Why hasn't the US Military won in Iraq yet?

Question

If you are building a house, and it is taking forever to build, you don't blame the person paying for the house to be built, you blame the contractor building it.
President Bush, the USA, isn't the blame for the lack of victory, it is the US Military that is lagging behind in victory.

Answer 1

You could not be farther from the truth my friend. All the top generals and Joint Chiefs, including Colin Powel, wished to implement the Powel doctrine that was so effective in the First Gulf War. Rumsfeld over rode everyone and sent in half the recomended forces and sent them in under equiped, They lacked the number of troops to secure the countries borders and keep the insurgents, Iranians and Al-Qaeda out. And now we are paying for it today. It comes down to Poor leadership, not the troops

Answer 2

Its more complicated that anyone could explain, everyone will have their own opinons. Regarding the military. I wouldnt say best trained as one person stated. Best equiped military the world has ever known, but the training and qualities needed to control a country that doesnt want you their took a long time to master, even the French and British got battered for years before they relised how best to occupy a nation that doesnt want you there. Dont forget the British controlled Iraq for quite a while but even then there were probelms holding the country together. I think the British can be a little to passive for my liking but you have to look at the Europeans for experience despite their faults. France pulled out of Vietnam for a reason and didnt want to get involved in a Iraq for a reason.

The British have mastered the rules of engagment well in Iraq, true the situation in the south is very different from the rest of the country but get this. When the British take fire they retreat, they dont engage, they will analysis the situation from a far and think best how to procede. If their is a sniper in a building they again may retreat or spend 24 hours working how best to get him out. The US opporate differently. The sniper, they would treat the whole building as the enermy. They may even blow it up if there isnt to many people in there. But this tactic will result in heavy cicilian casulties espacially seen as that is why the sniper is in there in the first place. Secondly if they take fire they will not retreat they will call in everything to win the engagement, again sometimes with heavy civilian casulties.

Regarding one answer you recieved. As I said US best equiped army by far, special forces most situations you would go to the Australians, even though we dont hear much about them. Best intelligence could be argued that it is the Israelis and the best trained ARMY in the world would be the British and French however I dought you will ever see them in major action again, there to busy with the piece keeping missions and restoring order in ex colonies.

Answer 3

because of the fact is needed and basically a fool could help surprising and precipitous withdrawl consistent with political fairly than militia motives. additionally, a militia presence in Iraq has the comparable fee to international risk-free practices as our having a militia presence in Germany, Japan, Italy, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and extremely some different places international. Why is it that having a militia presence in Iraq is the form of subject for persons such as you? what's it approximately Iraq this is a topic while our presence in many different places international isn't?

Answer 4

Let us establish a few axioms:

(1) You are a jackass.

(2) The reason the American military got screwed is because we had retarded civilians (Rumsfeld, Feith, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Bremer, et al) sidelining professional warriors such as Shinseki and Powell, and trying to invade on the cheap. We knew as Iraq came crashing down around us in the initial invasion during Spring 2003 that we had NOWHERE near enough troops on the ground to accomplish the missions we were given (unless you were retarded, and well, there are plenty of those in the military as well). Of course, General Shinseki warned of that and promptly got sacked for his troubles. Meanwhile, we couldn't get enough equipment and supplies on the ground to begin with where it mattered (I personally ate one meal a day for over three months and lost 25% of my body mass in the desert heat, lugging a machinegun) and we have the civilian leadership in State and DoD to thank for excellent planning in making all those shortcomings possible.

(3) To take your analogy and correct it? If your client wants a house built to certain specs on a bluff, you make plans to get materials for it and lay the blueprint out? And your client then proceeds to shortchange you to where you get half your supplies, and says to build that house on the edge of a cliff on an earthquake fault? Do you blame the contractor, or the client stupid enough to expect it to get done?

Those of us in the military don't exactly have the choice of walking out on the job, you know. Something about swearing an oath, being conscious of the gravity of national defense, and all that.

Not that you would understand, of course.

Answer 5

That's utter crap.
The WAR part is over.
There is now a civil disobedience issue that the military is ill equipped to deal with, because the Iraqi insurgents fight dirty!

Suicide bombings are against the Geneva Conference, but do you think those ***-backward Barbarians care?
They have been whipped into such a frenzy of foanm-at-the mouth hatred by their OWN "religious" leaders that they will do anything their pitiful brains are told.

Don't you DARE blame our soldiers for the failure to be pulled out of a zone that's been embroiled in bloody war since time began.
You are disrespectful to all the men & women honoring the commitment they made. You should strive to be HALF as honorable as THEY are....and perhaps you might yet be half a man.

Answer 6

I don't think the term "winning" is applicable to this war. How can you fight an insurgency? Define "winning"!!

I think bush is doing a pretty good job of keeping it an "occupation". With billions of dollars in debt and millions unaccounted for, some people are profiting greatly, so it is a win for them!

Answer 7

Because the politicians in this country do not have the will to win and do not have the stomach to do what it takes to win. Believe me our military does know how to win and would if we just let them. Too many people are invested in the USA losing.

Answer 8

You are obviously not in support of our troops. They are some of the most elite in the world and have little to no control in where
they go or what they do. We did not go into Iraq to win anything besides oil. If we want to liberate Iraq from sectarian violence then we cannot leave now! Look at the damage wev'e done!

Answer 9

Ya see Amzi its like this, If the U.S. pulls it's troops out now the war will be a defeat. And U.S. troops cant come home from a defeat. So if we are going to when the U.S. troops are going to have to stay until we reach victory. We leave we lose, we stay we win. So we win by staying , its an everlasting victory this way!

Answer 10

First thing yoy haven't got a clue what your talking about, remember Vietnam was lost by the politicians and this one seems to be going in the same direction, if you knew any history you never would have asked the question.