Who/What is more responsible for the lack of a US win in Iraq?

Question

a) Bush not putting in US General(s) recommended 300,000 US troops at the very start of the war in Iraq.

b) The liberal media who has no votes in the US Congress, can't control any of the US military & can't control Bush.

c) The Pentagon's "Rules of engagement" that don't allow US troops to fight to win the war in Iraq.

d) That fact the Bush won't allow the Iraqi Shiites wipe out the terrorists/insurgents who they've been preparing to fight for decades & have no rules of engagement like the US.

Answer 1

Historical the people of the middle east get ticked off when they are occupied.

Answer 2

None, because Iraq was never winnable. Every unbiased Middle East expert in the world (and, in fact, everyone with any knowledge of the region) predicted that invading Iraq and removing Hussein from power would result in exactly the situation in which we currently find ourselves?

Even the president’s own father knew that invading Iraq — would result in America being caught in a quagmire from which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to extricate ourselves — would cost America its friends and allies — would ruin America’s effectiveness in international politics by destroying its reputation, and — would jeopardize America’s long-term interests in the region (‘A World Transformed’ [1998] by George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft).

However, the failure need not have been the complete disaster and total failure it has become. First, if Bush had actually brought all the troops home on the day he stood under the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner, Iraq would have sorted itself out years ago. Then, to make matters worse, the one thing that could never be allowed to happen, Abu Ghraib, did happen, and turned Iraq from an 'everyday' defeat into a failure in the war on terror that will ultimately lead to the deaths of millions of Americans.

Answer 3

Bush, Bush and Bush! He's fired the commanders in Iraq numerous times! The Sec of Defense fell on his sword and Bush set the troops up to make our military target practice for IRAQI'S!

Bush failed to quash the insurgency in the beginning, letting it turn into a full blown civil war! The Generals asked for more troops! They didn't get them! Hell, many of the Hummers still have no armor and it is going on 5 years!

Answer 4

To be quite honest no one has ever faced an enemy like the insurgency in Iraq. There were insurgencies after every war. When Germany surrendered there were still die-hards that kept sniping and killing American soldiers. The same is true in Japan and every other conflict.

The difference here is in this insurgency's unabashed willingness to hide among innocent civilians. Their unprecedented targeting of hundreds of their own fellow countrymen to attack a few Americans. Their willingness to blow themselves up. America, in fact. the world has never seen anything like this. We sent hundreds of Humvee over there that were not armored. Humvee were never intended to be armored vehicles. Convoys are attacked by improvised munitions that destroy one out of a thousand trucks. For what purpose? They blow up children in schools, people lined up seeking employment, police officers directing traffic.

The reason things have gone so slowly has been our resistance to destroy civilians and structures like Mosks that are important to the daily lives of the civilians.

The task has been made somewhat more difficult by the lack of anything constructive coming from elected Democratic politicians. so my answer is

e) Democratic politicians have chosen to do everything they can to undermine the effort for political advantage.

Answer 5

All of the first three. The fourth will just lead to a bloodbath. But with what is going on in congress lately that is what the DEMs want. They want us out & dont care about the civil war.

Answer 6

History shows that occupation never works the Brits had India for a couple hundred years but rarely was at peace one or more region were rebelling, same with Rome, Germany, France ( viet nam Algeria) uninvited guests wear out their welcome fast. We ran pretty loose and let them run their own show in Germany/ Japan after WW2 then we pretty much left them alone after a few years. Russia tried to occupy Afghanistan ten years later they left in the night. So I know it was never going to work from the beginning it was lost the day it was started. all the other reasons are secondary.

Answer 7

The answer is A.

When the US troops went through, they left a vacuum in their wake by removing all of Sadam's people who were maintaining law & order and not replacing them. There simply wasn't enough people to do the job correctly.

Now we are stuck in this quagmire and I doubt we will ever get out.

Answer 8

The people of US. They are responsible for either winning or losing the war. If they fully support the govt, then the war will be different. If they fully support the pull out, then the war will stop. So on this basis, the people of US are responsible

Answer 9

None of the above

There are 2 reasons we can't win this war.

One is because it should never have been started in the first place, and the second is because the powers that be, won't allow it to end, until they decide that it no longer furthers their agendas!!!!

Answer 10

None of the about.
Wining what? The USA provide a "cure" to Iraq that is worst than the illness. Democracy by the force is not democracy at all.

Answer 11

E) None of the above. The answer to your question is a lack of support from the public to do what it takes. If we all united for the cause total victory would soon follow.