Is the U.S. capable of winning the war in Iraq, and what does winning look like?

Question

Yes, the war in Iraq can be won. Winning would be helping Iraqis build a stable government that is an ally in the war on terrorism—unlike Saddam's Iraq, which was an enemy in that war. This would be a major victory. It is true that Iraq will be a violent place for many years. But some of the forces that make it violent—radical Islamists and Saddam's Baathist supporters—are sworn enemies of the United States. If we turn our backs on them now, their threat will only grow.

YOUR THOUGHTS?

Answer 1

I am not sure what the definition of a win is.

I am convinced we could win if we knew what it meant to win.

I am concerned that to stay on in Iraq and participate in their centuries old conflicts will not produce a win for anyone.

I supported President Bush in the beginning, and I continue to support him, but I am fearful that we may, as a nation, be looking the wrong direction.

I am of the belief we need to hunker down and be prepared to fight the Muslims hand to hand here in our own nation.

It is my belief we as citizen es need to arm ourselves and be prepared to take out anyone and everyone who encroaches our territory without hesitation.

Answer 2

Yes, the war in Iraq can be won. Winning would be helping Iraqis build a stable government that is an ally in the war on terrorism—unlike Saddam's Iraq, which was an enemy in that war. This would be a major victory. It is true that Iraq will be a violent place for many years. But some of the forces that make it violent—radical Islamists and Saddam's Baathist supporters—are sworn enemies of the United States. If we turn our backs on them now, their threat will only grow.

Answer 3

As of now, total victory will not happen. Mainly because we screwed up the initial occupation. If we could rewind and had the 500000 troops that was initially calculated by General Shinseki, was able to establish border security, establish security in all of the ammo dumps, just killed a couple of generals and some of the top leadership and kept the Iraqi military together as a whole, maybe just double their pay, then there would have been a better chance of winning. However, our military is now broken, the Iraqi parliament can't even agree on even their pay, and Iran has been emboldened and hell bent on attaining nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes". The best we can do right now is to limit casualties to our forces, and we are not doing a good job of that with all of the wounded we are inundating our Veterans Hospitals with.

I think the best thing we can do is isolate and contain what is going on and solicit the help of Iraqs neighbors and not allow Iran to extend its influence any further than Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and to an extent Lebanon.

Answer 4

the government WAS stable..and don't give me the evil saddam line...if we were there to help the people then we would be in darfur and a million other places that live in situations MUCH WORSE...How did we end up at war with a civilian population? oh oh yeah its all coming back to me now...bush lied!!! he invaded a country that was no threat to us...and turned their life upside down. are they radical or just want the occupiers to leave? and how is it that the only power that has ever used a nuclear weapon gets to invade countries because they MIGHT have some....hmmmmmmmmmm? crazy crazy crazy. No we can't win the war.

Answer 5

Nope. Can't win. Fighting the Invisible Man is a stupid project.

What you describe is the purpose of a civil war, and we were not asked to get involved in a civil war in Iraq. We should have kept our noses out of it, and we should have trained the Iraqis to take over their own security by now. According to Bushie, the minute Saddam was taken out of power, our mission was accomplished. At that point, rebuilding should have been our ONLY objective, yet we're still in heavy combat. So either Bush lied, or he's incompetent. And I don't care which. What I care about is that it's costing my countrymen their lives. And that, because we look like jerks to the rest of the world, my countrymen traveling abroad are in more danger because of what Bush did.

That's what I care about. I don't give a crap if Iraq is ever stable. It's the Middle East. Political stability has a very short half-life there anyway.

Answer 6

So RLP how long do you suggest we keep throwing American lives and American dollars into this pit? What does winning look like? You cons still haven't been able to explain that one in a logical or realistic way that has anything to do with reality of mideast life whatsoever. You people really live in a dreamland con utopia in your own minds don't you? What do you cons propose to do. You've had over 5 years. Why haven't you done it yet? Bush turned his back on the Iraqis the day he invaded. That's why millions are refugees living in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon now.

Answer 7

Poo poop dee doo.........

You're not interested in any thoughts that differ from your own. In reality you are just trolling for an argument and Democrat bashing.

What does winning look like? There ARE no winners in a war. If you haven't realized that by now I feel for you.

*kiss*

EDIT: Mr. Perfect (What an overstatement.) ......

I address the first of your "let's attack reason" statements. First off we here on YA are not mind readers. The "Jews" consider "IT" a win? What on God's green Earth are you babbling about? The end of WWII? The establishment of Israel in 1948? The Six Day War in 1967? The Yom Kippur War in 1973? The 1982 War in Lebanon? The 2006 War in Lebanon?

Don't you get it? Is there a pattern developing here that is clear enough for you to see? The fighting never ceases. These things called "wars" are nothing but a continuation of old grudges and vendettas. A "WAR" is something that is fought and ends in one side or the other being entirely annihilated. Even then the many people who die fighting on the side left standing in that type of conflict..........tell me........ are THEY winners?

Secondly....... the "Independence War" that you refer to. Is that the battle for independence fought by India to oust the British? The battle in the Congo for independence from the Dutch? Or are you referring to The American Revolution? Mexico's independence from France or Spain? And where exactly is all of the freedom promised to the millions (yes millions) who died fighting these battles for "independence"?
What prize was awarded to the "winners" of these things?

I can understand your narrow perspective of what winning a "war" is. Some people think when the band plays a tune and people stand and applaud that the war is "over". Truth is..........they are never over and therefore are never "won".

Answer 8

Winning involves completing the objectives set forth at the onset of the war. We've done that.

The Iraqis need to be responsible for building their own government. It is not something we can do for them.

It is not about "turning our backs". It is about making them accept reponsibility for their own future.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."
- George W. Bush during a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C.

Maybe I'm missing something here. The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

Is that not the king of all "flip-flops"?

Answer 9

We need to put up borders around Iraq and not let anyone in from the outside.
Then do a clean sweep searching for members of terrorist groups and have them go before a firing squad thereby eliminating the threat they pose to mankind.
We also need to do away with the Rules of Engagement and set free those who are in Military Prison right now for doing what they were sent to do.
The only way we're going to win this war is if we are tougher than the enemy and more ruthless, in our approach to rid the world of evil.
As long as we continue to treat them in a civilized manner they will pick us off one by one.

We also need to get the media out of there so our men and women in uniform can do their job without constantly looking over their shoulders for a scumbag Journalist whose looking for the perfect opportunity to make them look bad.

We also need a new Commander and Chief because the one we currently have is too much of a Politician to get the job done and get it done in a timely manner.
In fact while we're at it we might as well take Politics out entirely and let the Generals fight the war.
They know better than any pencil pusher how to win a war and fight like a winner.

We need to stay and finish the job or we'll have a much bigger problem on our hands later on down the road.
But we need to make some changes and we need to fight this war like a war is supposed to be fought.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.

Answer 10

You have bought into my party's slant.

We won the war for Iraq.

This is a battle IN Iraq with outside forces coming in.

We DID win the war for Iraq. Saddam was executed.

We can never win the war against terrorism, of which this is a single battle, Iraq ONE battlefield.

We can also never win the war against disease. It will always regroup, attack, and occasionally kill some of us.

The alternative to the fight is to die.

Easy choice.