By what criteria would you measure whether or not we've lost the War in Iraq?

Question

James Baker, the consult hired by the Bush Administration to come up with a plan to leave Iraq, had his report leaked to the Phoenix Sun claiming that there are only two strategies to leave Iraq and that they essentially "rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable Democracy in the near term".

So my question is: since there were no WMD, we aren't in the dictator removal business, and Iraq isn't actually going to get a Democracy, did we officially loose?

It's kinda hard for me to say that we did, because we never really had any goals or plans in the first place.

What are your thoughts? At what point do we realize that this failed and that constitutes a loss?

I’m sorry, but that’s both ignorant and intellectually lazy. The “liberals” have no power, contributed to none of the planning, and have openly agreed with every single war proposal that they’ve been apart of.

The White House’s own reports have said that Iraq is a disaster and was lost do to bad planning. Where there was once no link to Al Quaeda, there no is. Where there was once a stable country that was not a threat to us, there now is. We’ve weakened our own military, spent billions of dollars and achieved nothing that we said we were going to do.

The argument that we’re now in the dictator removal business is simply foolish. History tells us that anyone who assumes that role is destine to fall to their own imperialism within a couple of decades. Actual diplomacy, intellectual discussion, and good international politics is what works time and time again.

My original question still stands, although I will reword it for those of you in serious denial:

By what criteria do we call the War in Iraq a win or a lose?

Good grief, that "mustard gas" thing has been disproved for years. It was originally 36 mortar rounds buried in desert for at least 10 years ago, and now totally useless. Now it's 500?!??

Turn off your talk radio, it only makes you dumber.

Answer 1

That's a well thought out question - somewhat rare in this forum.

I don't believe any American with half a brain ever thought that instituting a democracy in Iraq would happen overnight - if at all.

I have no idea how the anti-war coillition in this country would have responded the the Islamic terrorists' threats prior to and following the events of 9/11. Perhaps they would have resorted to using Jimmy Carter's strategy of trying to negotiate and use diplomacy with these psychos - in didn't work the first time and it won't work again. Or Bill Clinton's "maybe they'll just go away" strategy in dealing with their terrorist activities - obviously, that didn't work either.

"Convert to Islam - or die," are not two options I care to choose from. And an ideology that threatens death to all infidels and uses tactics of murdering thousands of innocent men, women and children to achieve their objectives deserves no victory in any stretch of the word.

And, unfortunately, if the terrorists continue to perceive a divided enemy, they will continue their strategy and tactics of murder and mayhem.

The anti-war rhetoric in this country, in my opinion, does more to aid and embolden the enemy than it ever will to actually help our objectives or the people in Iraq.

If they truly believe our present policies are not working, then they should suggest need new strategies and ideas, not more arm chair quarterbacking, a cut and run agenda and more disgruntled criticism.

In the end, the outcome will depend on the Iraqi people - as we have learned in the past - if they are not willing to fight for their freedoms and independence, all of the military and humanitarian aid we can muster will not change the out come.

We have given the Iraqi people a golden opportunity to establish a government that answers to the people, instead of the other way around, and we can only hope that our efforts have not been in vain and they squander this opportunity.
If the terrorists are indeed victorious, I don't perceive that they will abandon their tactics - for all intents and purpose, they have already defeated Spain, and France isn't far behind.

Answer 2

What happened in Iraq is called winning the war and losing the peace. Bush made a grave mistake thinking once free of Saddam the Iraqi people would just go along with whatever plans he had for the country.

Answer 3

"America" would not lose if we pulled out of Iraq; the Bush Administration and via arrangement the GOP might lose when you consider that it would be a tacit acknowledgement that the entire factor was once a horrible mistake and that it was once dealt with with crook incompetency. Also, Halliburton and Blackwater might free a boatload of coins at the deal if we left. The harm is completed. Iraq is deep right into a civil struggle and is an outstanding breeding flooring for terrorists. If Iraq is ever going to transition into anything equivalent to a steady, demogratic country, they may be able to do it simply as rapidly on their possess as they may be able to with our support. We have got to refocus on an enduring victory in Afghanistan earlier than it falls fully again into chaos, we have got to rebuild our depleted army and we have got to use our blood and treasure to get rid of our dependence on international vigor, peculiarly oil.

Answer 4

there were no long term goals set forth by this administration, no hind sight. they were under the premise that the iraq people would up there arms to us that everything would fall into place which didnt happen and now you see the aftermath so in short we did win the war but at what cost? long term is anyones guess.

Answer 5

To be honest, ah ha is essentially right. I do believe the US is in the dictator removal business, at least that is what the rest of the world wants the US to do, but with different countries now.

Answer 6

If we cut and run we lose. By the way there were over 500 canisters of mustard and sarin gas found which are violations of the UN resolutions and they are considered WMD's.

Answer 7

I don't know that we can measure winning or losing . This is not like any war ever fought before.I don't even understand how anyone brings up the Geneva convention.This isn't conventional.They don't wear uniforms and they blow up their own children in the name of Allah.This is not a war to be ignored .They will not stop until you submit or die.What's your next question?

Answer 8

I guess if you count Korea and Vietnam as success you can count this as the same.

Answer 9

/We win if we can get a stable government that can protect itself and operate with little violence. We lose if we leave Iraq in any other conditon. WE THOUGHT THERE WERE WMDs AND THERE WAS NOT.Is that an evil Bush thing or is it an honest mistake? WMD
"One Way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of
mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President
Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.We want to
seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the
risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons
against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18,
1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution
and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on
suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction
technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and
palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports
indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to
pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bus h, Signed by Sen.
Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace
and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations. "We have
known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass
destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he
has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore,
Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons
of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he
has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen.
Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop
nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also
should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10,
2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN
resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological
weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D,
CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein
has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery
capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and
will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,
2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has,
and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of
weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if
necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F.
Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the
threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry
(D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Source(s):REGARDLESS OF HOW IT IS PAINTED, IF WE LOSE IN IRAQ, IT HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR NATION AND THE WORLD, THAT MEANS LIBERALS AS WELL AS CONSERVATIVES.

Answer 10

We are losing it thanks to liberals. And the whole sucky media.