2006-11-20 05:21:35 · 21 answers · asked by sapace monkey 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C11%5C20%5Cstory_20-11-2006_pg7_32
2006-11-20 05:25:29 · update #1
If you mean, by ‘military victory’, an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” he said on the BBC’s Sunday AM programme.
- the man himself
2006-11-20 05:26:44 · update #2
Well, Henry does know a thing or two about losing wars...
2006-11-20 05:24:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he was wrong. I think, given what has happened over there, there is no possibility of an end result anyone could call a 'win.' There will be a million Iraqis killed by the end of this mess. Even if we succeed in stabilizing the country, it will be many, many years before it can rebuild itself. It's doubtful that the government in place now will stand, or that Iraq overall will accept it.
Given our stated goals for going in, we've screwed up royally. Kissenger is stating the obvious, and also stating the obvious need for altering our approach. Given the lessons of Vietnam, he should know. Too bad he wasn't offering this advice much, much earlier.
2006-11-20 13:43:18 · answer #2 · answered by functionary01 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Henry is not intimately involved in the war, he is only a bystander with his own opinion just like the rest of us. That being said, the United States will never win in Iraq or another war ever again for that matter. We are unwilling to engage our enemies with our full military might. We play world politics and are too worried about what the French will say and public opinion and all that other bullshit. War is hell. We can't win in Iraq because we are unwilling to kill civilians. The entire world knows this. It's how we lost in Vietnam as well. The enemy fights us on the battlefield then doubles as a civilian for protection. It's you Liberal, pansy, tree huggers that have made things this way and you will all be at fault for our inevitable destruction.
2006-11-20 13:31:07 · answer #3 · answered by Darth Monterrible 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Henry Kissinger, in my opinion, is one of the smartest people on the political scene. He's been around since the Nixon era and Viet Nam. If there's anybody who can correctly evaluate a situation, he is the one; when he speaks, I listen, and if he says something is so, then I have every reason to believe him. The only think wrong with Kissinger is that he can't run for President (and he's smart enough to know he wouldn't want the job even if he could).
2006-11-20 13:32:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes Kissenger is correct in his assumption that this war is unwinnable. Sad part is that this is Bush's Vietnam and just as it was not a won neither shall Iraq be a success for the States.
2006-11-20 13:31:28 · answer #5 · answered by crazylegs 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
wow, your article reads totally differently to mine!!!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19112006/323/kissinger-calls-international-conference-iraq.html
just goes to show how easily the press can change whole meaning of something by the way it is reported. i think i would trust mine more as it is clear that the press is controlled far more in the US. the UK have no reason on this story to not tell it as it is.
when i read the link i'm giving you, it was clear to me that that there must be serious problems in the white house... kissinger would not have said these things if he felt he still had some control over bush, he is a behind the scenes man now... i think bush is loosing the plot and kissinger knows it. as much as he has puppeted bush in to power and his policy, i don't think he intended it to go this far down the aggressive route that now there is a threat of ww3.
2006-11-20 15:37:14 · answer #6 · answered by sofiarose 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-11-20 13:33:11 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, he was right it can't be won per the terms he stated. But he also said we should stay in Iraq just as he did for Vietnam and look what he did for Vietnam.
He was an administrator in the Nixon administration. So yes, he is a Republican.
2006-11-20 13:28:19 · answer #8 · answered by devilishblueyes 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He is so right! Its impossible to win the war on terror in Iraq. There will always be terrorism. There is no way to completely erase terrorist or terrorism. Also there has never been peace in the middle east so why would there be peace now or ever?
2006-11-20 13:33:33 · answer #9 · answered by . 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was correct in one way, there is no way it can be won by the method being employed at this time, didn't any one learn their lessons from the Vietnam War. You can't fight the war from Washington DC.
2006-11-20 13:25:35 · answer #10 · answered by smoothie 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋