Deomcrats say that we are losing the war in Iraq?

Question

I'm perplexed. I served in the military, I studied history, maybe I missed something. Can anyone explain to me how we are losing the war?

Losing a war would mean:
1.) The enemy has incapacitated our will to fight.
2.) The enemy has crushed our potential for conflict.
3.) We have taken more causalities than our enemy.
4.) The enemy has gained ground and over ran out bases.
5.) The enemy has proven themselves superior on the battlefield by outmaneuvering our forces.

Has any of these things happened? I missed the Al Jazera update tonight so can anyone that believes we are losing the war explain to me their logic in saying this.

PAUL- Ok, but how are we losing?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? NOT ONE LIBERAL CAN EXPLAIN TO ME HOW WE ARE "LOSING" THE WAR??????????????????????????????????????????

BUSHINVENTEDGOP- Basic terms and rules of engagement. Jesus, pick up a book and read for Gods sake.... PS Weekly World News isnt a novel.....

Answer 1

First off as someone that has been there, it helps out the morale when you know that your own country is behind. It also helps when your own media reports all the positive things your doing out there. Beleive me it hurts when guys like Harry Reid say we already lost the war, he should be tried for treason, it sends the wrong message to the troops, and makes our enemy stronger. If the enemy knows that the morale and our elected officals are caving in there gonna get bolder and stronger and up the amount attacks, with more road side bombings, suicide bombs, etc. because they feel the more violence they spead the weaker we will and break our will.

Military tactics, since most liberals who never sereved think they are well schooled HIPPIE in military tactics. We made mistakes in the begining no doubt, it's a differant kind of war and we underestimated the Terror cells in Iraq. We would drive them out, annd keep pushing and not leave a proper security force behind while we were pushing forward, as we were pushing forward and on the offensive the terrorists just pulled a 180 and moved back in while we were gone. The troop surge is putting a stop to that since we can maintain a proper security force and establish 360 degrees of security.

Also it's tough out there, in the begining since we weren't sure who was friend or foe, the enemy doesn't dress in Military uniform they dress in plain street clothes and our own ROE'S hurt us in the begining.

I know most Liberals who have never served seem to think they know all in Military tactics and the Iraq people, but news flash at the end of the day the good people of Iraq who have been ruled savagely by Saddam, want us to finish the job or at the very least make it place where they finally have some sort of civilized society.

Those sanctions were placed by the U..N. on Iraq when Saddam decide to invade his neighbor we call that the Gulf War, Saddam also broke 17 U.N Laws for 17 years, and not using profits from oil to feed his people. Get your fac ts straight, and Clinton bombed him in 98 during operation desert fox with the same intell Bush had WHEN WE WENT TO WAR
I am taking about a civilzed society were you don't have to worry about that the leader of your Country is gonna MUSTARD gass you like Saddam did, Also a civilzed leader who doesn't kill you if you speak out against the GOV, think about it pot head, your on here everyday spitting Anti-Bush, Anti-U.S. crap on this site all day long, now I ask you, if you were an Iraq under Saddam rule would you be able to do that, NO you would be dead. Also Saddam straved his people, bruttally murdered them. I got more examples if you need them.

Now if the terrorists drive us out and win and gain a whole country like they had in Afgan do you think there gonna treat the people of Iraq kindly, or rule with fear, and kill those who oppose them, just like the taliban did in Afagan,

Trust me, it would be a nightmare, it take from someone who has been there, if we just cut and ran right now, it would empower our enemies, bring instability to an already volatile region and Iran and Osama, would have another to use as Training centers, for terrorists, and a safe haven. Then when they go back on the offensive and bring the fight back on U.S. Soil, the left wing nuts will blame Bush for leaving early. Bush is in a no-win-situation

Answer 2

First of all there is no definition for losing or winning a war.
The first question we gotta answer is what kind of war are we even having Iraq? Are we having a war on terror In Iraq or a war on Iraq? We barely even know who we were fighting. In order to actually win a war, it has to be possible to win that war. If were having a war on terrorism, we can never win, you cant beat a tactic, or a idea. Terrorism has been around for 1000 years and probably will continue to be so.
Its not about losing, its about how its impossible to win. If you sent 100,000 troops into New York and tried to kill every theif, murderer and rapist, you could never do it, because its always gonna be there, you can reduce it, but in the end, you'll cause a whole lot more chaos and destruction than if you weren't there in the first place. Thats why we should pull out, because were not accomplishing anything. And EVEN IF we did somehow bring peace and prosperity to the Iraqi people, it would never justify the loss of life and amount of money and resources we poured into it. Its not our responsibility to be the police of the world and we also can't afford it.

Answer 3

I'm not a liberal, but I live (in the most liberal area in America) and I know many liberals.

I think they are internally pessimistic about anything done by a Republican president.

On the ground, security and Iraqii brigade size is growing significantly...but you know that. Security to some level will be better with time. Areas will be taken over by Iraqii forces.

I think the democrats have conflicts in whatever is not working (or what they perceive not working) and the whole idea this war started. Instead of declaring we need to focus on winning (and the aspect necessary),.. which is nearly a mandatory option, they resort to a political victory...and a desire to see a Republican adminstration fail. Now minus the horrendous consequences of leaving immediately, which I know...we all know.

There are valid interests democrats wish to see. They want to see political reconcilation in Iraq, by Iraqis. We all do, and with time I think that will come through. Iraq has done more government functions than most other countries...they've accomplished quite a bit in a short period of time. Dems seem to forget that, and they need just a bit of slack...but it does seem agreements are coming.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19330207/

"Iraq's top Shi'ite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political leaders announced on Sunday they had reached consensus on some key measures seen as vital to fostering national reconciliation...."

--"Iraqi officials said the five leaders had agreed on draft legislation that would ease curbs on former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party joining the civil service and military."

--"Consensus was also reached on a law governing provincial powers as well as setting up a mechanism to release some detainees held without charge, a key demand of Sunni Arabs since the majority being held are Sunnis."

--"Yasin Majid, a media adviser to Maliki, told Reuters the leaders also endorsed a draft oil law, which has already been agreed by the cabinet but has not yet gone to parliament."

ps...I didn't agree with the war starting, atleast how and when...but ultimately I have to side with the right on this. Leaving that region to hell will only have us going back there in ways we don't want to.

Answer 4

Technically, I guess you haven't lost if your still fighting. If not losing makes you happy, OK, you haven't lost the war - yet.

But you are asking the wrong question, which ought to be: Can we possibly win? Because if the answer to that question is "NO", you might want to lose the war (or declare victory and go home) as fast as possible.

Your question implies that your answer to my question is "YES". If so, it would be interesting to examine Iraq on the day the war ends in victory.
(1) All parties are at peace after 1300 years of hatred.
(2) Since there are 4 Shi'ites per Sunni, the government is run by the Shi'ites. The army and the police are Shi'ite. The Shi'ite Iranians are helping the Shi'ite government.
(3) The Shi'ites, who have just been liberated from the Sunnis, are now giving their oil to the Sunnis who have been stealing the Shi'ites oil for the last 75years.
(4) The Sunnis are happily paying their taxes to a Shi'ite government.

If you believe that victory is possible, I have a bridge for sale.

I have a strategy that (1) gets our guys out of combat (but not out of Iraq) as soon as physically possible, (2) needs no withdrawal timetable, and (3) needs only a simple majority of the House.

If you are interested, send me your e-mail address.

Answer 5

I'll use your exact thinking as I describe what winning this war means:

WINNING THIS WAR WOULD MEAN:

1.) We have incapacitated our enemy's will to fight.
2.) We have crushed our enemy's potential for conflict.
3.) The enemy has taken more causalities than we have.
4.) We have gained ground and have overrun their bases.
5.) We have proven ourselves superior on the battlefield by outmaneuvering their forces.

Have any of these things happened?

.

Answer 6

The criteria that you outlined are valid in conventional warfare against a standing army. However, the war in Iraq is a civil war, not a conventional war, and there is no standing enemy army. Therefore, the goals/benchmarks of the Surge are 'unconventional', completely different:

President's Address to the Nation
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html
Fact Sheet: The New Way Forward in Iraq
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html

Benchmarking Iraq for Disaster
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/58580/?comments=view&cID=706751&pID=706666

All-time Highs in Iraq: Escalation by the Numbers
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/59881/

Here's a couple articles from this weekend:
-- Iraq Body Count Running at Double Pace
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070825/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_counting_the_dead
-- Bush left with few options, even fewer chances for success in Iraq
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003852550_bushiraq25.html

Here's an article from Al Jazera:
http://english.aljazeera.net/English
-- US: Unstable months ahead for Iraq
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79711FEF-05A8-40F6-A858-BB52AC49A1A4.htm

All the articles at the official Operation Iraqi Freedom website are good news:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=4&Itemid=128

Answer 7

what army are we currently facing?

I don't think we are losing so much as we are facing an idea more than anything and it may be impossible to win

there's no central leadership that you can defeat here and have them surrender


".) The enemy has incapacitated our will to fight.
2.) The enemy has crushed our potential for conflict.
3.) We have taken more causalities than our enemy.
4.) The enemy has gained ground and over ran out bases.
5.) The enemy has proven themselves superior on the battlefield by outmaneuvering our forces."

these all apply to a conventional engagement, that is the problem with your thinking

Answer 8

To jim whatever.Some people said that about taking on Hitler,and Japan also.It's not our fight so and so-forth(Kennedy's daddy was one of them).Times haven't changed so men have guts others have none.We're winning when (Just like the report will show) the Iraq people get sick of all the terrorist's killing their own.

Answer 9

If the victor in Iraq means:
1. Force Iraq to become a "democracy".
2. Force Iraq to continue being one nation.
3. Make the Sunni's and Shia get along.
4. Make Iraq into a U.S. ally.

Then, we may be loosing the war as it is based on unrealistic expectations.

We already had victory in Iraq. U.S. already accomplished the goals we originally stated:
1. Check Iraq to ascertain finally and or sure whether Iraq had WMD.
2. Depose Saddam (and capture or kill him if possible).
3. Give the Iraq's a shot at becoming a democracy.

Only way we can achieve "defeat" is by remaining there with totally unrealistic expectations !

Answer 10

1. The "enemy," as you refer to it, is a bunch of people trying to retain control of their own country. It isn't our fight in the first place; we're just in the way.
2. This means nothing at all; it's just a string of words with no value to it.
3. Probably true. The casualty count you hear every month is Americans, not everyone who has died as a result of our invasion.
4. What is an "out base"?
5. Battlefield? You're talking like there are two armies fighting each other. That isn't what's happening. Pick up a newspaper. They're setting off roadside bombs and sending in suicide bombers, not meeting us on a battlefield like the Revolutionary War, for God's sake.

The problem with people like you is that you envision that the "war" in Iraq looks like Vietnam, or WWI, or WWII, or even our Civil War or Revolutionary War. You think there are troops on two sides battling one another, and that is NOT what's happening.

Wake up.

Answer 11

We're losing in their eyes because the war wasn't over in 30 days, and that we forced the troops to go to war. Hello! You volunteer for the military, so you know the risk when you enlist that you might have to protect this country. We went to war LEGALLY, you DEMS VOTED FOR IT! Rememer that?!?! I do! All you people do is flip flop and go with the sheep. Pathetic.