What is 'winning' in Iraq?

Question

Haven't we already accomplished the goals?

- Saddam is gone.
- The Iraqi military has been re-enacted.
- Iraq has a democratically elected government.
- Iraq has a new constitution.
- Iraq has no WMDs.
- Iraq can't attack the USA.
- There are a few terrorists cells as there are in many other countries but the major cause of conflict and deaths is due to the Sunni/Shia civil war.

I'm not stating we should leave Iraq; rather, we do need to maintain a sort of 'police' presence until Iraq is more stable.

I'm asking, "Have we not already won?" and "If not, what is winning at this point?"

Answer 1

Winning is in the eye of the beholder. Vice President Cheney said recently in an interview with Wolf Bliltzer that things were going well and was indignant that anyone should think otherwise. This was after President Bush had admitted that mistakes had been made and that much more progress was needed. Newsweek Magazine said in an article recently that about 90% of young Iraqi's (18 and under?) fear and hate Americans. There was a picture of a U.S. soldier with all his gear sitting in the middle of an Iraqi household with children staring at him, while his buddies ransacked the house for weapons. Iraq has become a breeding ground for insurgents(or terrorists, depending on one's perspective). One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter(that is what we called them in Afghanistan when they fought the Soviets) The unrest will not end until we leave. Congressman John Murtha is right. We are the cause of our own troubles over there, and our soldiers have become targets. One cannot win if one cannot define what winning is. We should get out as soon as possible. Military victory is much easier than political victory.

Answer 2

You make some good point’s ma'am.

Many of these points were the basis for President Bush's now infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech.

However, something that no one could've ever foreseen took place shortly after that speech; the foreign fighters started pouring in. Was it Iran and Syria who initiated this? Was it Bin Laden's Al Qaeda? We may never know for sure. What we do know for certain is that it is now a major issue.

There are many, many more accomplishments that our government has achieved in Iraq that you all back in the States just never see, mostly due to media bias (sorry but "110 dead in suicide bombing" sells better than "U.S. Soldiers build school for Iraqi Children" does.)


At this point, winning is about getting Iran, Syria and the terrorists out. If we don't do this before we leave the situation will get so unstable that it could very well draw the entire Middle East into war.

It's also about making sure that the Iraqi Military isn't just re-enacted, but equipped and capable as well. I've seen reports that we can't get enough Iraqis to volunteer. This is completely untrue. The fact of the matter is that they show up day after day in historic numbers, even with the threat of being blowing up! The problem, then, is screening them for potential infiltrators and then training them. We don't have enough people to do this.

So, until Iraq is able to defend itself from outside aggressors, despite all the battles we've won, we haven't won the war.

Answer 3

At this point, the American presence in Iraq other than as a police presence is pointless, except to save face. The events so unforeseen, by so many, that occurred in the vacuum of power have outstripped America's resources, and let us in a position of weakness. Certainly, if we went in to the areas of terrorist activity and indiscriminately bombed those areas into submission this war could be brought to a successful military conclusion. Can or should America do that? Of course not. Civilian deaths are no longer acceptable. So what else could we do to bring about the cessation of hostilities? Nothing. We brought this on, but are powerless to stop it. The only remaining reason to stay now is to save face before the rest of the world, and hope this sectarian violence will burn itself out long enough for us to leave "victoriously".

Answer 4

Winning in Iraq will be determined when the US has secured its firm hand in the oil of the region...ensuring that China doesn't get their hands on any.

Winning in Iraq will mean that a country leader has been put in place that dances to the American tune.

Winning in Iraq, sadly, will never happen. Short term gains may be made, but long term, this region is destined to be a hotbed for a variety of countries and groups.

Answer 5

The job is not done yet. we have no assurance that Iraq can self-govern and remain independent. Why do we need a stable, independent, self-sufficient Iraq?

Just a few reasons:

- We need to protect Israel, our ally, from forces that threaten to destroy them.
- We need to keep Iraq from becoming a breeding ground for terrorists (much as Afghanistan became under the Clinton administration)
- We need to stop the spread of Iranian influence in Iraq and their quest to become the dominant power in the middle east (and to destroy Israel).
- And we need to keep the middle eastern sources of 60% of the world's oil and natural gas from falling into disarray if more widespread regional conflict breaks out.

"Victory" may never come in the same sense that we toppled Hitler and "won" WWII. In the case of Iraq, victory is more the avoidance of potential catastrophes and the assurance that stability has displaced hatred, conflict, and the export of terror.

If we were to leave now, the militias would spill blood in the streets of Baghdad, sectarian violence would spread like wildfire, displacing any sembelence of central control and the entire region would go up for grabs...much to the delight of Mr. Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Answer 6

i answered a question like this earlier: i dont imagine iraq can win the conflict in iraq,because the iraqi human beings do not comprehend a thanks to operate in a authorities it quite is a democracy. to my expertise(and that i'd be incorrect)iraq hasn't ever had that earlier. the persons (in my view)which try to ascertain a democracy do not comprehend how,they could't because of al-quida received't enable it. there are such countless human beings scuffling with adversarial to it over there,human beings like that are terrified of a democracy(the terrorists i propose)all they comprehend is oppression and suppression. briefly it is going to likely be very not uncomplicated to win that wrestle and set up a gov. w/out the US leaving troops there to implement the guidelines etc. in basic terms my opinion,take it for what its worth sorry if i offend each person

Answer 7

We have made a commitment to the elected leadership of Iraq to remain for protection and training of their forces until the Iraqi people can defend themselves.

I believe we have won, but that doesn't mean you just up and leave creating a vacuum for all of the power mad lunatics to sweep in and fill the void.

Answer 8

They haven't gotten a democracy like we have. This is the reason why Bush wants to stay. But Iraq can't never achieve democracy because it doesn't want a democracy. They are violent and hate us. We've given them everything but most of them are ungrateful and their islamic fundamentalism is horrible. American blood was shed on this ill-conceived war and Iraq will never have a government like us becuase they don't want to! We should accept the fact that democracy is not for everybody. Bush needs to understand that.

Answer 9

Some fellow soldiers and I who are currently deployed have come to the conclusion that victory=survival. If I come home alive, I won the war in Iraq. The truth is that there are very few quantifiable things here that truly constitute a victory.

Answer 10

I am a Republican but here's what I think. We have not won until the Us withdraws & the Iraqi Govt is in place for at least a year