Would we have lost the war in Iraq if the administration had been competent?

Question

Or would a competent administration have embroiled us in a largely pointless and unprovoked conflict to begin with?

Troop surge--afterwards we will still have fewer troops than we had there two years ago. I remain unconvinced there is any "strategery" beyond prolonging the war.

Vietnam was a nation with only 19 million (after we depopulated it by 2 million). We had 450,000 troops there. Iraq has 22 million (after our minor depopulation it). My suspicion is that the retired generals who have spoken out against this campaign have a pretty good idea on the state of affairs.

Answer 1

The reason we can't win this war was because it was ABSOLUTELY not justified. This makes the attacking country -- the USA under Bush -- the villian in the situation. Villians don't have a good track record on winning wars. They never win, in fact, because the moral outrage of their attack fosters too powerful a resistance movement in the country they are attacking. Members of that resistance movement are actually more inclined die en mass than capitulate to their occupiers.

This is military science, folks. It also applies to all forms of conflict. The party in the right has a natural edge. If Bush and Cheney weren't such chicken hawk p*ssies they might have known. Both should have gotten their *** kicked a long time ago. But they were too busy living the rich life.

In every other war that made any sense, one leader said to the other leader: "You must do X." The other leader either complied or there was a war. In the latest case of Iraq, Bush said: "We need to inspect your country." Saddam responded: "Sure! Come on in! Look wherever you want, take as long as you want. I don't want to have a war with you!" But Bush decided to pull the inspectors out and invade anyway. Why? because he thought he'd find the weapons he was looking for more easily while trying to manage a massive occupation? That's ridiculous. If there were any weapons there, now we'll never find them.

If Saddam had said "No, screw you. I won't let you inspect!" or even "those sites can't be inspected" ONLY THEN would the war have been justified.

As it is now, this attack was a vicious act perpetrated by scandalous, greedy cowards on a country that did nothing to them or the United States.

Answer 2

the war had no point (to benefit the American people anyway) as you say but with all the ignored advice of the generals who wer ein the game early on or who were looking on from the outside-one wonders if we could have avoided some bloodshed or have ended it as soon as Saddam was toppeled or what have you.
Winning or losing is quite foggy and how do you define it-that more of them are being killed than us? Yet the killing and maiming continue?

We've simply got to get the average less educated TV watching people, who are basically good hard working types-patriotic and compassionate- to understand the big picture-we are being ripped off by our leaders- of treasure and blood and of our sfety and our kids futures. we have to get them to understand it is MACHO and truly American to demand our leaders fess up and redirect our country's struggles back to America's needs instead of their personal need for money and personal power. But how?

Answer 3

Please pay attention.
Remember the troop surge? The troops are to be split into five units. To date, two units are up and active, and guess what? - the results of this new tactic in Baghdad has thus far been very successful - and there's three more units getting ready for deployment.
Your question is based on a false premise and merely shows your desire for failure.
Sad.

Answer 4

There was never a plan to win it. The plan from the beginning was to cause as much chaos and violence as possible so that permanent military bases could be established and the oil fields could be grabbed up.

Answer 5

A competent administration would not have gotten us in a war over a lie in the first place. A competent administration would have checked the facts before causing this problem.

Answer 6

Since we have not lost the war in Iraq, I'm not sure what you are asking.

I do believe the Bush Administration's sole goal is to protect Americans from massive threats by Muslim extremists. That is the responsibility of the Commander In Chief.

Answer 7

We already won and we're slowly getting back on our feet with the peace.

Your leading question is biased and the makings of ignorance or an out and out lie.

Answer 8

The incompetency was to place ourselves in a military situation that has no military solution.

Answer 9

No and no. Rumsfeld refused to listen to the generals and Bush places loyalty to friends above the country he claims to serve.

Answer 10

Time Mag poll of 5000 Iraqis say they are happy under their own Government and that they see the defeat of the terrorist coming. So I don't know what loss your referring to and neither do the Iraqi's