If Iraq cannot be won, how come we took over the country in a matter of weeks?

Question

I think it would take more time to take over Atlanta GA. please answer

stablizing a country never took 48 hours.

Answer 1

If Iraq CAN be won, why haven't we won yet?

And exactly WHAT would be be "winning"?

Answer 2

Well, this all depends upon what you define as victory.

If victory means that we ran Saddam and his minions out of power and neutralized his army, then yes, we won. A long time ago. But if that was victory, then why are we still losing soldiers there every day?

If victory means that we have taken control of the country, it's industry, and its institutions, then yes, we won. A long time ago. But if that was victory, then why are we still losing soldiers there every day?

If victory means that Iraq is at peace, with a stable government, not in imminent danger of revolution or invasion, and well on the road to economic recovery, then no, we have not won. Nor will we ever, any more than we could have ever won in VietNam. So why are we still losing soldiers there every day?

It comes down to two things: either we've already won, and we should get our troops out as fast as we can, or we can never win, and we should get our troops out as fast as we can. Because this war has gone on longer than WWII. If we can't pacify Iraq in the time it took us to pacify Nazi Germany, then either it cannot be done, or our tactics were totally wrong from the outset.

Several reason why we COULD pacify Germany but not Iraq:

1) We had a draft and over a million troops in the field.
2) We had the support of the American people.
3) The public understood the war, the enemy, and why it was critical to succeed.
4) We had allies who were also throwing everything they had into the war.
5) We had the support of the international community.
6) We had a nation that was united behind the President.
7) We had a President who was willing to follow to the advice of his generals even when he disagreed with it.
8) We had generals who were not afriad to disagree with the President for fear of losing their positions.

We have none of these things in Iraq. We had none of these things in Viet Nam. Iraq is a mistake that we are continuing to pay for, day after day, so that Bush can save his ego from admitting he screwed up.

Answer 3

If we truly conquered the country, why is everything in chaos and why are we unable to implement anything we've been trying to? That we "took over the country" is a laughable statement. Don't you know people play that clip of "Mission: Accomplished" as a joke? Sure, if you continue with your definition, we can definitely win. We bomb the heck out of the entire country, leave a minimum amount of survivors and then repopulate it with our own people.

Iraq is a huge dilemma that the entire nation is trying to solve, and spilling blood to resolve. Do not trivialize it or simplify it with that silly question. Conquering a nation involves more than dismantling its government and killing its leader. Are we Ghengis Khan that we consider creating a power vacuum and filling it with terror and death to be victory?

Answer 4

We won the war in 03' when Bush said mission accomplished that was the end of Saddam`s government that is how you win these kinds of wars. The occupation is what we cannot win because you do not win occupations you simply go home but some rich corporate royalist want to turn Iraq into the perfect little conservative economics country and the Iraqis don`t want it.

Answer 5

We really didn't take over the country.. we got Saddam! Which, by the way , was all Bush was really after...

Later he realized that he made a big mistake by saying mission accomplished about anything. There is not peace in Afghanistan and there is certainly nothing accomplished in Iraq.

Bush wanted revenge for daddy and oil for the big companies who own him. And that is it!

He can talk terrorists and safety and all that crap as much as he wants, but it is all a lie.. just as the WMD's were lies. he is a liar!

Answer 6

America won the battle...NOT the War..

With the military might and technology at the disposal of the US armed forces, it is not too difficult to 'take over' any country they so wish.
The problem arises when they meet guerrila/urban warfare. No matter how technologicaly superior you are, you simply cannot win a war where the enemy is prepared to take their own life in order to beat you.

Answer 7

Because we never actually took over the country. An overwhelming propaganda campaign combined with an impressive post-modern blitzkrieg ("Shock & Awe") broke Iraq's standing military, but it's paramilitary forces were a tougher nut to crack, and the country still isn't pacified.

Answer 8

We didn't stabilize Iraq, we UNstablized it. We have a better equipped, better trained and better funded military than Iraq. That is why they have to resort to terrorist methods to fight us. But we can never win there. They will fight us until the last man, woman and child is dead. We have no legal or moral right to be there.

We "took it over" yes, but look how many Americans have died since them. We need to bring our troops home now, alive. Bush and Cheney have made enough off of their war profiteering to last their families for the next 100 generations.

Answer 9

The war in Iraq would have been over by now if it was the troop's who were leading and making decisions, but lo and behold they are just the pawns in the game of politics.

Answer 10

Because the people are weak and will listen to whomever overthrows the government.

The people of Atlanta, Georgia are Americans. We'd kill to protect our freedoms.

Weakness, unfortunately, is not good soil for the seeds of democracy to grow in.

Answer 11

The government and state military was easily toppled. Insurgency never is. Stabilizing a country in region were people are ready and willing to commit suicide for their religion is daunting task.