war in Iraq? I am confused people keep saying were are losing the war, i feel we won the war.?

Question

Can someone who keeps telling us we losing the war tell me how we are losing or what thier definition of losing is. Some of our troops are dieing, it is only small groups of terrorist and crimanals we are fighting against not a united front. so explain to me how we are losing.

Answer 1

Uhhh the war is still going on buddy.

We're losing becase we are coomplishing NOTHING. NOTHING is accomplished when a bunch of GI's build some school only for it to be bombed two days later. It's a waste of time, money and American lives.

Answer 2

It depends what you think the US went into Iraq to do.

Typically the publically stated reason for such actions is the promotion of peace, democracy (in it's wider sense), stability and freedom.

On the basis that war is a political act (War is the continuation of politics by other means) then wether the war was won or not is really a question, has the US achieved peace, democracy, stability and freedom for Iraq.

As none of these have been achieved (there was a vote, but if the US left there is unlikely to be a second election, it's far more likely a local "strong man" will take over, like Egypt), then the Iraq war has to be considered a failure.

If you believe the US went in for oil, it is unlikely now to get it - a loss.

If you believe the US went in for WMD, there were none (given that Australian forces did find a few hundred mustard gas shell that had been abandoned 20 years ago) - and so a loss.

If you believe the US went in for the War On Terrorism (WOT):

A few Al Qaeda terrorists had passed through Iraq, Saddam had organised years of terrorism in Iran, and even in London, UK (see Iranian Embassy Seige),

but given that recently in Western Iraq everyone has had to pay fuel tax directly to Al Qaeda units there, and the CIA National Security Estimates put the number of active cells as many times higher now than before the invasion, and that wealthy individuals in surrounding Arab countries are still pooring money into Al Qaeda - I think this is still a loss.

Some people believe this is just a process of the enemy revealing itself, and Iraq is really just revealing how big the war on terror will eventually become, however, it has been immensely distructive and expensive. The current US government has spent so much money (7 Trillion) on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Homeland secruity, that if current spending continued the US would be bankrupt in seven years.

The US is approaching the point where, Iraq is destroyed, Al Qaeda will have taken charge of large areas of what's left, not to mention their safe haven in Pakistan, and the federal government is no longer fiscally able to continue the war.

Given that the US numbers 300 million, and Al Qaeda 10,000 tops. This has to be considered a loss.

The US has not been beaten militarily, however, Al Qaeda is using tactics that render the US military might useless. 911 was carried out with 19 men armed with small knives. They could have been stopped by one suspicious security guard, but the immense difficulty in identifying them is their real asset.

If a much smarter method isn't found soon, you'd best start learning Arabic.

Answer 3

i think of you're lacking an substantial component. the elementary denominator between those 2 wars is that the politicians tried to combat it --- with the comparable result. as quickly as a conflict is underway, the final concern a baby-kisser can do is to step back and permit the army do their concern. The politicians recognize little adequate approximately each and every thing else yet seem unwilling to maintain their palms off something they recognize somewhat not something approximately. If the politicians had not stopped the army after the 1st Iraqui conflict, we does not have the subject concerns we've. If the politicians had not demobbed the Iraqui military, transforming into an great unemployed yet armed mob, we does not have the subject concerns we've. If the politicians had not tried to combat the conflict at the cheap with too few troops we does not have the subject concerns we've. With each and every of the political meddling going on, it truly is impossible to respond to your unique question with regards to the usually going on of the army or their approaches. They on no account have been given a huge gamble to apply them --- if that they had fought the politicians they might have been retired, so maximum of them did not.

Answer 4

We're not losing but we're not winning. It is a lost cause. Define a win. If it is to defeat all those opposed to the US, the only way to win is to destroy Muslims. We can't do that.

We aren't winning because we aren't getting any closer to an end. Those that are supposed to take over can't and won't be able to for a very long time.

So tell me why we are winning. Because we killed Sadam? There are a lot of leaders out there much worse than him. What they needed was a group of people that wanted to take over but needed some muscle to get it done. What they got was someone coming in without asking if they wanted our help, without a valid reason for choosing when to give our help, and without a plan on how to execute once the military was defeated.

If this was an old building we wanted to destroy and rebuild it would be as if the day it was decided that the plan was going to go through we ordered a wrecking ball to destroy it. Then, we started asking people to start designing the new building and started looking for funding to afford it. We had a building where people were going to work everyday, and it sucked, but still was functional. Now there's a pile of rubble... no one working there, no one with plans on how to proceed to rebuild, but we got that wrecking crew in there. And want to pat ourselves on the back for destroying the building.

I'd like to see Bush's approval rating next month, now that we know Al Qaeda is at full strength again. Maybe instead of worrying about Sadam, we could have gone after those responsible for 9/11. You know, those guys that posed a threat to us. Remember those guys? Does the name Osama ring a bell?

Answer 5

If we won the war, why are we still there?

But you have a point, it is only small groups of terrorists and criminals that we are fighting, but are we effectively getting rid of them? It seems the more we kill the larger they grow. That's not a winning strategy. But I'm not a strategist, so I don't really know what a winning strategy would be.

I don't think we should have been there to begin with and should have finished the job in Afghanistan, but that's not only beside the point it's also moot.

Answer 6

well, technically, you are right. i heard this arguement last week by some ex-military guy. the war was won when saddam was toppled. at that point the military campaign was over and it was succesful. it's the cleanup and rebuilding process that is failing miserably. the bush admin has insisted that lots of troops and bullets and tanks and bombs is the way to win the hearts and minds of the people. the goal now is to make the iraqi people run their own government and fight the terrorists on their own. and in that the u.s. has not succeeded very much. there have been elections but those elected officials have spent most of their time squabbling among the various religious factions (which was the whole problem before). only now there's a different faction in charge. but the problem is the same as before.

Answer 7

We haven't won. What gives you that idea? The conservative media? In reality, there's no such thing as a winnable war. If we won, why are we still there? Why are we losing so many troops? If we're just fighting terrorists and criminals, why are we killing so many innocent civilians?

Explain to me how we are winning, or how we have won?

"Mission Accomplished", my eye.

Answer 8

What's amazing is that conservatives refuse to define what "winning" this war is, and that's because they know that there is very little progress being made in Iraq, so if they nail down what it is we're supposed to be doing (unless what we're supposed to be doing is continuing chaos and havoc) they know that they won't be able to prove we're actually accomplishing anything. As long as we keep our objective in this war either "classified because of national security" or just very vague, they can claim we're winning the war.

Meanwhile, my own personal definition of "winning" this war is that we have made significant and continuing positive change. We did one thing: we took out Saddam. Since then, there has been no progress made, and Americans continue to die for it. That's why I say we're losing.

Answer 9

The American public has been innundated with bad news about the progress in Iraq and knows little of the good that we're doing there.

There is a ticker on almost every news organization's broadcast that shows a running total of American lives lost. We've been made to believe that the war is hopeless and has no relation to the War on Terror. This couldn't be further from the truth.


Most will never take the time to study the events or history of the region and know little other than "our boys are dying over there".

(the above poster just made my point)

Answer 10

Call me crazy, but when American casualties are reaching new monthly records in the fifth year of a victory, it seems like we missed something.

Here's one definition of victory:
Monthly casualties will be WAY lower when you're only left fighting "small groups of terrorists" and not a "united front."