Is "victory" in Iraq feasible?

Question

Are we loosing the war? Is a victory possible? Exactly what would "victory" be in Iraq?

Answer 1

no. I am speaking as an Iraq war Veteran who spent time working with the Iraqis. My job was to act as a facilitator/liaison for the Iraqi and US army. I saw Iraq from the ground, the air, from the civilians, to the privates, up to the Generals. I assisted in forming several battalions, 2 headquaters companies, conducted war games with the Iraqi chiefs of Staff, helped devise the curriculum for the logistics school, and worked closely with our allies. I saw Iraq from the Kurdish North, to the Sunni west, the Shia south, and Baghdad. I am no longer in the military so I can speak freely. Here is what i observed.

Arab society is WAAAAY different than a "western" culture. Here in the US, we tend to think of ourselves as Americans first, our ethnic heritage second, and our region last (i.e. New Yorker, southerner, Californian, etc). But above all, we are Americans first. That doesn't exist in Iraq. Iraqi identification goes thusly; family, clan, tribe, religious sect. Notice I didn't mention "Iraqi". Arab society's foundations are bedouin in nature. For centuries, you formed together around family for protection and unity. This is illustrated by the Arab proverb "Me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother, and my cousin against others".

Iraq has no national identity. Until the British mandate, Iraq was always a part of a larger entity or empire like the Sassanids, Parthinians, Assyrians, etc. Iraq has been and will be a crossroads where Arab and Persian cultures meet and where Sunni, Shia, and Kurd converge. And as the saying goes, "east is east, west is west, and ne'er the t'wain shall meet". I know from experience, that Kurds don't give a rat's a** about Iraq.

Until the people of that region can see themselves as Iraqi, there will never be peace. That hasn't happened in two thousand years. I doubt it is going to happen now.

The Iraqi Army itself is unreliable and there isn't (or wasn't as of Nov 2005) enough emphasis put on training them effecively and effeciently. I know this for a fact. Most US officers do not want to work as trainers because it is not "sexy". You don't score points with your commander by being out in the middle of nowhere working with Iraqis. You score points by being somwhere and doing things that can be seen. Iraqi posts don't have or aren't that close to all the western convienences you find on American posts like a PX, dining facilities with American food, etc. I REALLY wanted to work with the Iraqis and I had to beg for the job even though no one else wanted it. It was more important to have me sitting around with a bunch of other staff officers making powerpoint slides to make my commander look good in front of the General.

When I left Iraq in Nov 2005, the senior Iraqi General in charge of logistics for the Iraqi Army worked out of tent behind one of Sadaam's palaces in the Green Zone, with one computer. One computer! In a tent! This man is responsible for ccordinating supply, ammunition, and maintenance operations for the ENTIRE Iraqi army and he had a staff of TWO, one computer, and a tent the size of my garage. But that is the support we gave them!

But we have equipped something like 500,000 soldiers and policemen. Here is the deal on that (again, I am speaking from Nov 2005 but I doubt anything has changed in 14 months because it didn't in the 12 I was there). I remember hearing Rumsfeld talk about "100" battalions that had been raised. What he didn't say was that they were so inept that any two commanders coudn't coordinate urinating into the same bucket at the same time. He didn't say that even though there were 100 infantry battalions, there were no units to supply them, no equipment to drive them, and no staff's to run them. the US planned their operations, drove them to the jump off points, coached them through the entire exercise, fed them, then drove them home. At a school set up to train logistics officers, we had to screen out over 50% of the canditates because they were either a) kurds who coudn't read, write, or speak arabic, or b)Arabs who couldn't read or write arabic.

Some people say that violence is decreasing. I call B.S. on that. I've heard that line before. I remember hearing that on the news when I was deployed, but all briefing I attended showed the exact opposite. Plus, do we count the number of attacks or number of victims? Sure If there was only 1 attack last week, then violence is declining. Of course the 1 attack was a car bomb in a market that killed 100 people.

What would be Victory in Iraq? A credible government and country to act as a coutnerweight to Iranian Shia Fundamentalism and Sunni Extremism. But....Iran is now firmly entrenched with Al-Sadr and the Shia's in Iraq, and Sunni terrorist don't have to fly around the world to get us, they just drive into Iraq now. It's One-stop shopping for Islamic extremists who hate America. But since a credible, secular government is a pipe dream, victory would be for us to extricate ourselves in a somewhat dignified manner and let the Shia's and Sunni's fight it out for themselves. No matter what Haliburton or Kellog, Brown and Root think.

I appreciate patriotism as much as the next guy. And as a vet I have the utmost respect for america's son's and daughter's who are doing the hard job that we ask of them. Less than 1% of America puts on a uniform to stand guard on our nations frontier so the other 99+% can enjoy our way of life. We owe it to them to be honest and forthright, because that's all a soldier, sailor, marine, or airmen asks. We need to stop deluding ourselves.

Answer 2

We have a very fuzzy idea of what we're doing over there. The War victory had been won in a couple of days. Victory is complete when the organized uniformed army of the enemy has surrendered.
There is no war against any organized army or even private organizarion. There is nothing to win. Any territory that we care to take can be taken at will.
Those doing the bombing are groups loyal to their imam who would like to be the next dictator. The Americans are only the scapegoat to be blamed for everything.
Of the many hundreds being killed, they're being killed by other Iraqis. Unfortunately that will probably continue until one denomination or other will accept a leader from the other religious denomination.
What would victory be ??? When all the different factions in Iraq decide to work together as a nation, instead of fighting each other for the no.1 job.

Answer 3

There is no war, Bush said years ago that the war was over and that we had won. There is no military goals of any kind defined at present for the Iraqi theater, and therefor no way to win. When Bush was governor of Texas he stated flat out that to do what he is doing could never work. He was right, and has spent the last few years proving it. The troops are there with no purpose but to be targets for an undefined and undetectable enemy, just as in Viet Nam, and the fighting will continue, just as in Nam, until the voters get sick of the waste of money and lives and force our elected officials to pull out. This from a military retiree who was on active duty for both Nam and Desert Storm.

Answer 4

Victory is very feasible. Iraq has been a democracy for over a year, their government is stable, and their police and military are taking responsibility for more areas every month.

If you think we are losing - then you need to look beyond what the news media and the Democratic Party is telling you.

Answer 5

Violence has decreased 30% from last year so the U.S. is not losing. The U.S. has also trained over 500,000 Iraqis to be either police or soldiers and they should be fully equipt in June 2007 according to the U.S. president. Since there is going to be violence in any country, I think victory would be when Iraq's government will be functional.

Answer 6

According to the President and military, no we are not 'losing'. However, with the mounting violence between civilians (which we cannot seem to control) would seem to indicate, yes we are.
The answer isn't as simple as yes and no.
Victory is feasible and possible, but it would take a LOT more troops and a more expansive military campaign, a division of the country between ethnic groups, and extremely tight control of the general populations' movements and activities. The death toll would be greater than anything Sadam Hussein ever imagined.
Victory would be the establishment of a civil government and cooperation between all ethnic/religious groups in the entire region and a complete withdrawal of international forces.

Answer 7

We are not losing in Iraq. What you are led to believe is that we are losing but that's just not the case. There are good things here EVERYDAY! It's just that the media doesn't like to show good news stories because it just doesn't sell.

My 360 shows my latest exploits in helping the Iraqis. It's going to be in the news, eventually.

Victory is when the Iraqis can govern themselves and protect themselves as well as just get along.

Answer 8

Victory is Always feasible.

It requires the "Will" to win.

Are we willing to do what it takes ?

How about if we get a General like W.T.Sherman and turn him loose. That should do it. But at what cost ?

Answer 9

Is Iraq feasible? I don't see a future for the nation of Iraq. I see several small countries where Iraq once was. Iraq was created arbitrarily without the say-so of the inhabitants by Europe following WWI. Only brute force has kept it together.
Iraqi national identity is paper thin as these continual bombings show.

Answer 10

losing? no. possible? yes. victory would be the Iraq gov becoming stable with little to no sectarian violence with a strong police and military to support itself without American aide.

Answer 11

There is no war. We already won the reason we went there, Saddam is dead, we found WMDs and our presents there now is to help protect the innocent Iraqi people from the insurgents and their insane bombing.