What is our mission for Iraq?

Question

Bush says we shouldn't leave Iraq until we have accomplished our mission. My question is - what is our exact mission? I'm seeking serious answers here! If we don't know our mission, then how can we accomplish it? How will we know when our troops can come home again?

Answer 1

Originally it was to depose Saddam Hussein. Now that that was accomplished, it is to establish a stable and democratic government, run by Iraqis, that can provide its own security.

Answer 2

The mission was to take out Hussein (did that) and enable some form of democratic government to take hold. I think the Al Qeida -Iraq connection has long since been debunked, but NOW we got Al Qeida there, along with fiercly anti-American Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians, whatever other "ians" you can come up with. I learned not to mess with a hornet's nest early in life. If we had just focused on Afghanistan, 9/11 would have been avenged by trashing the Taliban. But no, now we have American dead approaching those that died in 9/11, and if we count civilian casualties, that number has way surpassed the tragedy of 9/11. The last 8 years have been one big terrible mistake. Saddam was no threat, and there was no civil war under his despotic rule, as despicable as that might have been. What I don't understand is that, now that we're stuck in this quaqmire, why is it that (1) we can't supply our troops with sufficient means of tactical weaponry and armor superiority, (2) why we have a shortage of manpower to get the job done, the job being to quell the insurgency that's causing the chaos in that country. It's almost like we don't want to win this conflict. Getting out is no solution, I tend to agree with the current administration's point of view on that -- it would result in a bloodbath that makes the current conflict look like a walk in the park. Our mission should be to send an overwhelming force there to once and for all stop any sort of insurgency, even if it means house-to-house, block by block control of the situation. You'd think we'd have learned some lessons from Vietnam -- this is even worse. At least the South Vietnamese wanted us there. Nobody wants us in Iraq, not even the Iraqi "government" that is receiving our aid. Okay, to answer your question, we want the largesse of Iraq's oil fields. That's the mission. Ironically, that's the same mission Hussein had when he invaded Kuwait. Just follow the money. If all of a sudden we could invent a car that doesn't need gasoline(oil) to run, we'd have about as much interest in Iraq as we did in Africa during the Tutsi/Hutu carnage. Our mission is oil. That's my opinion. Obviosly, it's not going too well.

Answer 3

Can you say 911? Terrorism and those who support terrorism meant nothing more to us than a random news blog about some obscure country having silly spats until that September day. 911 was a wake-up call to the United States. Please, get on line and look closely at a world map, now look closely at the borders of Iraq. Can you say Syria? How about Iran? Where do you think these weapons were moved to while saddam refused inspectors to inspect? How long did the UN allow saddam to play that game? If you or anyone of you do not believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg in an all out UNHOLY jihad against the infidels (EVERYONE WHO IS NOT MUSLIM) you have your heads in a very dim location.
OUR mission in Iraq is FREEDOM plain and simple, OUR mission will not, could not nor should not end with Iraq. Uhm... remember where you put that tattered car flag of yours?

Answer 4

fact bush don't know and ether do we.
its to late to pull out, now we need to get the job done.
fact we cant leave there ever will always need bases there.
so the U.S should take all weapons away from the people there.
then have a puppet government there. the key is that a outsider will need to run Iraq with American type laws. a banking system needs to be put in place.but we will never be able to leave Iraq.in fact we need bases there.
we can win the war on terror but it wont be are military that will do it.we must make oil a thing of the past- out of demand do everything we can not to use it. the making of new fuels that will work on all are equipment will be are hero. if we don't need oil as much teariest would not have no funds.
the winner of the war will be up to are engineers and scientist.
and would save earth by leaving the oil were it needs to be to keep the earth cool. the sooner we replace oil the sooner we win this war.

Answer 5

I don't remember. I think the guy help drafting the mission got killed by road side bombs or IED.

On the surface is to help Iraqi to develop a true democratic government and free itself from Saddam. And eliminate an breeding ground for Terrorists.

Underneath, is to setup an pro-USA government ( some sort of muppet ). So that we can secure our oils sources. We have Kuwait but as the world developes and crave for energy source, we need to secure our supply for sure. We will also have our military base in Iraq for a long time.

For the return of the troops, or most of the troops. I am guessing it will be 2 years after the new presidential election.

This is totally my guess.

Answer 6

That is a great question. I am sure that every American citizen wants to know the answer to that question. Why? To try and help rebuild Iraq. Well we have already spent and sent way to much time over there that seriously I feel that our mission is complete. Its been complete, we shouldn't be over there. Period. There is NO need. you cannot bring democracy to an Muslim/ arab nation you just cannot. What the US should've done in the 1st place is ask the UN for help, ask for a group of peace keeping soldiers there not to fight but to help rebuild. Bush totally jumped way to quickly on WOD in Iraq, when he should've been looking to the country next door, in Iran. Seriously. Think about it.

Answer 7

We have the "propaganda" message about our purpose, such as the spread of democracy but the truth is the American elite that control the U.S. want an administration in Iraq that supports American economic interests at all costs. Before the U.S. allowed democratic elections, the U.S. tried to impose a council of U.S. puppets. As of now, the majority of the revenue generated by Iraqi oil fields does not go to Iraq, but "iraqi debt relief," or in other words, "the U.S." But it's not even the U.S. people who benefit; it's the billionaires at ExxonMobil and Chevron....all oilmen, much like our current administration....from Condi on up, all oil company top tiers.

So our true interests in Iraq has always been the same. money. the U.S. wants to drain Iraq dry and get rich doing it without the people of Iraq getting a blood-red penny. Need proof? See Latin America and Africa.

In Argentina, American interests have tried to kill Hugo Chavez multiple times because of his nationalistic endeavors that favor the masses of poor in his country, versus the minority of rich elites. With U.S. support, Chavez was even successfully kidnapped and a puppet regime set up before the masses went to the capital to forcibly reinstate Chavez.

Our troops will come home when the masses bring back our own. War is the poor dying and the elite talking. the Iraq occupation has the support of 80% of those making a million dollars or more a year in the U.S. yet they are the least likely to join up to fight. Our troops are made up of 80% of those within $5,000 of the poverty line. That means 80% of our troops came from families making less than $20,000 a year before taxes.

When the poor make up so much more of the population, doesn't it make you wonder why only the rich elite are in control. I don't know a single senator who came from an impoverish family.

and just for the record: vietnamese may have wanted us there in the begining, but the last few years of the Vietnam war, it was the exact opposite.

Answer 8

Thats a good question. Bush has changed the so-called mission several times....WMD, liberate Iraqis, etc....now it seems to be "to install a legitimate democracy." Which means Bush doesnt have an exit strategy and won't have to come up with one now, because it could take decades (if ever) for a democracy to take hold. The next president will be stuck with making the decision.

So, the "decider" isnt a decider at all, is he?

Answer 9

well you see, "the mission" is merely just a struggle to obtain military bases, resourses, and ofcourse oil. that's just a factor of Capitalism. War is an effext of the system. It creates greed and an unfair distribution of wealth. the soldiers are over there blinded by patriotism..we all want to live our lives well, but it's not always so easy. they are being told to do it "for their country" when in fact they are tools in use to take resources but make it seem as though "business" with the other ruling powers of the country. the U.S government will tell its people that terrorism is the cause of bad Mussolims and mediterrenean people. whom are just bad people and want to take their anger out on the U.S..when in fact the U.S started and commenced quarrel with them long ago..just by placing military grounds on their holy lands and taking resources and re-orginizing their government by silent force, wich means using propaganda and telling all Americans what is currently bestowed upon them..creating confusion and hatred rasism..as well off you are mind baffled about the whole ordeal..you can visit this website for more help..it gives you the reality of the situation. take care :) www.workersvanguard.com

Answer 10

This is WWIII, as long as it takes. Our Mission in WWII was to win and that is our mission now. If you do not want to be forced to live musslumms (on purposse) ideals now, then beleive in our troops because if our heroes of WWII felt we should cut and run, this would not be happening because we would all be pretty Natizs.