If America is a superpower, why is it losing in Iraq?

Question

"Actually we aren't losing over there... there's a lot more insurgents getting killed than US soldiers... and there's fewer of the insurgents."

- that isnt the definition of winning a war.

"Simple attrition says that in the end the insurgents will become extinct before we run out of soldiers. That equals winning in war."

- No, they wont, otherwise they have have already.

"Its just the media making a big deal out of EVERY SINGLE US casualty... and not mentioning the numbers of enemies eliminated."

- The media isnt telling you about American casaulties.

"We are not losing, BUT we could be doing better if the democrats would leave the military alone."

- the Democrats seem to be saving your but from extinction.

"Let the do what they are trained to do KILL. They have 7 rules of engagement and god forbid we kill one of these animals."

- Is it civilized to kill people who had never done anything to you before you started killing them?.

"War is not pretty people die that is just the fact. During a war you want the other guy to die for his country."

- being a fact that people die doesnt mean you kill people, or does it?
- no, they arent dying for their country. If it were true you would be there by now. They are there cos they couldnt make a decent living back home. They think, if they dont get killed, they may earn some few hundred thousands they would have never dreamt of otherwiose.

Answer 1

America is a STUPID POWER. The dudes in charge are making decisions based on the toss of a dart and don't care how bad things are.

The American lawmakers are concerned with being politically correct and will play favorites with non-English speaking foreigners at the cost of it's own citizens.

Answer 2

As a retired military person, most definately we
are losing the war. You can not put the most power
ful machine to fight in a city and win. Yes the U:S:
is the most powerful military mite in the world but
it lacks in strategy, when it comes to fighting in the
cities, why because our soldiers are trained to
fight in the jungle and desserts. Although there are
many insurgents being killed, the deaths of civi-
lians is much higher , so that leaves that many
more insurgents. The only way that this war can
be won is to involve more countries, with a greater
fighting force on the ground and fresh troops.Our
soldiers have had to extend their tours there
and morale is not up to snuff, and truthfully the
generals and Bush are still trying to figure out what
to do, so taking all of that under consideration, No
we are not winning the war.

Answer 3

We are not losing, BUT we could be doing better if the democrats would leave the military alone.

Let the do what they are trained to do KILL. They have 7 rules of engagement and god forbid we kill one of these animals.

War is not pretty people die that is just the fact. During a war you want the other guy to die for his country.

Get the media out and turn our military lose.

Answer 4

Actually we aren't losing over there... there's a lot more insurgents getting killed than US soldiers... and there's fewer of the insurgents.

Simple attrition says that in the end the insurgents will become extinct before we run out of soldiers. That equals winning in war.

Its just the media making a big deal out of EVERY SINGLE US casualty... and not mentioning the numbers of enemies eliminated.

Answer 5

Turmoil, or losing, in Iraq is beneficial to the people who orchestrated and wanted the war. These people need to have a long term presence to deal with the next war, i.e Iran, and protect the oil that is presently being divided up between the major oil companies which are mostly U.S based. So forget what you hear from W about the Iraqi's getting all of the oil for their "democracy" it is already a done deal. You can find stories online about it (look outside the mainstream media). This war was not to go after terrorists or Saddam it was a strategic war to benefit the few. War is a racket. It is all about long term presence. The only way to justify that is for the violence to continue, to create a need to be there.

Answer 6

We are a superpower, but we also have dignity and so when we fight abroad, the military cannot take the initial aggressive action or cannot fire until fired upon. The military also cannot just wipe whole cities off the the map, even though they have that capability, because that is what we are fighting against, unstable entities gaining access to powerful weapons of war.
These unscrupulous characters would have no second thought on using those weapons on one of our cities, even without provocation.

Answer 7

We did what we set out to do. Got rid of Saddam, checked for WMD. Now we're watching Shiites fight Sunnies. We're watching little civil war there. We're not losing or winning. Have you seen the US gov solve some foreign country's civil conflict? I don't think so. We're good at blowing up countries, but its no easy task trying to create peace between 2 fighting groups.

How come nobody solved Israel/Palestine thing yet? How come the world superpower, USA couldn't do it?

We just can't go around expecting people to obey our orders and be peaceful.

War is about objective, goals. Bing bang boom. War is not about peace. That's where diplomacy, politics come in.

Answer 8

No. We don't seem to be nor do we ever be an ex-superpower. What will occur is we will be able to need to proportion the level with different international locations. That is the final result of globilization. The international is fitting interdependent on every different. We have confronted hard instances earlier than. The pleasant despair (25% unemployment), the turbulent 70's, our pageant with the USSR.... We will continue to exist this incompetent president. The greenback will regain it is force, and we will be able to fix our photograph on the earth. All of this takes time. It took a couple of years for us to get to this factor. It will take a couple of years to get out of it.

Answer 9

because its basically vietnam all over again, meaning were fighting a war against suicidal maniacs who are trained in geurilla tactics. no amount of weaponry and personnel can win a war against an extremely large system of people who will be willing to sacrifice 2 million of their own people to only kill small numbers of the enemy

Answer 10

we are there while a civil war that doesnt involve us is going on and my guess is that moral of our soldiers is very low ....most dont want to be there but cannot speak out against hitler ..oops i mean Bush!!