how are we loosing the war in iraq?

Question

maybe it's just me, but i always thought that loosing wars required
1) constant heavy loss of casualties- I've been checking the news for some time now & have seen little or no U.S. military casualties. that & the fact that if you total the number of deaths & divide by the time we've been there, it totals out to be less than 5 a day. don't get me wrong, my heart goes out to the families & loved ones of those who've fallen, but the phrase isn't "war is a cakewalk", it's "WAR IS HELL!". meaning that there's bound to be some deaths along the way, but not nearly as many as in previous wars.
2) retreating/loss of grounds, we're still not bringing the troops home, & as far as i can tell, they're still out patrolling & helping the Iraqi forces.
i don't want to hear any political bullshit! all i want is the truth. i don't want to hear about how unjust this war is, on how bush is a warpig, i just want to know how you think we are "loosing".

Answer 1

Your question is founded on unsound assumptions. Your first assumption is that heavy casualties are a prerequisite for losing a war. If war were a game where everybody was keeping score, you'd be right. It's not, "war is a continuation of policy by other means". This means that if your policy is just to not be destroyed completely, you can take massive casualties, inflict few on the enemy, and still win in the end. Look at King Phyrus versus the Romans for a historical analogy.

Your second unfounded assumption is that causalties are not heavy. If you included wounded in with dead, the average comes to 35 a day. That's a platoon a day out of action. A company a week. A Battalion a month. That's a lot of people we are losing.

Your third unfounded assumption is that we are holding ground. We are not. Troops are shuttled from area to area to deal with flare ups. For example, from Anbar province to Baghdad. When the US moves out, the insurgents move right back in. Even if we were holding ground, in an insurgency that doesn't mean as much as in a conventional conflict. As for retreating, we didn't technically retreat from Vietnam, but we still lost the war.

A famous quote from an American general to a North Vietnamiese genreal "You never beat us on the battlefield" To which the other general replied "That may be true, but it is also irrelevant".

Finally, I urge you to be wary of the people who blame the media for the lose. The first thing any group does after losing is to blame the messanger.

Answer 2

The insurgency is going to be pumped up due to November elections in a vain attempt to try and get American support against the war. But we can see whats happening daily. The insurgency, however, is aimed mainly at innocent people, like today, with the kidnapping of teenagers, and children, and killing of innocent people trying to run a press station>>> (of ALL sects of religion within that country-that were killed within this press related killing)-which will only deepen not only the peoples of iraqs resentment at their freedoms, and safety being taken away, remember their Vice president has already lost three siblings-BUT-from VERY good sources, the total of iraqi deaths stands at about 50,000....but still, how? And by whom? The peace that will be given effort at maintaining in Iraq, and building infrastructure and economy will only pick up, enliven, and excite, not only the iraqi people to keep standing up for a MUCH better life than they had under Saddams reign, but also, Iran, we will leave alone (outside of fighting off sent terrorists of the innocent, that they wish to control)-and soon too, it is my belief, and an Irani friend of mines, that the younger irani generation will want the same growth and freedoms that will slowly but surely seep into Iraq.

Also, an extremely good book to find out what is REALLY going on over there, and was, is "See No Evil" by Robert Baer....ex CIA

Answer 3

Guerilla warfare. Other unsuccessful attempts to stop Guerilla warfare are:
American Revolutionary War
American Indian Campaign (cost $1 million per Indian killed)
Boer War in South Africa
Vietnam War

Trying to take a military force against agroup that attacks in small surprises does more to weaken the morale of the troops and is nearly impossible to completely stop; the guerillas just wait for the best targets, then attack. The American Indian Campaign were ultimately successful, but cost a HUGE amount of money to do so (that was $1 million in 1880 dollars, which was based on a gold standard. Worth much more today).

Answer 4

The War on Terror is a 50 year War, don't fool yourself.
The Iraqi people are losing, not the US.
Everytime they look the other way as someone prepares an act of terror, they lose.
Everytime they keep there mouths shut as some idiot spouts hate at the West, they lose.
The US is doing everything anyone could do, and more
USA USA USA USA USA
.

Answer 5

I don't necessarily think we are loosing the war, I think that we have hit a tough spot in the road and we have to dig ourselves out. My Grandfather was in the battle for Peleliu in the Pacific during WWII and they lost 6,000 marines, in one battle. Compared to other wars this one will most likely take longer but will have far less casualties. Most likely we will always have a military presence in Iraq simply to make sure that the area maintains stability. It's hard to predict when that stability will come but I know that if we pull out before the Iraqi's can take care of themselves we will have done this for nothing. At this point it is a game of who will blink first and it had better not be us. Not to be political but I know Bush will not pull out and I would not vote for any one who would pull our troops out before the job is done.

Answer 6

How are we losing the war in Iraq? We are not winning the peoples hearts, minds, or souls over there. We are continuing the terrorist activities, because that is all they know. We are not enabling them to become a self directed government. We are trying to control them for the godblessed oil. If we would try to enhance their livelyhood, then maybe we might succeed. But we won't. If we gave up right now and said "Don't screw with the USA", we would still face terrorism due to the fact that we showed up on their doorstep and demanded a change.

Answer 7

The reason given by Bush Sr. administration in the 90s for not invading -- it would create a civil war. Well, they were right.
Example -- how would you be able to put Yugoslavia back together? You can't. How do you hold Iraq together -- you die.

Answer 8

It became by no ability a conflict interior the classic sense besides. it rather is a ******* invasion and occupation. Yeah the troops did each and every thing they're meant to, yet some undesirable eggs have made defense force provider abhorent to maximum. And we rather need the nationwide shelter AT abode! they are no longer even meant to be there. for my area, it became lost in the previous it began. and you recognize, lies with regard to the "conflict" are greater humiliating and demoralizing to the troops than the actuality. they are no longer stupid human beings, do no longer cope with them like they're!

Answer 9

It isn't a war. It's an invasion by the most powerful nation in the world of a small defenseless country.
You can only win by getting out.

Answer 10

5 a day is a lot for this type of war.
Moreover, you also need to count the casualties.
Fewer people die in modern warfare due to protective gear and the nature of the weapons, but many more soldiers suffer catastrophic injury. You will see when you are funding the VA for the next two generations.