English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Source: Feb 2003. Rumsfelt and Bush said the war in Iraq will only last 6 to 8 months at the most. Here it is almost July 2007 and no end in sight. Some pro war Republicans have said the war in Iraq could last another 20 to 30 years in order for the USA to win. Will we "still" be in Iraq 20 to 30 more years"?

2007-06-25 13:55:39 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

The war in Iraq will last 6 to 8 months..(Rumsfelt and Bush said) Bush said the war on terror will last 20 to 30 years)

2007-06-25 14:09:36 · update #1

15 answers

Do you realize this is the first intelligent question you've asked (to my knowledge anyway)? The real question is "Are you willing to accept the truth?

THAT war was over in less than that time. THAT war was against the government and military of Saddam Hussein.

THIS war is against Al-Qaeda and other terrorists. This war is fought against terrorists from other countries as well as their local followers. The war against terrorism will last decades as Bush also said. Whether the theater of operations will still be Iraq at that time is another question. There's a good chance but no certainty that it will not be. Many tribal leaders, including Sunni's are tired of Al-Qaeda killing their own. Many tribal leaders are pushing out the terrorists.

Many in Iraq are seeing that having representation in the parliament is a better means to their political goals than blowing up a marketplace full of muslims.

2007-06-25 14:30:18 · answer #1 · answered by John T 6 · 1 4

Great question. It really depends on what you mean by having the war "over". If you mean destroying the conventional forces (i.e. the tank, infantry, artillery, aviation units formally organized and supported by Iraq's government.) then it was won when Pres. Bush declared it over. If by "over" you mean all opposing forces willing to use violence are gone then you have a much more complex problem.

Think of it this way, in the United States we have individuals and organizations dedicated to overthrowing the government. The bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma is an example. Now imagine that you have thousands of such groups and individuals. Further imagine that you no longer have an establish military and police force to handle these threats. Who would respond in such a crisis?

Iraq is facing this problem. When U.S. forces are available they handle these problems fairly well. Unfortunately there aren't enough forces to cover the whole of Iraq.

The next question is, "Why don't Iraq forces handle these problems?" There are two major reasons.

First, imagine if every time someone robbed a home the police either ran away or helped out the robber. This has been a repeated problem in Iraq. Police and military officials are often murdered and their families are threatened by thugs. Some have show stronger loyalties to friends and family who are terrorists rather than the government they agreed to protect.

Second is the problem of institutional knowledge. Organizations have to learn to do things just like humans. For instance how do you get bullets to soldiers ? They don't just appear by a magic ammo truck. Someone has to order them...who? Where do you get money to pay for them? How do you decide who you contract to make the bullets? What if the ammo truck breaks down? Who fixes it? Where do parts come from? Who drives the truck? etc. And thats just trying to get bullets!

When the U.S. defeated Japan and Germany enemy soldiers gave up and quit fighting. Furthermore, we recieved cooperation from the former government to rebuild those nations. It still took over a decade for us to rebuild both nations.

Unlike Japan and Germany in World War II a large number of enemy combatants still have the energy and desire to fight even though their conventional organizations were defeated. Also the Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the Iraqi army and essentially decided to build a new government. Today the U.S. has the task of both defeating these unconventional forces and building a new, functioning government.

A tall order by any measure.

2007-06-25 21:25:11 · answer #2 · answered by Alan 2 · 0 1

YES!! Thank you! That's exactly what they had in mind!! Why do you think Rumsfelt was pushed out?? Cheney had a new plan for the war. This has been a very profitable war for him and his buddies, why would he want to end it?

I cant believe the answers above me!! These people have no idea what is going on!!!

Can you imagine this lasting 20 years!! Unbelieveable! We have already LOST this war with flying colors. Bush cant withdrawal and admit that he was wrong - cheney will put a stop to that!!

2007-06-25 21:06:21 · answer #3 · answered by ♥willow♥ 7 · 3 0

The US has been in South Korea since 1950 so it is possible. Re-Iraq no one has successfully made peace with the Islamic extremists. So what makes the Bush or any administration past or present think they can? I am not optimistic. The USA leaves Iraq the extremists win; the USA stays the US people lose. That is called being caught between a rock and a hard place.

2007-06-25 21:03:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

History lesson: In the American Revolution britain thought the americans would fight a gentleman's war...line up and shoot. didnt work as the patriots of america fought guerilla war. same happening today...us thinks because they killed hussien it's over, but now they're fighting a guerilla war.

2007-06-25 21:18:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

In one sense it ended very quickly. The nation fell in short order. What's followed isn't so much a war as a bungled attempt at nation building on the cheap.

2007-06-25 21:00:14 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3 2

It was over in three months. There was virtually no insurgency for a year after mission accomplished -- but after the multiple failures and crimes of the Iraqi Provisonal Authority and the Abu Gharib travesty, many Iraqis decided they wanted us out.

Whether or we are there for 20 years depends on who we put in office, President Senate etc.

2007-06-25 21:07:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

We won in short order. Now we are rebuilding their infrastructure and helping them establish a stable government. If we leave too soon all that has been accomplished will be lost, other than ridding them of Saddam. If we had a modicum of patience that would have already have been accomplished. It is very hard to get anything done when you have to constantly battle for support back home.

2007-06-25 21:10:29 · answer #8 · answered by barry c 4 · 1 4

I distinctively remember Bush saying this war may last decades or even generations.

Your memory is faulty.

2007-06-25 21:00:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

Because they are still fighting.

2007-06-25 21:29:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers