Why is our effort in Iraq half-hearted?

Question

So many times I’ve heard war supporters try to compare the Iraq War to WWII. I’ve seen parallels drawn and heard all the clever patriotic clichés. But amidst all the bravado and anti-terrorist drum beating, no one has ever addressed the most compelling issue: why isn’t the Iraqi War a massive military offensive? Why are there only 150, 000+ troops on the ground? If we truly want to win this war on terror, why isn’t the effort a “full court press”?

When we entered WWI, it was an all-out, massive offensive that required every ounce of our military might, technology, and industrial moxie. Everybody in America sacrificed. Every major auto manufacturer built tanks and Jeeps and even airplanes. Every citizen rationed. Use of copper and steel was heavily restricted. Our troops—hundreds of thousands of them—had the equipment they needed to win the war. Where is the comparison in these two efforts? Why aren’t there 500,000 troops in Iraq like there were during the Gulf War? GM, Ford & Chrysler are laying off thousands of people. Why aren’t the Big 3 building Humvees? If this war is just, if the war in Iraq is truly the central front against the war on terror, why is our effort significantly less than 100%? Why aren’t we exercising every resource to win this war on terror? Could it be that the decision makers’ goal is to protract the war rather than win it?

Answer 1

When WW2 broke out, the whole world got involved because there was cyrstal clear evidence that Germany and its allies were unjustly invading and attacking other nations. The same goes for Gulf War 1, Iraq invaded Kuwait. This clear evidence of unjust attacks also happend in 9/11 and it justified the Afghan War. But, this war on terror, more specifically the war in Iraq is half-hearted, as you said, because half of the world finds the war a complete joke. The Iraq war was justified by the US administration by saying they have strong evidence that Saddam had various weapons of mass destruction. And so far, the US has not produced sufficient evidence to support their claim. For majority of the people this war was not well thought of. The war, more than anything, messed up Iraq, that's why I think the US can't make an exit. Iraq is in such a mess that if the US leaves the world will see them as abandoning the chaos they have created.

That war was not well thought of; there's inadequate justification for the many lives that have been wasted. Sadly, the concept of "We started it, might as well finish it" is not applicaple this time around. This is the reason why the efforts have been so half-hearted.

Answer 2

Our effort in Iraq is half-hearted because most of our pols have only half a brain. Look at the enlistment rates. The common people are behind the war, only the "board rats" that are afraid we might piss off China or Russia are not 100% behind the war. I myself tried to re-enlist, but they told me I was overage. (So much for Government age discrimination laws!)

WW II was a one time thing. America was in a depression and needed something to get it back on track. No nation could match our industrial output, food supplies, or weapons once we got started. There was also no other nation at the time that had nuke tipped ICBM's which are around today. (Although Germany came close.)

People who call the Iraq war an "Oil War" are almost correct, but not quite. We "could" piss off China or Russia by taking complete control of Iraq. That is why we can't bomb them 'till they glow and shoot them in the dark. The Chinese and the Russians, who also need oil to grow their economy, may see it as us (The US) trying to keep them from getting the oil on the open market from a "stable" Iraq. Hence the push to get the Iraq Gov't in place so they can do business with whomever they please.

Iraq is more like Viet-Nam than WW II in the mode of fighting. No regular army can meet or match the US military in combat in that part of the world. Iraq is like WW II only in that it is a war of "ideals" inasmuch as no one person should have so much control that he can order the destruction of an entire people or ethnic group.

The point is, we have fence sitters. The Chinese and Russians know this. We will not have the full agreement of all the House and the Senate to wage unlimited war as long as some of these "representatives" can't see past their nose. This was the reason we were effective in WW II. The Gov't worked as one.

Now, they have so many issues on their plate that it is more important for them to vote on a new gym or eating place for themselvs, so they can "think" while away from home. Or possibly a pay raise.

But to give you a simple answer, the many facets of Gov't will not get together and agree, and things in the world as far as weapons have changed. Also you need to take into account that we have a huge trade deficit with China, and we are still trying to bring Russia into the "democratic" fold.

Buick's in China, Russia as a "real" democracy. If the "new" big three ever manage to see eye to eye then we start space exploration on a large scale. (That last just a hope.)

Answer 3

We defeated the Iraqi army; almost as soon as our troops landed. If there were an army for us to fight, we would do it. This is a religious war between two factions of the same religion!
We cannot fight this type of battle. We must not choose sides, we have no right to choose sides. It is the peace we cannot keep!
Our troops need to be removed from this area; we has no business going there in the 1st place. We have no reason to be there except we started something we don't know how to extradite ourselves from since it has turned into a religious civil war. We have done much to destroy the country. If at all possible, we should help them back on their feet. As it stands now we can't do much until one side or the other wins the religious civil war & then askes for our help to rebuild. Don't hold your breath!

Answer 4

The big difference is, nobody wants us there - not the Sunnis, not the Shiites, not even the Kurds. There's nothing to win, in that sense. Most people think this whole problem started in 2001, 1993, 1979, 1922. I'm not a history major, but I can track it back to an act of the British parliament in 1888, with Disraeli's decision to give up military control of the Dardanelles. It would take a little explaining, but it goes back at least that far. As for us, specifically in Iraq, let me say this: Saddam said Iraq had a "historical claim" to Kuwait, which is true (the British ripped it off Iraq in 1922). When Saddam's Iraq went into Kuwait, we retaliated and pushed them out. That was an affront to Saddam, so he had to retaliate. So he tried to kill Bush I. So according to Middle East tribal rules, Bush II had to try to wipe out Saddam's whole family, which he did. But now we're in there, and trying to get out. When the Brits went in around 1920, it took them 18 years to get out! I figure we'll be lucky to get out in less than 10.

Answer 5

"Full court press". A good phrase considering this administration called their reasoning for going to war "a slam dunk".
It's funny when cons and neo-cons blame liberals for their failures. I won't go into whether or not we should be there. But when we were going in, even I knew it wasn't enough. And so did the administration. They were warned that it wasn't about taking Baghdad, it was about keeping it. It wasn't about winning the war, it was about keeping the peace. But they chose not to listen because it didn't fit in with their rose-colored view of what would happen there.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: You hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. This administration, no matter how many times they were warned, didn't do that.
If you're going to do something, do it right. If they had from the beginning, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. And the Republicans would still be in power.
Cons, as it says in Hamlet - "the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."

Answer 6

Because we did not learn in Vietnam, you cannot defeat an enemy that does not wear uniforms, and I don't think this mess was ever intended but that's what happens when you go around invading countries. The only thing that makes Iraq a war is the fact that we invaded, which is an act of war. There would have to be total destruction all out brute force without regard for who gets killed, so we send our kids to fight a defensive war until our leaders figure out a way to get us out. Cutting funding would be the last resort, I hope the republicans don't push it that far.

Answer 7

well... you're not looking at the war...

actually, to be frank, the "war" is over... so, that's part of the problem here... right now we're just TOTALLY bumbling the nation building aspect...

and it doesn't help that a large portion of the country hates another large portion of the country...stopping a civil war is almost impossible, the only way Saddam did it was through brutal dictatorship actions...

but these aren't armies we're fighting, they are small groups of insurgents... gorilla warfare... with no centralized structure or strategy... I mean it's almost impossible to beat a force like that, unless you just start murdering whole villages...

Answer 8

How exactly would your plan help?

In WWII, we had a foe that was (1) massive, (2) well equiped, (3) determined to take and hold territory. There were battle lines where you needed to have the ability to bring massive force to bear.

None of that is present in Iraq.

If we added another 50,000 troops on the ground, plus all the equipment you could care to name, will it stop one crazy terrorist from strapping a bomb to himself and blowing himself up in the marketplace?

Yes...with enough troops we could institute a total police state in Iraq, lock down the population, prevent all movement. That *would* solve the terrorist in the marketplace problem, but it would create a larger problem where now *we* are seen as the oppressors and terrorizers. It'd be a huge PR and recruiting victory for our opponents to be able to show pictures of Americans marching down the street like stormtroopers, scaring women and children.

I agree with your philisophical point, I just don't think there's a pragmatic way to utilize the type of broad based mobilization you're calling for.

Answer 9

There is very little in common between WWll, and Iraq. One glaring difference is that Iraq NEVER attacked America. NEVER. So, this "war" is just America playing God, and trying to dictate to other countries, how they should live, and govern themselves. Actually, this isn't actually war, it's at most, Iraqis trying to fight against invaders, who have killed many thousands of their citizens, and who act like spoiled children because those who we attack aren't happy and grateful for the honor of being killed by Uncle Sam. I find Bush's warrior act offensive. When it was his time for war, he let his Daddy set him up with a safe spot to drink out the war, while better men died in Vietnam. I just wish he'd have just stayed a useless drunk, instead of getting into politics, where he's getting our best citizens killed, for no good reason.

Answer 10

via fact maximum of usa is misinformed and drink the Kool-help presented to them on a daily basis via the media. We have been actively patroling the Iraq airspace interior the UN no-fly zone and have been persistently shot at. Clinton fired cruise missles into Iraq for the time of his administration. The origianl Gulf war in no way ended yet in trouble-free terms a end hearth grew to become into signed requiring Sadam to fulfill specific circumstances to end the war. He in no way met those circumstances; Clinton in no way had the heart to do something approximately it; Bush and the 2002 congress did.