Centerfield

I'm not so sure that counting deaths is a measure for sucess, and if it was you should probly use combined Iraq and US deaths since we are allies in the same fight. I believe we will see the number of deaths continue at the same level until the end and then we will see an unmistakeable drop to single digits. I base this on the assumption that we are taking the fight to the enemy and we will continue to do that until they are effectively eliminated.
I would declare victory and come home when Iraq has an elected government and they ask us to leave.
I would declare defeat and come home if they elect or empower a theocracy who tells us to leave.
I would call it a draw and come home if Iraq has a stable government but our casualties are continuing at the present rate following the 2008 election.
I believe that it is the Iraqi decision on when we leave. I do not believe we would be able to stay if they said go, and I don't believe we could leave in good conscience until they say we are no longer needed.
This is my opinion, however I am open to better arguements.

I'm not sure exactly what question we're tipping on. If you mean whether we're winning or losing, I haven't spent the time or have the expertise to filter out the partisan noise and come to an objective conclusion. However, even granting that we're losing, I would wonder if we could change our strategy into a winning one. I think it is important that we give Iraq our best shot--it is that critical. But at some point, we're just wasting resources, doing more harm than good, or the task requires far more resources than we can afford both in lives and dollars.

In these situations, I tend to rely on the opinions of those who are more knowlegeable than me and whom I trust.

So if John McCain said we ought to cut our losses, that would be a tipping point for me, especially if he were joined by several Republican senators, like Lindsey Graham for instance.

Similarly, if the Iraqi government asked us to go, certainly I would acquiesce.

Ah, using the number of U.S. deaths as a tipping point strikes me as missing the point.

For me, one of the tipping points was understanding how much we spent per month over there;

it was learning that no plans had been made post-war;

it was, in short, learning enough to understand that no matter what our objectives ever were over there, they were impossible goals from even before we went over there.

--BEG

What was the Allied casualty rate in July-December 1944? How much progress had been made by that time? Both European and Pacific theaters?

I'm saying your choice of a metric is a really bad one.

Good one Bob.
Coming from a pretty well entrenched pro-war view, we are doing pretty well camp, it would take a fairly radical change in the short term situation to tip me. I'm not sure the US death toll is a good measure, but above 1,000 fatalities/life altering injuries a month would certainly give me pause. A major civil war, monthly terrorist attacks in foreign capitals, or a clear indication that the Iraq populace wanted us out (especially this latter), would indicate to me we need to change our strategy rather than just adjusting our tactics. Long term, if we are still touting elections for the next 3-5 years I would take it as a bad sign its not taking hold.

This war will be "won" when we forstall the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. Since we may have to threaten to use force to do this, the Iraq war will be "won" when we finally have enough military force to credibly threaten this--enough military force, in other words, to invade and subdue Iran.

We have not had this since March of 2003 when we invaded Iraq, we do not have this now, and we do not look to be having this at any time before the Iranians actually do go nuclear. So I don't expect to change my mind about Iraq.

This is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to "win" the Iraq war.

To "win" the Iraq war we must also forstall the new generation of bomb makers, whose skills we are honing in Bagdhad, from going to places like Amman, Jordan and blowing things up. The only way I can see for us to do this is to capture or kill every last insurgent in Iraq before they can go anywhere else.

We have not been doing this and I don't expect us to start doing this any time soon. So even on this ground I don't expect to be changing my mind on Iraq.

This is also a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to "win" the war in Iraq.

To truly "win" you would have to do both. I confidently expect us to do neither. I have thought this from the first day of the invasion in March 2003, and I have seen absolutely nothing that would encourage me to change my views.

Have you?

I'm strongly pro-war. I'd start thinking we'd failed if halfish of the electorate polled pro-islamofascist or pro-Saddam, or the democratic process froze for years, or if the moves toward Iraqi-provided internal security freeze.

This question doesn't work for me. I've always been mixed about the war, if only because it seemed to me the reasons for the war were greater for the world at large (i.e. potential WMD, track record of abuse and genocide, history of warring with neighbors) than for the US (imminent threat). Having said that I've not been anti-war then or now. My concern is that our failure will 1) send a strong message to Al-Queda that the great Satan can be defeated 2) Inhibit anyone anytime soon from addressing "failed state" problems militarily (and that would be a bad thing in my mind).

Certainly, me a non-combatant, is in no position to say what the right number of dead or injured is.

My "bad news" tipping point , as I've said so many times before, is good evidence that we've lost the pragamatic tolerance of a substantial majority of everyday Iraqis.

My positive tipping point isn't really a point. We'll have to try scaling back our own presence as the Iraqi government becomes more established and its own military forces able to effectively combat terrorists and secure the nation.

Unlike others such as Joe above, I don't conflate the war in Iraq with the larger war on terror and our foreign policy approach in each nation. Iraq is related to Iran and the WoT, but it's one battle in the larger fight. IMO, if we can establsh a fairly stable somewhat democratic autonomous Iraqi government, that goes in the win column. And such a success, if it occurs, will not guarantee a win in the WoT anymore than a failure there would guarantee a loss.

I think it makes sense for the US to try and prevent other nations from gaining nukes, especially hostile ones. But over the long term, I don't expect us to be able to prevent it, not forever. Yet delaying such development is still a virtue.

Powerwise, nations that attain nuke capability will be "more equal" than those that don't. Everyone knows this, which is why both sides are trying so hard. I REALLY don't expect us to invade Iran, and I don't think we would be preparing to do this even if we didn't have Iraq to deal with.

I've felt from the beginning that we had no business going into Iraq and remain unconvinced that any of the reasons we went there are legitimate.

So..I tipped early on. :)

I think some people are getting confused. What I believe Bob wanted is what it would take to change your opinion on Iraq, not what made you feel the way you do now. Bob's basically saying that, from a standpoint of intellectual honesty, we all should have a point where our current positions would change.

This is a wrong question.

OK. We are averaging 61 casualties and 450 wounded every month. In what context? Do we know how many enemy are dead and wounded? We can not take unilateral casualties as the only measure of success or failure in the war. Had we done that in the World War II Hitler and the Nazies would still be ruling the Europe and the U.S. prosparity would probably have been a dream.

You have posted the Iwo Jima photograph below your question. In that battle over 36 days, 6,825 American boys were killed. Sounds terrible, right? Now, add that 22,000 Japanese were killed and the picture changes. Modern media and pundits would most probably queston the battle of Iwo Jima because we sacrificed so many boys in a short time for a little Island. Now answer that argument with the fact that Iwo Jima provided a vital base for our bombers - and again the perspective changes.

So, The question "Why are we our boys and girls dying Iraq" needs to be answered in the context of the larger picture- that of the Islamic fundamentalists' goal of Caliphate, and the third World War that they have brought upon the U.S. and the entire civilized world.

Just like the WWII, this war is also between the good and the evil. If we win the battle in Iraq, we go on to win the war against the Evil of Islamo-fascists. If we lose there we are weakened for years to come.

Iraq, I say, is modern day Iwo Jima for the U.S. and the we can not afford to lose there. There can not be a "tipping point" in this struggle between good and evil.

I agree with others that the metric is wrong, but the basic premise of the question is a good one. I expect our leaders both military and civilian to be in constant reassement of all situations. Domestic and foreign. Rigidity is not the hallmark of past American success.

Point 1: Every single death in Iraq is heartbreaking.

Point 2: It is absurd to base ongoing support for this endeavor, the success of which must be the #1 national security priority of this country, based raw casualty numbers alone.

Point 3: I think that we are winning, although less quickly than I would like, and the drumbeat of defeat I hear from too many is really disheartening.

Yes to what Adam said.
The question isn't about dead people. The question is what would it take to admit that your current view is wrong. I may think that Iraq is a lost cause, but if events prove otherwise I'm not going to hold that opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Kind of a secondary current to the question is how do you personally gage success or failure in Iraq. From the current posts on this thread we can see that not everyone is going to use the same metric for success or failure.

PS:Thanks. There have been some really good answers.

From the beginning, I've always opposed going to war. However, I cannot change the fact that it happened anyway. At this point I think we should use the best methods we have at our disposal to win, regardless of the casulties it may cause us in the short term. When it comes down to it, this isn't a numbers game. It's about victory.

I only hope Bush's generals are more competent than he. Thankfully, the news I've seen lately has been positive evidence for that.

My tipping point happened along time ago.

I was strongly in support of the removal of Hussein as I was Slobodan Milosoviec [the US should take an active role in removing ruthless/murderous dictators when possible] but have really been aghast at the incompetence in conducting this war. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley [and Rove} used their puppet president.

The first outpost of Democracy should have been Afghanistan. That's where we should have laid the ground work and stayed in force.

In regards to Iraq. Ignoring the Powell Doctrine was a huge mistake. Huge. 2nd, The impatience of the Bush administration to start the war was a huge blunder (we did not defeat Soviet Communism by rushing off to war). 3rd Linking the Iraq war to the fight against Al-Q and now Iran makes the objective so broad that it will be years (if ever) before a succesful resolution can be difinitively stated.

If your looking for a tipping point you have to know what your objective is and hopefully that it was worth dying for no matter what the numbers (ie. Iwo Jima, Normandy...)

The problem is how do we define victory in IRAQ? Was it just the removal of Hussein? Elimination of WMD's (oops they were'nt there), Establishing a stable democratic Iraq? [Just how stable do we stay around for?], Total victory against Muslim extremism (we'll be there for a long, long, long time)?

With all that being said I don't believe we can just walk away from Iraq immediately. But because of the incompetence in running this war, I think we now set a target date (end of 06) to begin a gradual withdrawl and hope for the best. Staying longer may well be inflamatory and counterproductive. Ultimately, I believe we will have to return to Iraq after their civil war has played itself out to pick up the pieces.

Is the question Bob poses really that hard to understand folks?

There are only four answers possible that I can think of:

1. I think the war in Iraq is a good thing for America but my opinion would change if --- (fill in the blank).

2. I think the war in Iraq is a bad thing for America but my opinion would change if --- (fill in the blank).

3. I abstain from answering because --- (fill in the blank).

4. I will never change my mind no matter what --- (followed by whatever logic you choose to justify your unwillingness to reevaluate your thinking under any circumstances, and then a large glass of kool-aid).

Is the question Bob poses really that hard to understand folks?

Yes, it is. It's vague and poorly worded, and loaded with presumption, assumptions, and implications. It's a nudge-nudge wink-wink type question. My personal "tipping point" for "switching sides?" I'm sorry, but what's the other side that one would switch to?

Dennis: That a good summary of options. I can't think of any other possible responses, but I didn't want to constrain the answers.

Now, what are we fighting for, again? (Maybe that's why the original question is so vague...)

Someone please remind me, because last I recall, after not finding any WMDs or any other reason for war in Iraq, I heard that we were fighting for Iraqi freedom.

If we are fighting for Iraqi freedom, then why all this talk about US WINNING? We really have nothing to win, it is the Iraqi's that will either win or lose.

If we are fighting to stabilize the political and economic environoment with the "American Way" of governing, then we are fighting over a millennia of traditional rule and I highly doubt that it could change without us taking over their country. We are talking conquest here, like Caesar. We could take over Iraq and change it to the Iraqi States of the US (ISUS).

If we are fighting "terrorism" in Iraq, then waging a conventional war like we are doing now is like taking chemotherapy treatment to get rid of the flu. There's a lot of terrorism in this world and if we waged war with every country connected with terrorism, I'm pretty sure we'd lose that one.

Oh, and if I recall, didn't President Bush land a plane on a ship and stand in front of a banner declaring, "Mission Accomplished" ??? So, did we or didn't we accomplish the mission already? And, what was that mission?

Thus, for me, it is the definition of the war in Iraq that would influence me one way or another. And, I don't think I have heard anyone speak definitely about exactly why we are there.

So tell me, why, again.

It seems to me that the question presupposes that you are pro-war to begin with. If you were against the war, it's hard to see what would change your mind about it other than Osama or Zarquawi saying that their next step after Iraq would be Washington. If you are pro-war, then it's reasonable to ask what would make you think it's not worth it and that can be a range of opinions. For example, you could think the war is worth it to a point, but not beyond that. (Which I think is what the "tipping point" assumes.) But if you assume that the war is absolutely critical to US security, then the casualty level won't make any difference. If you don't, then any casualties is too many. That's why the comparisons that Victor Davis Hanson (and others on this blog) have made to Okinawa, for example, are completely besides the point. Everyone thought WW II was a war for survival so the number of casualties was irrelevant (although I believe that if the war had continued badly past 1942, there would have been more some anti-war sentiment as there was during the Civil War). If you don't think that the Iraq War is as important as WW II, it's ridiculous to use Okinawa or Iwo Jima as the standard. The standard seems to me to require some correlation of costs/benefits--ie, how important is the war to US interests relative to casualties. Even if you think the war is very important, there might be a point at which you think the costs are too great to continue. So I don't think you can reasonably answer this question without some consideration of what the war is about in the first place or has become since.

Marc: Interesting points. I'm going to have to think about them for awhile. But if an individual does believe the war is essential for U.S. survival couldn't there be an event that would make them change their mind and decide that the war is no longer essential or even harmful to the USA?

While at the same time if you felt the war was illegal and immoral to start, but the war produces a shining sectarian utopia, would you not be forced to admit it was "worth it".

Bob, i think those last 2 are very good questions. My sense is that the answer should be "yes' to both of them, but for many or even most people it just isn't a possibility unless the outcome is either catastrophically bad or utopian.

People are really good at sticking to their guns.

Bob,

You are certainly correct in theory, and I think Viet Nam is a good example of the first point, where people initially thought it was vital and then changed their minds. But you have to remember that people's views of a war or really any policy is based more on the outcome than on the policy itself. If the US had won the Viet Nam War in, say, 1966, most people would think it was a successful policy; it wasn't until the war was clearly going badly that the legal and moral issues really became significant. At that point, it became a chicken-and -egg argument about whether people's views on the war changed because of something that made the war seem less vital or simply because we weren't winning.

By the same token, the first Gulf War had exactly the opposite dynamic; because we won easily with few casualties, more people bought into the policy and any doubts about the prudence or morality of the war were basically swept away.

With respect to Iraq, I think there are different levels of opposition and that's going to effect how people react. I doubt that you are ever going to sway the antiwar types that think the war is immoral regardless of the outcome. But clearly, there are others that oppose the war, such as myself, more on prudential grounds, who would probably be more positive on the war if there is a successful outcome. But, as the casualties increase, the standard for success will grow correspondingly.

I think Brian is correct, though, that it's going to be difficult to really change people's minds on this. People have a lot invested emotionally and intellectually in their positions and it will be hard to change.

Well, it's been interesting and informative to me anyway. I still see the original question as valid. Public opinion does make a difference. And it can obviously be changed by events. The Iraq conflict sentiment has shifted over time. President Bush is crippled by the shift and the Democrats obviously see political gain in that. If this is still a high level conflict in 2008 it will decide the presidency.

I'd hate to think that any good that comes out of our actions in Iraq (say the possibility of a Palastinean state along side an Arab accepted Isreal, or full and free elections in Egypt, or equal rights for women throughout the mideast, or an overthrow of Iran's hardliners, or popular sentiment in the mideast turning against BinLaden and his ilk, or the chance that people throughout the world think there is a chance that the brutal dictators they live under may some day be a thing of the past, and yes even the chance that the energy we so depend upon to maintain our standard of living isn't controlled by despots, or that our national interest would be served by any one of these things) well, I'd just hate to think that peoples opinions are so rigid they can't be changed no matter what. (Now my bias is showing)

I'd like to make a correlation between the people in this thread who are willing to be flexible in their viewpoint, and the ones who have no intention of letting events on the ground change their opinion, and their views on the war, but that looks like pretty shaky ground so I won't :)

I was against this war from the beginning. Bin Laden should have been killed or captured before we engaged in any large-scale military action elsewhere that wasn't clearly urgent. I didn't buy the case presented for the war. It sounded like BS to me, but I admit to having had no way of knowing.

Once we were there, I enjoyed seeing the Republican Guard turn tail and run like sorority girls during a panty raid. I'm no pacifist.

I was encouraged by the elections in Iraq, though I still think our successes have more to do with the efficiency of our military and the will of the Iraqis that with good planning on the part of the Bush administration.

What is the tipping point for someone who opposed the decision to go to war, but can only hope that we win? As Powell said, we own it. Is my tipping point the point at which I feel we no longer own it because it's hopeless, or because the Iraqis have successfully taken ownership for themselves? Is my tipping point the point at which our success is so great that I have to rethink my original oppostition?

I have to wonder if the responses to the original question has to do with basic personality type or as Marc said “emotional investment”. The only large emotional investment I've made is in my family, so I'm certainly not the one to comment on being emotionally invested in a war.

My core view of the world is pragmatism. I don't thing ends justify the means, but if it works it works, if it's not working toss it out. I could make a lot of different arguments for or against starting the war. I may feel kind of slimy about how we ended up here, but we are still here. We have reached the point of the proverbial “bucket of water held against the ceiling with a broom handle”. Its not unconceivable that events in Iraq could spiral out of control. If we don't have an open mind and think about worst case scenarios the war to save America could end up dooming it. On the other hand if we are not willing to entertain the chance of success we may miss the chance to embrace it.

PS: Good questions WHQ? Maybe you need to go on a vision quest?

I took it as a Rorshach question, Bob. Which is why my answer is in Dennis' #3 category.

So Tully, can you describe circumstances under which you'd support a withdrawal of our troops without establishing an autonomous democratic Iraq, _and_ under which you'd support a withdrawal under conditions in which the US could reasonably declare victory?

Or do you think that truly supporting the current effort requires a willingness to go down with the ship if necessary?

That's actually a two-part question with an extra (potentially contradictory and conflicting) question tacked on.

To either part of the first question, I can honestly say "Yes." But putting them together as one question begs for clarification. Otherwise you're asking me to speculate and describe that which does not currently exist, meaning assigning specific finite probablities to the infinite unknown, and assigning a reaction to them. Pre-emptive straw-manning. Pass. Describe the specific circumstance with all the relevant factors and I'll answer the specific circumstance. I gave up speculating on infinity when I went agnostic. Saves neurons, and I need all the spares for Happy Hour.

I would describe the second (single-part) question as leading, presumptive, and ambiguous. Like Bob's. Have you quit beating your wife? Just answer yes or no! ;-)

Basically, the negative scenario, if it came pass, would look about like this, I guess:

Another year or two has passed.The incidence of terrorist violence, instead of subsiding, has been consistent or even shown signs of growth. The performance of the Iraqi troops we've trained has been very inadequate in many cases....their loyalty is questionable, and their bravery far too rare. The nascent government has been ineffective, characterized by stalemate and rife with corruption. Most politicans who have gained power have used their positions to feather their nests and their friends nests. There's no sense of the growth of a healthy legal economy that can attract investors. The influx of radicals from beyond Iraq's borders contunies unabated. Violence between the kurds, sunnis, and shi'ites is on the rise, and a series of escalating incidents has led to riots. In the face of this, Iraqi troops that we trained are deserting and/or switching sides. By a majority of 60-something%, a weary Iraqi populace comes to express the notion that it's time for us to go and let Iraqis sort it out.

For me, I think the "tipping point" would be if it was clear that the elected Iraqi government no longer had the support of the majority of the populace or if the situation devolved into sectarian violence (Kurd vs Shiite vs Sunni) to such a degree that it could truely be labled a civil war. Of course the elected Iraqi government asking us to leave would also sway my opinion that we should go.

Personaly regardless of whether it was correct or not to get involved in the first place (I thought it was at the time and still do, but with less surety) I think the stakes are just too important to cut and run regardless of the casualty count. If we do then in future, hostile regimes/organizations will believe that all they need to do in order to change U.S. policy to thier liking is to kill enough Americans. That is NOT an object lesson that I want to see being set.

If we do then in future, hostile regimes/organizations will believe that all they need to do in order to change U.S. policy to thier liking is to kill enough Americans.

That being the very conclusion bin Laden & Co. reached after Somalia. The mistake in their assumption was that American politics and public opinion is static. Democracies are flexible. They see that as a weakness. It's not.

A legitimately elected Iraqi constitutional government requesting us to depart would fill the bill nicely as a withdrawal condition--though I suspect we'll be drawing down seriously anyway by that point. I have said all along, often and loudly, that internal Iraqi affairs are ultimately an Iraqi issue, not ours. It's not our part to fight their civil wars for them, past making the formation of that government possible by defending it until it can defend itself. We broke it, we fix it. Once it's reasonably glued together, it's all theirs. If they break it themselves, they can buy their own glue. What they choose to do with it is up to them.

The foreign jihadis are a different matter. If they honestly wanted us out of Iraq as their primary cause, they'd achieve it quickest by leaving themselves. That's not their primary motivator. They want to kill Americans, and stop any formation of any democratic government in the region. If we were not there, they would still be fighting to prevent democracy. Their goal is that fundamentalist/extremist Islamic caliphate, with themselves in charge. But I think anyone who believes that if left alone we would not be back in their sights is seriously deluding themselves. America and Israel are anathema to them, and Rodney King's cry lost to their ears.

If the Iraqi government asks us to assist them in combatting continued foreign jihadi assaults, I'm pretty certain we'll supply some manpower and machinery. Asking us for help in beating the crap out of the Sunnis in an internal dispute is a different matter entirely. I still think they could defuse much of their internal problem by assigning national oil revenues to the citizens on a pre capita basis. It would be brilliant tactical politics. But I never hold my breath waiting for brilliance from politicians.

Another year or two has passed.The incidence of terrorist violence, instead of subsiding, has been consistent or even shown signs of growth. The performance of the troops has been very inadequate in many cases....their loyalty is questionable, and their bravery far too rare. The government has been ineffective, characterized by stalemate and rife with corruption. Most politicans who have gained power have used their positions to feather their nests and their friends nests. There's no sense of the growth of a healthy legal economy that can attract investors. The influx of radicals from beyond the borders contunies unabated. Violence between the factions is on the rise, and a series of escalating incidents has led to riots. In the face of this, troops are deserting and/or switching sides. By a majority of 60-something%, an angry populace comes to express the notion that it's time for a change in the country's relationship with the US.

I agree Brian, the above sounds like a "give up" scenario...Oh did I mention the above hypthetical is Pakistan? Hmmm... now what?

I still think they could defuse much of their internal problem by assigning national oil revenues to the citizens on a pre capita basis. It would be brilliant tactical politics.

Having lived with the Alaska Permanent Fund since the early 80's, I have had this same thought about the Iraq oil wealth since before the invasion. I can guarantee that something similar to AK's fund (a portion of the interest on the principal is distributed to individual Alaskans yearly) would unite the Iraq citizenry far more than the idea of democracy. The stake they would have in the government would be something very concrete and valuable.

Gov. Hammond, who instituted it here, died recently. According to the eulogies I read George Washingtion, Abe Lincoln, and Albert Einstien combined couldn't hold a candle to his greatness. I'm kind of suprised someone in the Iraq government hasn't proposed it.

Yeah, there's a lot of support in the blogworld for putting some oil revenues into a shared pool and giving citizens ownership. It comes up alot. But the idea doesn't seem to filter into the mainstream.

I expect there are lots of good realpolitik reasons why Bush doesn't mention it. It would be a good democratic position. I agree with whoever said a good position for democrats for 2006 would be "let's win this thing and bring the boys home..." but I just don't see how it's going to happen.

Yeah, there's a lot of support in the blogworld for putting some oil revenues into a shared pool and giving citizens ownership. It comes up alot. But the idea doesn't seem to filter into the mainstream.

I expect there are lots of good realpolitik reasons why Bush doesn't mention it. It would be a good democratic position. I agree with whoever said a good position for democrats for 2006 would be "let's win this thing and bring the boys home..." but I just don't see how it's going to happen.

Talk about freedom and rights, and you grab a certain portion of the population. Put money in their pockets and you grab MOST of the population. It's amazing how much more concrete a democracy is when it pays susbtantial cash dividends.

I drink to the freedom of the Iraqi people!

Oh, sorry. I thought you said tippling point....

Hmmm...
I think you've reached the tipsy point.