Is Iraq a victory?

Question

We went in to remove Saddam from power, not to rebuild Iraq's government. Our reason for going in was to take him out of power because, presumably he had WMDs. Bush had no exit strategy. He didn't really care about rebuilding their governent.

Historically, this will be seen as a victory.

Gary F. -Proof?

Answer 1

I think those who come out alive are the ones who win the victory.

Answer 2

I have a hard time understanding how anyone could look at our involvement in Iraq as being successful on any level. When we first invaded Iraq, we were given WMD's as the reason, that quickly changed to capturing Saddam, which in turn became building a democracy. It seemed like a new reason was invented every six months or when the old one was no longer plausible.
Where did Saddam get all of the biological weapons he used on his people in the first place? We gave them to him to use against Iran back in the 80's because we wanted his help. We helped create a monster that we refused to take responsibily for. Funny thing, but taking responsibility seems to be a very difficult thing for our elected leaders to do (perhaps a criticism of our president is in there somewhere :)

Answer 3

Well, it depends upon which definition of our goals you use.

When we first invaded, it was to destroy Saddam's WMDs. Since he didn't actually HAVE any, I guess you would have to call that a failure. We could not complete our mission, since our mission was, in fact, unnecessary (and thus the entire war).

So we changed our mission to removing Saddam from power. This, we did. Victory there.

Then our mission became bringing the blessings of liberty, security, and democracy to the Iraqi people. People who have to live in fear of civil war are not free, nor are they secure. And if the democratically-elected government cannot control the country, then the democracy is pretty pointless, too. Failure.

So, we fail on two of our three ever-morphing objectives. I think History will see this invasion as the collossal mistake that it is.

Answer 4

You are wrong. The original reason was to remove Saddam, and then it became to bring democracy and freedom at the point of a gun.

History didn't call Vietnam a victory, and when we pull out it won't be called a victory either. Get used to it.

Answer 5

It's a victory for Haliburton but a miserable failure for America.

"We went in to remove Saddam from power, not to rebuild Iraq's government."

If we tear apart one government it is our responsibility to help create a new one.

Answer 6

well with that kind of thinking so was viet nam and korea,if our job was to remove saddam then why didnt we pull out after we got him? oh yeah that right our job was to secure the oil fields prop up (once again) a government that suits are needs so we can get that oil the "legal" way,if we cant "stabilise" the region,at least long enough to get some oil out of it,well then we are not done

Answer 7

The original battle plan was a resounding victory. We are no longer in a war, now we are in a policing action. I'm guessing that ultimately America will just pull out and leave them to fend for themselves just like America did in South Vietnam. As sad as that sounds that is in America's best interest. We will look like crap to the rest of the world but, they don't like us too much right now anyway!!

Answer 8

The goal was to remove Saddam, so that in that aspect yes.

Unfortunatly, the USA can't win the peace.

Answer 9

Any effort is victorious when you redefine the original goals to fit with the present reality.

That doesn't mean the real plan actually worked, though.

Answer 10

Yes, I hope Iraq to be a victory..
Once Saddam was out, we logically expected the freed people
to set up a democratic free nation...
We did not expect them to want to kill each other and have the
nation become a terrorist / Islamofaschist stronghold...