait Just A Bleeping Minute!''
''We've never been stay the course,'' he says. Oh, we say.
To which I can only add that war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. And Orwell was off by only 22 years.