Don't point fingers at anyone - just give your winning end game!
Example: Just a stable democracy?
2007-01-24 04:44:33 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The term of "winning" in Iraq is pointless when in fact, we already failed. There will be no winning a democracy in Iraq because of the religious factions in the country. It's delusional at best to think Iraq will have a democracy, especially when they are experiencing a civil war right now. Bush should have thought of this before he went in and invaded Iraq.
2007-01-24 04:49:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Victory would be when we can drasticly cut back on our troop levels without leaving the country in choas.
At this point a stable democracy in Iraq would take at least 15-20 years to form. While I didn't support the invasion at all (I protested as much as possible before the start of the war), I believe in the pottery rule - you break it, you buy it. We broke Iraq so we owe it to the people of the country to help them pick up the pieces.
It really isn't about winning or losing. The actual war was won right away. What we are doing now is occupying the country in order to keep the peace while the Iraqi government gets on its feet. I think that we have already achieved much of what we should have in terms of helping the government of Iraq - they have the security forces to defend the country.
In my opinion the US troops should be scaled back (leave maybe 100,000 troops in country) and they should also stay at the military bases and not patrol. US troops should be there as non-combat advisors to the Iraqi military.
Again, victory would be when we can drasticly cut back on our troop levels without leaving the country in choas.
2007-01-24 04:57:43 · answer #2 · answered by brooks b 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A stable democracy would be a win for a number of reasons, one, they'd be strong enough to prevent terrorism from growing within their borders, as well as the fact that it is an accepted political science theory that Democracies almost never declare war on each other. Just look at Europe under monarchy, and now Europe under democracy
2007-01-24 04:49:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
We lost the conflict when we began it. Ostensibly, it is a conflict adversarial to terror. Does all of us experience a lot less terrified now than previously 9/11? or maybe that is a conflict adversarial to terrorists? what percentage terrorists have we killed? we've killed a lot of threat free civilians, a lot of insurgents, even one petty dictator, yet i have not seen a count number of terrorists. become this conflict a retaliation for 9/11? Then prevailing would entail catching and punishing Osama bin encumbered, which we've not yet executed. once you declare conflict on an precis (terror, poverty, drugs, and so on.), any victory gained will be both precis.
2016-10-16 01:15:25 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the most obvious answer would be a stable democracy
2007-01-24 04:50:05 · answer #5 · answered by jwk227 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just a stable government with the ability to control and defend itself . And I agree with President Bush.. .. .we can give them to about November to get it right .
2007-01-24 04:50:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Stabelizing Iraq's Army (to the point where they can fight it off on their own).
We don't need to finish off the terrorist cells, we just need to prepare the Iraq government and Army to do so.
Also, stabelizing the capitol would be nice.
2007-01-24 04:48:26 · answer #7 · answered by Mr. Info 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Divide it in half and let the "radicals" have the one half. That's be the easiest way to create peace in Iraq. It's two groups that want two different governments.... MUCH LIKE THE US!
2007-01-24 04:51:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
War never wins, even to minimum amounts.
2007-01-24 04:50:31 · answer #9 · answered by edubya 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Leaving.
2007-01-24 04:50:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋