For those who disapprove of Bush's policy in Iraq?

Question

What would you do to win the war? Or should we just give up? Should we just up and leave and say, "Sorry about the mess we made. You can clean it up now"?

Studbolt Slickrock:

I don't fall within the 18-42 any more, but I served my time in the military. I was honorably discharged before Desert Shield started.

Answer 1

This is exactly what Democrats will not answer. When you corner them on the topic, their response is always surprisingly close to what the President has already said that we will be doing.

Answer 2

I was against the invasion of Iraq from the start. I am not a liberal. If anything, I'm a right leaning moderate.
Since the fall of Saddam, the Bush administration has committed one blunder after another. The generals in charge of the armies in Iraq warned the white house over three years ago that the methods they were being ordered to follow would create an insurgency. Those generals were berated and replaced.
Bush has done the same mistake as Johnson during Vietnam. He has managed the war from the white house and not listened to the commanders on the ground.
Sorry to say, at this point the only option we have is to withdraw our troops. With 80% of the population in Iraq against us, there is no turning the tide anymore.

Answer 3

1)Peace and rebuilding has to come from the Iraqis, we have to let them rebuild in the way they want to rebuild.
2)The way we want Iraqi society to go isn't the will of the people. 80% of the people wants rules like Saudi Arabia has.
3)We can act as a policing force, but it would be better if the UN and middle east countries make up the largest part of such a force. US soldiers are increasingly look at as the enemy to Iraqi people. The good will we had there is mostly gone.
4)Any expert we send to Iraq to manage US money or an Iraqi rebuilding project needs to have expertise in their fields. Simply being a family member of a well known republican shouldn't be enough like it is currently to be assigned to oversee a project.
5)Neighboring countries will not step in to help Iraq, unless they see us draw down our forces to a minimal group first. The world views this war as a USA mess. They will only help if it threatens them.
6)Every contract to do work in Iraq should be designed so that the company is easily replaceable if they don't do the work correctly. Currently there are a number of companies providing services to our army that our general refuse to consider replacing, due to their bad business. The reason they won't replace them is that replacing the companies would cause temporary problems due to the way the US has singularly relied on them.
7) Most Importantly: Focus on execution. If a company doesn't get a job done, replace them. If a general screws up, move them to somewhere else. Hold strict oversight on everything done. The only way to focus on execution is to hold the people accountable for doing their jobs. I seriously doubt that what is currently happening even remotely resembles this principle.

Answer 4

Sun Tzu said the the Art of War, written in 500 BC, that engaging in a protracted military campaign is foolish and will lead to defeat. Bush made serious blunders because he did not understand the enemy, and kept redefining the strategic goals for going to war in the first place. First it was WMD, then the removal of Hussein, then it was the "front of terror" and now its "spreading democracy". You cannot lead people to democracy by pointing a weapon at them.

We should set a hard deadline for Iraq to take over security, and then when that day comes we should redeploy our forces to the Syrian and Iranian borders to control insurgency. We should take control of the oil fields and place oil proceeds in a trust account. Then its up to the Iraqi people, as it should be. If they decide to kill each other, so what? Our goal was never to Democratize these people. And the people dont want us there. We should offer additional support, but the request must come from a majority of Iraqis. At the first sign of hostility, aid stops. Whoever eventually wins control of Iraq would have to understand the debt that nation has to the US and pay up front for the cost of the war to the US through oil revenue and cheap oil prices. And then we would proclaim to the world that should Iraq adopt another government considred a threat to US national security....in the words of Schwartzenegger...we'll be back.

Answer 5

Yes I've disapproved of it the whole time! Bush's policy in Iraq was in shambles from the very beginning! This illegal war was badly mismanaged! And look at the high body count for this month! It's time for our troops to just get the **** out of there right now before a much higher body count starts back up!

Answer 6

Dictator Dumbya made an UNFIXABLE mess. Would you let a 4 year old paint your kitchen? The more he tried to do the job, the worse it would get. Dumbya should be held accountable by impeachment. US PRESENCE is making it worse says the recent National Intelligence Estimate and is making the USA LESS safe. From the brass generals to the ground "boots" the military is souring on the Big Lie Iraqi Crusade.

Answer 7

One word. Jobs. That is what we need to do to win. If we can get the economy going and we can get everyday Iraqis employed. We will win 90% of the battle right there. This would eliminate most of the militias and the insurgents. The only ones left fighting would be the true believers, but they will have lost their army.

Barring this solution, or something else longterm and realistic, we should just get out.

Answer 8

thanks for asking.
The first order of business, start talking with the rest of the world leaders with respect. Not the "your either with us, or your with the terrorist!" crap, that turned off so many countries from assisting with Iraq.
Hows that coalition of the willing (cash compensated from all Americans) working out?
After being honest about what was America's true intention for Iraq (while Bush is impeached and sent to the Hague for war crimes, along with the rest of his cabal), the Dem's will send in what was needed from the start, about 250,000 troops on the ground.
That will install confidence in the other countries, who will then send in their own military, WILLINGLY!
Just cause the Dem's have been labeled as wussy by the neo/clowns, does not make it true. Look at how many returning vets are running for office under the Dem's leadership.
Do I win the best post?

Answer 9

Remember, that if the Democrats had been in power, there would never have been this problem, so they would not have had to do anything.
Perhaps, instead of spending $2million per week on Haliburton, you could pay for Islamic countrys troops to take over in Iraq, and give the rest of the money to the Iraqi government to rebuild their country. Remember, Kuwait repaid every penny and cent the UK & US governments spent in liberating it from Saddam.

Answer 10

If you are between the ages of 18 and 42, I admire you for keeping up with YA from your post in Iraq.

Answer 11

Win the war? As Bush's daddy would say "not gonna happen". It's not winnable, never was. Bad concept from the beginning.

Yep we should leave. Give them a few months to get their house in order and go, see ya good luck it's your country. Why let any more of our soldiers die for a failed policy?

EDIT; Yes and just like stephanie below it's my standard answer and you cons always say the dems don't have an answer. I'm beginning to believe that you just lack reading comprehension!