Why hasn't the US won the war in Iraq yet?

Question

a) US troops have to follow the Geneva convention (rules of engagement) & the terrorists don't.

b) The terrorists blend in with the Iraqi civilian population.

c) The Civil/Sectarian war.

d) Non stop Iranian & Syrian support for the terrorists.

e) Not enough US troops to win the "hearts & minds" of the Iraqi civilians.

f) Nobody in the Bush adminstration had a plan for figthing a insurgency in Iraq & they still aren't totally sure how to defeat it even now.

Answer 1

I so agree w/ you. If only there were more people like you...

Answer 2

you can look at it in your way others will look at it this way. according to the geneva conventions when some one comes to occupy your land you have a right to defend yourselves and your land. occupiers are not the friends according to the geneva conventions they are your enemies. this does not make these people terrorists. how ever people in iraq who are killing other iraqis are terrorists on both sides. the side that sides with the invadors and the ones who kill because of secular differences with in the religion. this behavior is rediculous. how ever would have never happened if not for the unwelcomed hostile take over of the unwanted west. next 20 milion dollars an hour has been pumped out of iraq for over three years now. the us has no right to this money nor do the oil companies who are privatly owned have a right to hijack other people's oil. it is the iraqi people's oil not the west. so there for that is one more reason they are fighting the american's. who are the real terrorists in this matter? iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. in fact saddam and osama hated each other because saddam saw him as a threat to his seat in power. so this war on terror is a bunch of religious and political propagand, from the made up disllusions of the bush administration where the majority of american voters have been incompitent enough to blindly play along. this is why america is not winning the war in iraq. p.s. if some one invaded your country and tried to take over you too would fight for your land. no double standards please think about what ou are saying before you say it!

Answer 3

The answer to all of your questions is yes, we attacked Iraq for the wrong reasons because Bush and Company analyzed the situation from a doctrinal point of view and a narrow frame of reference. They apparently believed their own assumptions about "Dancing in the Street!", good verses evil, WMD, the compatibility of the Iraqi social structure, the inability to maintain the oil flow, the willingness of the general Iraqi people to assist in the rebellion, the time and resources it would take to do the job. And certainly the rising cost to our diminished reputation as a World Leader, American and Iraqi deaths and tens of thousands of serious injuries and the general public turning against the War.
The US did not win the Iraq War for about every reason you can imagine all at once. The theme song of MASH, "Suicide is Easy", or something like that seems appropriate to describe the sadness associated with Bush and This WAR!
Don't let the Bush Administration fool you, they are caught red-handed in their own propaganda and cowardliness.

Answer 4

Nobody defined what exactly constitutes a victory over there. The idea of Israel destroying the infra-structure of Lebanon but having Hezbollah claim some kind of victory seems to be a theme common to a large portion of the middle east. Claiming the U. S. hasn't won the war in Iraq implys that Iraq's are somehow winning. I don't see it as a win/lose scenario. Nobody wins wars, they are like storms, you either survive them or you don't. Saddam didn't defeat Bush, and Iraq sure as hell isn't beating the U. S.

The war profiteering scum who pull Bush's strings and steal tax dollars under the guise of somehow helping the troops may be winning, but the average American or Iraqi are getting the shaft.

Answer 5

There truly is no way to win this war. It is up to the will of the Iraqi people to work out peace between the Shiites/Sunnis and live peacefully and within laws. We can try to push the process along, but it boils down to the citizens and their own people. I think they will also get fed up with us (americans) patrolling their streets and also I think they will tire of the terrorists and fight back themselves!

Ultimately, they are the ones who have to live there. When the Iraqi people get tired of the war and fighting, perhaps they will become peaceful and work together to make their country better.

We can't force them to do it, no matter how hard we try. We can try and try, but we it is truly in their hands.

We really will eventually have to leave. and hope for the best. Bush didnt anticipate all of the problems, to this extent, by his own admission.

Answer 6

I am with you through E but "F" is debatable there has always been a plan but the insurgents are adapting to our plan faster than we expected.
"G" would without a doubt be the boost they have had since the US citizens have shown their lack of support for our military. Since the "new" Congress has taken office the attacks have become more fierce, the # of helicopters shot down is at at all new heights. This is not a coincidence, some may want to believe it is just the President's fault but the military knows it is their fellow citizens causing the deaths of their comrades as much as it is the Iraqis. If you do not like the sound of it then you are probably one of the aiding & abetting the Iraqi people.

Answer 7

It really has nothing to do with rules of engagement, blending in, Syrian and Iranian support, not enough troops, or a plan.
It has everything to do with "my" home being occupied by a foreign force, and "my" need to ensure that , when that force gives up and goes home, as it surely will, "my" side comes out on top.
Anyone who could not foretell this, and yes I did, right from the beginning, is as much a fool as Bush and Blair (I'm British, by the way).
Have we learned nothing from occupying foreign lands?
Do not Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Korea and countless others, ring any bells
2 gangs fighting it out in a neighborhood. Gang 3 decides to come in and take over. I suggest to you that gangs 1 and 2 sort out gang 3 before continuing their own struggle (and, of course, if one or the other can do collateral damage to their opposition, well that's fine)

Answer 8

Its extra complicated that any you possibly can desire to describe, each and every physique could have their own opinons. relating to the militia. I wouldnt say maximum suitable experienced as one individual pronounced. maximum suitable equiped militia the worldwide has ever familiar, however the learning and features necessary to regulate a united states of america that doesnt choose you their took a protracted time to grasp, even the French and British have been given battered for years in the previous they relised how maximum suitable to occupy a united states of america that doesnt choose you there. Dont overlook the British controlled Iraq for particularly a whilst yet even then there have been probelms retaining the rustic jointly. i think of the British could be somewhat to passive for my liking yet you may seem on the Europeans for adventure in spite of their faults. France pulled out of Vietnam for a reason and didnt choose to become in contact in a Iraq for a reason. The British have mastered the policies of engagment properly in Iraq, authentic the region interior the south is amazingly diverse from the the remainder of the rustic yet get this. whilst the British take fire they retreat, they dont work together, they'll prognosis the region from a miles and picture maximum suitable the thank you to procede. If their is a sniper in a construction they back could retreat or spend 24 hours working how maximum suitable to get him out. the US opporate otherwise. The sniper, they might cope with the full construction because of the fact the enermy. they are in a position to even blow it up if there isnt to many human beings in there. yet this tactic will effect in heavy cicilian casulties espacially seen as for this reason the sniper is in there interior the 1st place. Secondly in the event that they take fire they gained't retreat they'll call in each and everything to win the engagement, back on occasion with heavy civilian casulties. on the subject of one answer you recieved. As I mentioned US maximum suitable equiped military via far, specific forces maximum circumstances you may bypass to the Australians, even nonetheless we dont hear lots approximately them. maximum suitable intelligence could desire to be argued that that's the Israelis and the main suitable experienced military interior the worldwide could be the British and French although I dought you will ever see them in considerable action back, there to busy with the piece protecting missions and restoring order in ex colonies.

Answer 9

Do you know what the objectives are?
G) #1 is to keep the terrorist off American and her friends territory.
----------------------That is my answer------------------------------------
Also He can not tell you every thing that may be going on over there because of reasons I will not go into here. Remember the media generated manufactured consensus is just all about marketing, with out any regards to country or flag or that man in the White house. Do not get caught up in it man it is a real drag, become liberated as fathers of your great nation would want you to be.
Also
Remember you only tackle the man with the ball in football, cause he is the only one who can score.
So you are just proving to me how much on the Ball he must be.
As a Canadian it seems to me He must be a great president , as well very effective, a man of great stature. Years a head of his time. Only many years from now will they honor Him.
Bush is a man of God. He can not tell you everything now can he? So others take advantage of that.
He is an honorable man of God.
They did and will win :) Trust me

Answer 10

g) none of the above

We haven't "won" because the objective and rationale keeps changing. We did win, we removed Saddam. We did win, there were no WMD to begin with. We did win, we established an Iraqi goverment with a constitution and elections (however rigged). But those are false rationales used to keep troops in Iraq, who are only there to enforce Israeli/US hegemony, raid the US Treasury for war profiteers, and get the oil flowing. All of those unspoken tasks have been dismal failures, except for the profiteering.

Answer 11

All of it including: VN syndrome - Nations support terrorists to oppose us - Body Count tactic of Media - False rumors - Democrats/Republicans conflicts - and many internal problems caused by 9/11 and terrorism!