Has anyone ACTUALLY taken a SERIOUS look at the situation in Iraq and said we'll lose?

Question

Think about it for a little while: First: We have lost just over 3000 soldiers of a deployed force of 144,000 active soldiers. Now while I'm sorry for the families of those lost soldiers, that's still nothing compared to the rest of the force and all the private military contractors we've employed over there also. Second: For the most part, terrorist attacks have been directed at civilian areas patrolled by US troops, not our military installations. And Third of all: We can't exactly pull out or it will be just another Vietnam. Us being there is the only thing keeping the groups from taking over the country, because the Iraqi government is not prepared enough to take on all the terrorists that are there.

One more thing I would like to add is that although we are in there, success does not depend on us alone, it also requires the effort of the Iraqi government, so you can't go blaming Bush every time something goes wrong. Think about it

Agree or disagree? Why? Any reasons? TY

Aight Chalupa, let me explain something first of all. Al-Quaida was already there, they have been for a looonnnggg time, and the Taliban have never been there and aren't there now. The Taliban are in Afghanistan.

Second: Vietnam was only better off once they got out from under the other countries that jumped on it when we left, and then they finally had peace for a while. Muslim history thus far indicates to me that the Muslims are not a religion to just 'forgive and forget' as ppl say, so Iraq would almost definitely NOT be better off than before if we just Cut and Ran.

Let me correct myself, I thought you had said that the Taliban were in Iraq, You said Iranian Insurgents. Thus far I have heard nothing of Insurgents from any other country other than Egypt. You may be right, I wouldn't know.

Answer 1

I hope you don't get a violation notice about this question. It's the first question in a while regarding Iraq that finally made sense....

I would like to make one correction in your first statement about the troops. We have lost just over 3,000 out of the one million soldiers we have rotated through here in the last 4 years. Some of those soldier have been my friends who I have served beside in the past.

All you have to do to see success is ride with me on a patrol ONE day. When I got to my AO, it was like a war zone. There were gunfights on our doorstep nearly everyday. Over the last 4 months, we have taken that down to zero gunfights in the last week. I'm not saying we're finished because as the weather gets better, people get ancy and there will be set backs, but for the first time since we've been here, there are kids playing in the streets and going to school, there are Sunnis and Shiites working together on building projects and serving on councils together, and there is a serious hope for peace. My patrols are thanked EVERYDAY by the Iraqi people.

It's a shame that the only people the media and the left want to hear from are the disgruntled militia members and insurgents who want us out....

Answer 2

In reference to your question, I don't think anyone who says that the US is going to lose has really taken a serious look.
I would offer that the only way to determine if they are going to win or lose is to first look at the objectives they went to accomplish.
1 they went to change of the regime
2 they went to neutralize any WMD
3 they went to put a stop to terrorist training camps
4 they went to take the war on terror to the terrorists
Did the US accomplish any of these?
Saddam is out of power and a democratically elected governement has been established and is maturing faster than ours did in the 1700s.
The US found less WMD than we were expecting, but they did find some and they have been destroyed.
The terrorist training camps in northern Iraq were eleminated. They may be training in the mountains of Pakistan or Iran, but they are not in Iraq.
Since the war began, there have been no successful attacks on the US homeland.
Hmmm. It seems that the objectives were all met, doesn't it?
So the US actually has already won the war.
The question now is will the Iraqi governement be able to stand on its own when the US withdraws? I think the Yanks have been more than generous and stuck with the Iraqis far longer than most other countries would. The Brits and the others have done their fair share too, but let's face it, the US has the most vested in the operation.

Answer 3

I agree with you on this. Nobody seems to care about the good things that have been accomplished. Especially the news media. I must disagree with Mr. Taco (as I do on most things, lol) on his assessment of Vietnam. Sure they are at peace now, but how many people were slaughtered by the benevolent unifying NVA when we left? If you beat a people down enough, they will eventually submit. They are prosperous now because they have relented from their ridiculous communist policies and allowed some free enterprise (following China's example). In addition, US businesses are having dealings with them once again. I WILL say that we never should have gone to Vietnam in the first place since the South Vietnamese government was as corrupt as they come....but I digress. Even if we have lost 50,000 (which I don't believe) that still leaves 950,000 who made it through unscathed. Don't get me wrong, deaths are terrible no matter the circumstances, but inflating the numbers serves no constructive purpose. The bottom line is: We are there now and we can't just leave with things as they are. We would be condemning hundreds of thousands to death in the inevitable purges that would follow. I agree that a better plan is necessary. I also agree that we have screwed this thing up with unbelievable efficiency up to this point. If anybody has bothered to actually read the new plans (the much maligned surge), I think it actually has a good chance to succeed if people will give it a chance. While the President bears ultimate responsibility for American Policy, I don't think anybody can rationally blame him for every little shortcoming that happens in Iraq.

So, for the most part, I agree.

Answer 4

First, we have NOT lost just over 3000 soldiers. We have lost almost 50,000. The 3000 everyone keeps throwing around is the death total. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of our troops have suffered severe injuries or psychological illness as a result of the war. Thousands have been maimed or blinded. And that does not count the nearly 100,000 soliders the Iraqis have lost, as well as thousands of civilians. Meanwhile, many of our wounded veterans are not getting proper treatment, or have you not been reading the news the past month?

Second, what does the fact that the terrorist attacks have not been directed at our military posts have to do with anything? We are not there to protect military installations. Those were not even there before we moved in. We're supposed to be there to protect the Iraqi people. Seems like we're doing a better job protecting our installations than doing our jobs.

Third, the Vietnam argument is pretty weak. Since we pulled out, Vietnam has been united, has experienced economic improvement, and are living peacefully and generally happily in their own way without our intervention. They are BETTER off since we left. Don't believe me? Go pay them a visit. It is actually an attractive tourist destination now.

Finally, you CAN blame Bush for it, even if the Iraqi government plays or doesn't play its part. If Bush had not invaded in the first place, none of this would be happening. There would not be 3000 dead American soldiers and almost 50,000 wounded. There would not be over a hundred thousand dead Iraqis. There would not be billions of dollars in deficit. And there wouldn't even be Al-Quaeda and Iranian insurgents in Iraq.

So I guess you have to say I disagree.

p.s. Kudos to the amazing military doctors and nurses that have made this war, by far, the least fatal in our history. In WWII for every two wounded soldiers, one died. In Vietnam, for every 6 wounded soldiers, one died. In Iraq, we have 16 wounded for every soldier that dies. That is amazing. Unfortunately, it makes it look like we're doing better than we really are.

Answer 5

Disagree from a moderate Dem here.

I'll address your points in reverse order.

I agree that the Iraqis must play a more central role in governing their country. However, they are deeply and perhaps fatally fractured. We have Sunni vs Shiite, Christian vs Muslim, Them vs Us and on and on. Its a complete mess. Its a complete mess because the very brutal SH was removed from power. The lack of central power let all these genies out of the bottle and you can read or watch the results on a daily basis. So yes, it IS our fault. You break it, you buy it. And because Bush et al pushed very heavily for the war, he is responsible...besides, as the President he will bear the brunt of the decision, rightly or wrongly (its part of leadership...you are responsible even if you didn't do it).

No, we can't just up and pull out. The neocons have that right. Although I will say the terrorists/insurgents will claim victory no matter what we do...witness what happened during the infitada (both sides claimed victory and each side believed their own view). If you accept that premise, then no matter what we do they claim victory and their supporters believe it (do you really think they will take our word at it?) We need to set benchmarks for the Iraqis to get on their feet so we can pull out. Right now, the Iraqis have zero incentive to act as US troops bleed and die for their problems. And we have a CinC who refuses to set benchmarks. The end result is Iraqis know for the next 18 months or longer that US troops will be there and they never really have to stand up to use Bush speak. Set benchmarks so they at least begin to have a sense of urgency.

Your second point is flatly refuted by my brother. He is a marine based in Baghdad and in his last visit home he simply said we are losing and they face attacks every day. It might be small arms, snipers, mortars or IEDs...but everyday they are attacked. Take it or leave it but thats what he said. His only mission is simply to survive...every day they go out to patrol or take some street or another...only to give it back when they leave. Repeat as necessary. Does that sound like Vietnam to you? It does to me.

First point is a poor one. To claim that 3000 dead out of 144k is victory is not a good one. How many wounded? You also seem to discount the fear and stress of being under constant attack or the threat thereof. Rotations in theater are extended and leaves reduced. Promises of one year on and two off are clearly broken. This adversely affects their ability to fight (battle fatigue) and morale. Deaths and wounded troops aren't the whole story - do not omit the stress/pressure/fear they face, especially in light of extended combat tours and abbreviated R&R.

In that light...how can we possibly win? And speaking of which...how would you define victory? Do you believe that victory in Iraq means terrorism is forever dead?

Answer 6

No matter how you over-think this Iraqi war, the bottom line is, did Dubya know the intelligence he was receiving was faulty, but went ahead anyway with it as an excuse?

I'm at the end of my spiritual strength and have no more compassion for the Iraqis nor care if they blow their sorry @$$es up to kingdom come. Sorry. This whole mess is now the attempt to bail Dubya out of his mess.

Answer 7

Oh, how I wish I could agree with you. Unfortunately, I differ on a few points.

Regarding what you call "the rest of the force" and "all those military contractors": The last time I checked the next most significant contributor of troops was Britain and last time I heard their current number it was something like 7 or 8 thousand. As for the military contractors, most of them are U.S. citizens.

Of course, that leaves plenty of Iraqis, whose losses number in the tens to hundreds of thousands (though the counts vary widely depending upon who you talk to). It's clear they're putting a lot more effort into killing each other than killing U.S. troops, but to see that as a positive is to completely miss the point of our being there. When compared with our rhetoric going into the invasion the prospect of a peaceful democratic Iraq is so much further away after three years of sectarian violence and chaos than it was in the days after Saddam's fall we should be way past partisanship, way past finger pointing.

However, I do agree with you that almost everyone agrees that pulling out too soon will result regional chaos. The big question is whether that regional chaos can be avoided at this point. Our talks with Iran and Syria and the complete flip-flop of foreign policy that represents bespeaks the desperate nature of the situation.

At this point way I'm past gloating at the prospect of the Bush Administration eating crow. I'm honestly concerned that someday our kids or grandkids will talk about Iraq the way we talk about the assassination of Prussia's Archduke Ferdinand or Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland: where Iraq might become historical shorthand for a precipitating event cascading into a widespread disaster. With Iran clearly rooting for if not supporting the Shi'ites, and with Saudi Arabia having declared their intention to intervene on behalf of the Sunni's if things get bad enough, I'm worried about a broader regional conflict.

One possibility is partitioning the country, but the problems with that are that Iraq is so ethnically mixed that the most likely result is a bloodbath followed by perpetual war, since the Sunni-dominated regions are the most resource-poor ones and between lack of economic viability and ethnic tensions peace is unlikely for a long time. But at least they'll be killing each other across borders instead of all over the place, or maybe that's the hope.

So that leaves trying to keep the country in one piece. Of course problems are legion. The U.S. has squandered its legitimacy in the region, and Nouri al Maliki's government isn't much better off. They have some security, but since it's through Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army the government's ability to stop the sectarian killing is limited because assuming the killers aren't actually in the militia it's difficult to separate the government issues from Shi'ite ones.

Once upon a time, our goals were simple: bring down Saddam and get rid of WMD's. So now Saddam's gone and it seems the WMD's were never there. Only problem is we wanted to make Iraq a democracy, but that democracy seems to be perpetually on the brink of collapse. All we need to do is suppress the violence which seems to increase regularly with a reckless disregard for however many troops we and other coalition members put out there. Oh, yeah, and we need to shut down Al Qaeda's operations in Iraq while we're at it. Maybe in the troops' abundant free time they can hunt down Iranian agents providing covert support to the Shi'ites. And clamp down on random bombings of American troops since the Americans are one of the few things everyone over there hates pretty much equally, and attacking American troops are a good way to get street cred and keep the Shi'ites from killing you because they think you're Sunni and to keep the Sunni's from killing you because they think you're Shi'ite.

So what does one call losing in this situation? For that matter, what does one call winning? We're straining the military as it is just to keep the situation from imploding. Given the weakness of al Maliki's government to scold them for not pulling their own weight lies somewhere between arrogant and absurd. They have the responsibility, but they don't have the resources or legitimacy to pull the country together, just like the U.S. But we're further away from that than ever. If you're talking about ending terrorism, even our own intelligence community says we've created more terrorism as a result of our actions. At this point it seems we've gone way past winning or losing, and it's all damage control now.

Answer 8

we are winning in Iraq and the Iraq people are winning, But stabilizing that part of the world is very hard because of the religion of peace and the Bush haters who have been enlightened(yea right?).

Answer 9

were not gunna lose, we cant lose, USA cant afford a loss...we either win, or pull out cuz everything is pointless

Answer 10

i said before he invaded that hed lose the war. he certainly isn't winning. eventually iraq will go its own way the US can't prolong it forever.