Seriously, isn't all lost in Iraq?

Question

I'll never understand why Bush did not follow Macarthur's plan of overwhelming an occupied country with US troops. It's not fair to our soldiers over there now who are trying to do the impossible.

Answer 1

Your right and it really is all lost. People do not seem to understand that we cannot win an ULTIMATE victory. The Shiites and Sunnis have been arguing over who is the legitimate heir to Mohammad for over 1300 years. The issue is not whether the surge is working, but whether we can achieve a LASTING solution and we cannot. This is a religious dispute. After all, we're not blowing up rival mosques.
I honestly did not oppose this war in the beginning. I just think we won when we deposed Hussein and destroyed the weapons he had. When President Bush said "mission accomplished," he was right. We should have left then. The Sunnis have pulled out of the government. The President is wavering in his support of the prime minister. Our troops are not getting their supplies delivered and we have hundreds of thousands of weapons missing.
Our goal is unrealistic. We cannot force democracy on a nation if they cannot solve their internal disputes. We cannot force 2 rival religious factions to reconcile after 1300 years. We can't stop Saudi Arabia from supporting one side and Iran the other.
Our soldiers are dying in a useless and impossible cause. The only way we can bring lasting peace to Iraq is to stay forever. People forget that this is an artifical country established after WWII. I think we have every cause to go in when Saddam threw out the U.N. inspectors. He may not have had nuclear weapons yet, but he was working on it. We just didn't have the sense to know when to leave.

Answer 2

No it is not all lost. Not good that is for sure. We are there and have to stay for a long time yet.

When this started no one had any idea just what kind of war this would be. We knew terror was part of it that is sure.

No one expected the Muslims to turn against themselves and wage a war that neither sect had a chance of any hope of winning.

Don't blame Bush for it all. There were many others that provided very false information. No I am not a fan of GW. Remember there are many people running this nation, not just one man. The EU as usual stirred up a hornets nest and then walked away.

Not good but we will have to stay for some time yet.

Answer 3

Well, I'm not American but I think so. I mean, in my opinion, the US is or was trying to get rid of terrorists in Iraq. Well, the US being there has actually created more terrorists. Also the terrorists aren't only in Iraq, they're all over the middle east. Even if you get rid of the terrorists in Iraq, there'll always be new ones coming from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan...Therefore the US won't be done until most of the ppl in the Middle East are dead. That's just my point of view.

Answer 4

Or maybe Marshalls plan for rebuilding countries?
Of course, Bush is neither Mac Arthur or Marshall, nor does Bush appoint people of sterling ability.
His one criteria, apparently, is did Daddy know him.

I don't know if all is lost in Iraq, but the people of the country itself don't seem to know how to have a country that works at least nominally together, they all want the largest piece of the pie, and they each want to keep the other down. I know Saddam was a miserable example of a dictator, but maybe a benevolent dictator is what they need for peace and stability.
They sure don't seem ready for American-style democracy.

Answer 5

It all depends on how much faith you put in the Iraqis and their government.

Since the US military can't capture/kill every "insurgent", we are dependent on the Iraqi society and government deciding that they want a stable democracy or a stable theocracy, for that matter.

I don't see it happening.

The Macarthur analogy, to me, doesn't work. When Japan's emperor surrendered, the whole nation surrendered. Macarthur performed brilliantly but he didn't have to worry about thousands of anonymous terrorists among the Japanese civilian population killing his troops. Further, there was no murderous ethnic strife among different factions of the Japanese population. Big difference.

Answer 6

First of all, Jilly - because you're not an American, your opinion counts more than ever before! We need the rest of the world to send a message to our President since he apparently doesn't want to listen to his own countrymen.

All was 'lost' in Iraq before it ever began. The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was ridiculed, criticized, and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time. George, Jr. was selected to become President by the Bilderberg Conference so that he could 'settle the score' with Hussein.

Dick Cheney and his Exxon-Mobile buddies coveted all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so they could get richer and richer and richer feeding America's addiction to cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL;

And, ever since World War II, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex has recognized how profitable 'war' could be (Eisenhower warned us about this). So, all the politicians were bought up, pricey lobbyists were hired, and special interest groups were formed to promote and encourage more 'war'. Thus, the U.S. became embroiled in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam and Desert Storm so that corporations like McDonnell-Douglass, Lockheed-Martin and Sikorsky could reap billions in profits off the backs of U.S. taxpayers. When George W. Bush assumed office, two 'newcomers' had bellied up to the government's war trough: the Carlyle Group and Halliburton BOTH have direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House and BOTH have now made BILLIONS of dollars in profits from this MULTI-TRILLION-DOLLAR BOONDOGGLE. From the very beginning this 'war' was all about OIL and WAR PROFITEERING.

All is 'lost' in Iraq because there was no justifiable military plan, strategy or need to be there. Bush and Cheney don't care about the fact that they've killed 675,000 Iraqis and 3,700 U.S. soldiers; as Donald Rumsfeld once said, "Stuff happens." The important issue is that the Bush administration has lied to the American people, misrepresented this need for 'war' to the U.S. Congress, and conned out dedicated troops into believing they're putting themselves in harm's way for honorable purposes (such as bringing democracy to Iraq, defending our nation against 'terrorists' from an unknown 'evil empire', or establishing peace in the Middle East). Sadly, the real reasons we're in Iraq is to let a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists and power brokers become wealthier and more powerful. AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED FOR THAT REPUGNANT REALITY. -RKO- 08/23/07

Answer 7

Seriously, all is not lost in Iraq. Seriously, maybe if you had all the information the commander in chief has and had, you may have done the same thing he is doing and has done.
Seriously, if we sent more soldiers over there, the Dems and our enemies would be screaming even louder that we are being imperialistic. Seriously, the dems control the congress now and we are still carrying on just as we had before they gained control. Seriously, don't listen to the crap they try to spread around through the help of the mainstream driveby media and you will seriously be better off

Answer 8

Seriously, no it isn't. In time more Iraqi forces will train to take over. Eventually the insurgency has to stop, who will the people trust? The people that blow them up to make them conform, or the people that provide security against those that wish to destroy them into submission? It's all lost when you let brutality win.

Answer 9

all was lost from the beginning when our exective branch didn't have a plan for getting things done and over with....now our troops are bogged down, and there is no possible positive outcome in sight.

Answer 10

not sure why people think it's impossible to win the fight against terrorism OR to have an established democratic Iraqi government... didn't your mom teach you that you'll never accomplish anything if you have that attitude?