Instead of trying to end the war, why doesn't Congress try to win it?

Question

Since Congress claims to know so much about war, why don't they actually try to win it?

Instead of passing worthless Mickey Mouse bills, that they KNOW are going to get vetoed anyway, with a withdrawal timetable on it, why don't they pass a resolution on how to win the war?

They could just start a resolution stating "We, the members of Congress, want the president to do_______ to win the war as quickly as possible."

It would still be a waste of time, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore. At least it would prove to the American people that Congress actually wants victory in the war (occupation?), not just a worthless defeat for Bush.

Answer 1

All true. Ever since the war became unpopular (as wars do over time) democrats and the media have been doing nothing but trying to wash their hands of it making it Bushs war and how he lied to get us there instead of taking responsiblity for their own votes and standing on principles which sometimes means being unpopular.

Democrats remind me of girls running for prom queen sneaking around using dirty tricks to win votes and at the end of the day, they accompish nothing but get an empty meaningless crown.

What good is having power in Washington if you arent principled enough to follow through with your own plans? Why cant democrats put America first instead of their politics? George Washington would be rolling in his grave!

Answer 2

At this point, we are no longer fighting a war in Iraq as much as we are policing a civil war. There is no way to win a civil war, as we are not actually Iraqis. Only one side of the civil war can win. We could support one side of the civil war, but since we don't know anything about that area of the world or how it works, I would rather us get the hell out instead of potentially making an already volatile situation worse, especially when our soldiers are in the middle of it, with the most to lose and nothing to gain.

Answer 3

Apart from the argument that going to war with Iraq being flawed, what would constitute a 'win'? It is morally wrong to enforce democracy at the point of "OUR" guns.. So to me, a win is the fulfillment that a duely elected Iraqi government can govern their country. Govern it without outside intervention. We are in a situation where we are the military, the police, and the diplomats trying to convince the Iraqi government to take control of their own country.
How best to do this? By winning it, does that mean removing everyone that might be a terrorist? We have no definitive criteria of what 'lures' the common person to lean towards violent acts like terrorism.
Please, let's win this war through the power of the pen, not the sword. Tell the Iraqi government (and those countries governments surrounding Iraq) that we will support them in many ways (economic, social, politically), but our might of force is a limited time engagement.

Answer 4

Both Houses of Congress consitute officials who are elected to serve as the representatives of the people in this great democracy.

Based on the election in 2006, we can see that the American people are calling for an end to this war, which was based on lies and misinformation.

As representatives of the people, Congress has voted to pass a budget that calls for the end of combat operations in Iraq, while the President (one who lies to his citizens) wants to continue this war based on his own political and monotery ambition.

If the president chooses to veto the bill, then its fine, but at least the Congress remembers that this is a democracy and government officials are there to SERVE the PEOPLE!!

Answer 5

Congress doesnt need to try and win the war. The war in Iraq was already won. We toppled Saddam and set up a new government. What the Democratic plan would do is affirm our victory in Iraq.

Currently, the Iraqi people have no sense of urgency when it comes to their own self defense. The timetable will get them to see that we wont continue to send our troops over there until the end of time.

Bush's veto just confirms that he isnt serious about getting Iraq to stand on their own two feet.

Answer 6

What would "victory" even look like in this case?

Suppose the U.S. had been invaded and occupied by a foreign Army and the government had been disassembled. Now that army is hunkered down in Washington. Everyone in the U.S. wants them out but our military is not functioning. So various groups take what weapons they have and whenever they can get close to the foreign army they attempt to kill as many as they can. The foreign army doesn't speak English, has no clear enemy here, and is outnumbered by Americans thousands of times over. Nobody here wants to cooperate with the invaders because they are afraid of being killed themselves.

To truly take country of the U.S. this foreign nation would need to bring over many times the number of troops they have here today, but they simply don't have that many troops available. The only way they can even maintain the troop levels they has is by forcing the current soldiers to stay in longer than they had originally agreed to. They are unable to recruit soldiers and there's no way they can reinstate the draft.

So how are they going to achieve "victory"?

Answer 7

Obama is so grandiose. He needs to bypass down in heritage because the president who ended the iraq conflict. His comprehend-how of the conflict might want to be written on a pin head. he's extra in contact along with his personal image than the soliders or the iraqi human beings.

Answer 8

It cannot be won and Bush’s own father details the reasons in his 1998 book, ‘A World Transformed’. Colin Powell told Bush, “if you break it [Iraq], you own it.

Well, the Bush Administration and it supporters broke it and even if it could be fixed, they are not smart enough or competent enough to do it.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate report titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States’’, and representing the consensus of 16 US government intelligence agencies concludes that our presence in Iraq is contributing to the problem and is making the global terror threat worse. Their conclusion is that America, and the world, is less safe today than it was before 9/11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/...

And, the State Department annual report on terrorism due out next week documents that over the past year terror attacks have increased almost 30%, and that the number of deaths from terror attacks has increased 40% over last year.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashingt...

The only way for America to win is to get out of Iraq.

Answer 9

Because, unlike those in this administration, they care about the lives of our military over in Iraq and want to support them with more than rhetoric by getting them back home as soon as possible.

Hey, where is the winning strategy by the "best of the best" minds in our present military leadership?! Is the never ending and constantly escalating surge it?! That sure reminds me of Vietnam and I was in the military from 1960 to 1967 during the most intensive build-ups in Vietnam - back when the same things were being said about our need to send more troops and give the always changing strategies more time.

Answer 10

Actually, the military devised the plan and got everything it wanted like 4 or 5 years ago. Problem is, THEY SCREWED UP, Congress cannot forever approve using our troops in a police action.