why has the US lost the war in iraq? what's the best way to achieve a face saving withdrawal?

Answer 1

How can you win a war where you can't identify the enemy? Almost as soon as it started, the war shifted from defeating Saddam's army to suppressing an insurgency of people who blend into the general populace. With the exception of an immam or two who preaches civil disorder, there's no one who is readily identified as the enemy until he commits an act of aggression.
It's hard to force a surrender, and you can't kill or incarcerate everyone you think might be the enemy.
As far as a face-saving withdrawal: that's almost impossible now. If America retreats, all hell breaks loose, not just in Iraq but probably in the entire middle east. Maybe there would be a way if other Islamic countries were to step in to help manage the peace, but that's not likely to happen, and might actually make things worse.
Have you heard of the word 'quagmire'?

Answer 2

The war or the related activity is far from over to conclude that US has lost. Iraq and Vietnam are two different situations. Iraq paid the price for not keeping peace with its neighbours. In the present world territorial ambitions have serious limitations. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the previous regime in Iraq had few supporters. All the previous wars like WWII and the cold war were also long drawn. So would be this one.
After the Iran issue is settled only then would there be some kind of ceasefire in Iraq.Till then the US may not withdraw.

Answer 3

The U.S. have not yet lost the war, but they will. Any conflict that is started because of a masterfully induced surge of pseudopatriotic hype (in this case, used to conceal the massive oil and reconstruction contracts that would be awarded to U.S. companies -many of which are directly linked to high profile politicians such as **** Cheney-), backed by false evidence (Where are the WMDs? And why was Valerie Plame exposed?) and by a government determined to suppress any disagreement, is bound to fail from the start... you can't go to war on grounds much weaker than these.

Another reason would be pure and simple hatred. Not even the citizens of those nations historically allied to the U.S. like them. In the best case scenario, they pondered whether their president or their intended target, Saddam, were the worst threats to world peace. In the worst case scenario, they derided the invasion as a poorly conceived attempt to seize Iraq's vast oil reserves. Both scenarios only helped to exacerbate hatred against the last ruling superpower. No one in the world ever saw the U.S. cause as a fair and just one, save those with shady interests.

The best face-saving formula would be to give each of the warring factions a share of the immense Iraqi mineral wealth, let them decide how to manage it, and if their decisions are adverse to U.S. commercial interests, accept them and do not try to change them by lobbying and financial reprisals. Why do I suggest this? Has anyone noticed that there's a 60% unemployment rate in Iraq and an even more staggering rate of poverty?

How can there be a peace in a nation when their citizens cannot make enough to eat? How could there be no conflict if their very liberators are widely seen as oil vampires - and thus, directly responsible for their maladies? Would that be the reason for which U.S. forces are targeted over soldiers of other nations?

Answer 4

In this unipolar world now, it is clear that whatever the US "thinks" and "plans" are followed up with their own decisions, irrespective of whether other countries "wholeheartedly" suppot or not. The ECONOMIC POWER the US has over world economic and social development is so huge that ordinary people in the US consider themselves to be judges of international events, almost all of those being created by actions taken in the US senate. Further, even though countries like India and China have far greater populations than the US (both having about 4 times the population of the US, independently), the FEAR of ECONOMIC BLOCKADE and other "black mailing" measures which the US may take to smother these countries, has compounded this ISSUE OF WORLD HEGEMONY by the US.

This writer is an ADMIRER OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE US, and from as early as 1966 (starting from engineering study period) has been learning and reading through the most wonderful scientific and technological works that are being done in the US. And, strangely, starting from the 1966 period, when, under the Late Lyndon B. Johnson the US invaded and nearly destroyed one the most beautiful South East Asian countries (Vietnam), this writer has been vociferously opposing (personally off-course, as we ordinary mortals have no say!) every such Political moves by the US government. Every such move is essentially a ploy to counter possible and perceived THREAT to US HEGEMONY. The socialist Mr CHAVEZ of Venezuela is one such person, under the HIT LIST of the US.

The INVASION and destruction of IRAQ, under the garb of finding and removing the eluding WMD, is yet another hegemony which no country is able to oppose, due to facts already mentioned. It is feared that IRAN may be their next TARGET!

History so far is very CLEAR. The US hegemony apparently seems to be winning temporarily; but as in Vietnam, Korea, etc, (including IRAQ), the end result is NOT A QUESTION OF WARS BEING WON OR LOST BUT A QUESTION OF WHAT THE US GAINED, AND WHAT AMOUNT OF HUMAN AND ECONOMIC DESTRUCTIONS THESE INVASIONS RESULT IN THE INFLICTED COUNTRY.

One only needs to go back into the History of THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AS WELL AS ALL EMPIRES. As the late Peter Drucker (the greatest of the management Gurus, a US citizen) had said ..."Monopoly is a myth..." the US hegemony and any "back door" imperialism which the Governments of the US people carry out as one of their World Agendas, would one day have its own WATERLOO.

Thus, the questioner's idea of "what is the best way to achieve face saving..." would only be answered by that WATERLOO.

Answer 5

If the U.S. lost the war in Iraq, then why did Germany and Italy both have twice the death rate (per 1,000) of Iraq in 2006 according to the online CIA? Is there a war in both Germany and Italy somebody is losing? France, Japan and the U.S. also have higher death rates per 1,000 than Iraq.

Maybe one of these countries should flee to Iraq where it's safer.

Answer 6

Because it acted arbitrarily , overlooking HansBlix's reports & against the wishes of Iraqi people. Face saving way is : unconditional withdrawl, compensation of damages done by it, free reconstruction & unconditional apology to Iraqis.

Answer 7

Thank God you don't referee boxing matches. You'd count the boxers as being knocked out before the damned bell rang!

Who said we lost? What a defeatist you are. We don't need to save face, we haven't lost a damned thing.

You cowards really disgust me, I swear!

Answer 8

It was poorly managed and poorly planned. I don't know if there is much that can be done to save face now. The whole thing is a huge national embarrassment and will haunt us for years to come.

Answer 9

declare victory and go home.