Why is the war in Iraq unwinnable?

Question

I've heard this assertion so many times. Why? It's often followed up with another assertion.
"The war in Iraq is unwinnable! The Iraqis don't want democracy! Bush is a stupid hick!" Is the way it usually follows.
I'd like to say something, and you all say why it's wrong.
We haven't really ever given Iraq democracy. We gave them anarchy, we didn't have enough troops to give them democracy. Sure, we can't stop car bombs from killing our troops, but is it really us v.s. the Iraqis? If we had enough soldiers to enforce order (as in, stop shi'ites from dragging sunnis out of their cars at red lights and then killing them, and vis versa), would the Sunnis and Shi'ites get mad at us? They didn't hate each other 18 Months ago, I could cite the Time Magazine article titled, "Why do they hate each other?" Could it be that they liked Saddam more because Saddam kept law and order, which America screwed up? And isn't it our duty to establish the law and order that we destroyed, or at least try?

Answer 1

Because the American people are listening to the news media and not to the soldiers who have actually been there.

We are winning in Iraq. However the American people are planning on betraying the troops by forcing a defeat.

Answer 2

The war is unwinnable because Bush, Rummy, and Cheney didn't want to close the borders from the beginning. Anyone with 1/2 a brain would've closed the borders so that Al Qaeda doesn't infiltrate the country. These 3 idiots took the macho approach "let the terrorists come to us (in Iraq) and fight", which is exactly what's happening. Only thing is there is no end in sight. As Bush once said, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." By the way Top Contributer here says it's not our war. Then who's is it? Bush went at it alone, regardless what the U.N. or anyone had to say, and without the blessing of world opinion. So it is our war.

Answer 3

i think the main thing here is, you cannot give someone democracy.. they have to want it enough to take it. And now many Iraqis that have been interviewed have said time and again, they wish it would just go back to how it was, even with Saddam.. at least there was a sort of peace.
That is sad. And it is sad that we pretended we were going there to free the Iraqi people, when we were only going there for Saddam and for oil. Now the Iraqi 's are dying by the hundreds per day. Us being there has allowed a holy civil war to erupt and the populous is far worse off than before.
And yet Bush and his mouthpieces continue to insist it will get better.. just need more sacrificial troops.. What idiots!!

Answer 4

When the "democratic republic" in our country was founded it was led by a group of leaders with a common vision. Oust the Brits and let the people rule the people. There is no such common vision in Iraq. If there is anything even close to a common vision it is a theocracy led by Allah, although the differing factions have very different interpretations of the Quran and are not likely to comprimise. Most faithful Muslims in that part of the world don't believe that humans are responsible for making laws and such. They answer to a higher source. Allah leads the people. Not the people lead the people.
If we are talking also about winning the war on terrorism, you can't win a war against a way of thinking. Hitler died, WWII ended, and yet we still have neo-nazis living in America today. Terrorism will always exist as long as there is hatred. I've seen nothing to convince me that people (especially Islamic extremists) are going to stop hating anytime soon.

Answer 5

Bush said the goal in Iraq was the outing of Saddam Hussein, to provide elections for the citizens of Iraq, and to train the Iraqi forces to secure their country.

Saddam gone, elections held, forces trained. The rest is up to Iraq. Give them another year and get out. We've done all we could. Mission accomplished. If the U.S. stays any longer, we'll just be replacing Saddam Hussein.

Answer 6

cause every individual in iraq has to step forward and put an end to the liberals in that country that kill and hate....people that are harmful hurt the good people just as in the usa....there will always be bad people in the world doing bad things such as murder and rape, but if a good majority of the people step up to the plate to protect their land, they should have some stability in their government but the monsters will still be up to no good but not in a great number as there is now as the media in the usa puts it......when iraq stops bombing every week or every event, then we can pull troops out because we know the problem is solved, no more killing of the innocent from bombing

Answer 7

First, it's not our war. We're just a unilateral occupying force during what is a civil/sectarian war going back centuries.

Second, we have no objective. We have no territory that we are trying to take for ourselves, and no single leader whose govt we can topple (like we did when we invaded). So, how can we "win" anything when there is no measurable goal? We are drawing our own finish line, so we can declare victory at any time by simply saying we've done enough.

As far as democracy, that cannot be forced. It must be chosen. Democracy only works if the minority is willing to abide by the decisions of the majority. From everything happening in Iraq, including sectarian displays in govt offices, that's not reality. The minority will not willingly accept the decisions of the majority, becuase the two factions have been fighting for centuries. So, Iraq is not ready for democracy.

Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for centuries. They only stopped, temporarily (and not completely), because Saddam was tyrant who used force to prevent conflict. You want to do the same thing -- use force to get the groups to stop fighting.

Fine. But that's not democracy. That's us becoming their new government. To impose law and order. And if we decide to do that, that'll be up to Congress. But it's still not democracy.

Answer 8

We can't win this war because of all the legal mumbo jumbo that we drag with us,if we are going to conquer a country that includes wiping out all opposition and putting fear in the remainder,they join us or disappear.

Answer 9

there are various squabbles regarding the 'real' tale in Viet Nam. that is consistently being re-written, no longer purely for the classification rooms, yet via video clips like Rambo. lots of people ***** that there have been in no way sufficient American troops to win in Viet Nam. nonetheless, at one time we had properly over 500 thousand troops in Viet Nam, we bombed almost continually from severe heights over the north, we barraged with battleships from way off brief, we defoliated with Agent Orange, we burned rural farms with Napalm which burned one in each of those great style of innocents to dying. We attacked utilising our fancy helicopters and we lost. We ended up working into the sea on a similar time as boats and helicopters tried to evacuate us as speedy as achieveable. and individuals are writing histories claiming we won. how many American troops died? became it 50 thousand? how many heavily wounded? how many addicted to medications? how many suffering, nevertheless, psychological subject concerns from this intensely hated and stupid conflict? yet, i will guess that the Viet Nam conflict, as taught in our colleges, will create a clean historic past; a clean actuality that in the process no way existed.

Answer 10

Doesn't it seem possible that a country is having a Civil War and a third country is in the middle that nothing gets settled? These countries have been fighting for 2000 years and yet Bush actually thinks he is helping? God save us.