Does it matter who wins the war in Iraq just as long as it's not the terrorists/insurgents?

Question

In other words if the Iraqi National Army:

-Knows what the terrorists/insurgents look like (unlike US troops)
-Know how to fight like Muslim insurgents/terrorists (Unlike the US)
-Can speak the native language (unlike the US)
-Can win "hearts & minds" of their own people (unlike the US)
- Very motivated to fight for their own country & kill foreign terrorists/jihadists.
-They don't have to abide by the US military "rules of engagement" that keep the US military from winning the war. (Unlike the US)

The only thing keeping the Iraqi Army from winning the war in Iraq is the US military so what's the point of keeping the US military in Iraq. Bush's/Conservative pride?

Answer 1

What does "winning the war in Iraq" consists in? If you think about eliminating the terrorist factions that are active in Iraq a good way to have won the war would have been to not start it in the first place as Iraq was a terrorist-free country before G. W. sent the troops. Plus terrorism will never disappear completely, even if the war ends, so the war is lost anyway and has always been lost even before it started.

Answer 2

You don't know what you're talking about.
First point: You think that the US troops don't know what terrorists look like? You don't think they look a lot like every other Iraqi citizen, on purpose?
Second point: You suggest to fight fire with fire, to drop the country into one group blowing up another's women and children to get results.
Third: That's why there are translators and interpreters, for one thing.
Fourth point: It's difficult to win the hearts and minds of anyone without the proper military force and power to protect them, which the Iraqi army lacks without the backing of the US military.
Fifth point: Why even mention this? Who in the world isn't motivated to kill terrorists? Even they want to die.
Sixth: This is the only point on which I can even remotely agree with you.

What is stopping the Iraqi Army from winning the war is an insurgency that is determined to outlast them, a demoralized populace and a curtailed American Army.

Answer 3

We won the war when we took out Saddam`s army, then the occupation started and I think the administration has done a great job of turning the word insurgent into the word terrorist but I am not buying it, I don`t give into fear that Islam extremist are coming to get me. The way you win a occupation is you get off their land. I think Iraqis gave us a chance in the beginning but Bush had to make Iraq the perfect conservative country with flat taxes and outlawed organized labor groups. I think there is a war between tribes in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Bush co. fund one side and SOME Iranian CITIZENS and turks fund the other.

Answer 4

I'm confused about your question, mostly because whenever I pose a question about "winning" in Iraq, no one seems able to define what "winning" is.

Usually, when you're trying to "win" something, it means some objective is being met. Something you desire is attained. Something is gained.

No one has been able to explain to me what "winning the war in Iraq" will be like.

However, I will say this. If the American Revolution was looked at the way you obviously look at the Iraq war, the colonists would be considered the insurgents, and if there had been a country there to kill them all, where would you be today?

Answer 5

Iraq will devolve into a Shia-controlled theocracy as soon as the U.S. is gone, and to an extent it already has. Nothing that happens there matters -- not even the civil war that the U.S. started.

Answer 6

In other words you are saying it would be ok for another Saddam to take over Iraq? In that case, why did we go through all this in the first place?

Answer 7

I agree with you 100% great Q&A

Answer 8

One man's insurgent, is another man's freedom fighter...

Answer 9

It's really too bad your not in the senate or all our problems would be fixed.

Answer 10

yes