I don't like to talk about "winning the war", because there really was no "war" to win. We went into a stable country, removed its stable government, and then all hell broke loose. For a long while, I would have said that we should cut our losses like we did in Vietnam in 1972. I would have said that there's nothing to be won here and that there's no way to win it. Things can be very bad with our participation or without our participation. Might as well be without it. But now, it really seems like things are changing, for reasons that are entirely unclear to me. Do you really think that the US military presence can return a stable government to Iraq? Or is this just a pipe dream? Can it really be done? Is it possible? If so, then let's stay and finish the job...
2007-12-20 09:53:13 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
LMAO
Thousands of years of instability and fighting says "no".
2007-12-20 10:28:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes we can. I don't think a lot of people will like how it would have to be won, but it could.
You are right that Iraq had a stable government, but it was hardly a safe country, a know beligerent who twice disrupted the region. The people of Iraq have been in and out of wars for 30 years now, Iran/Iraq, Kuwait, Sanctions, Today....
You have an entire generation who really only knows war mixed with a culture that is very different from Western/European culture.
The good news is that a growing number of people want stability and change. The bad news is there is still a lot of people set in their ways.
Basically, it will take time. Change always takes time. The current generation will resist the change, the next generation will tolerate it, and follwing generation accepts it. This is true for any change. Just look how things changed in the US for Civil Rights, the current generations at the time resisted, then in the 80's it was tolerated, then into the 90s and now it is accepted (not perfectly I know there are still problems but it is much better).
It will take time. Change takes time to be accepted. To force rapid change in Iraq would take massive bloodshed like in the old days (Iraq today is not massive bloodshed, not like the Mongols did things for example).
So the answer is, yes it can be done, but it will take a long term commitment. The question is weather or not the US is willing to commit for it.
2007-12-20 10:08:47 · answer #2 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Pipe dream everybody is just lying low till the U.S. leaves then the real civil war will break out if the Shiites and Sunni's don't start fighting then it will be the Kurds and turkey eventually Iran will want to dominate which will bring in the Saudis on the side of the Sunni's then this will force the U.N to send in troops and we will finally get the coalition we should have tried to get in the first place except we won't be over there anymore. This is all on the assumption we don't build permanent bases over there like there talking about.
2007-12-20 10:02:36 · answer #3 · answered by region50 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We can never really win a war. No one ever wins if you think about it. We went to Iraq for the wrong reason. Just like we backed up the french and got sucked into Viet Nam. Iraq was not stable unless you consider a dictatorship stable. Before anyone attempts to answer this question you should have been there before 1990 and again since then. You will not be able to offer a good answer if you have not been there. Don't believe the media. We need to bring them all home, AFTER we finish what we started.
2007-12-20 10:04:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
First of all, the war in Iraq has done nothing to help this country's economic situation. We've done nothing but pour money into a foreign war. Also, if all of that manpower and money was used in Afghanistan trying to find bin Laden, we probably would have by now, but now it's too late. Al Queda has become a "rally call" for Islamic extremists. It no longer exists as one entity controlled by bin Laden. It is now many organizations using the same name and using that social influence, without actually being interconnected. By pursuing goals in Iraq, we have allowed this to happen. If we could've stopped al Queda earlier, we might not have this problem now.
2016-04-10 10:16:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, we are very close to being there now, although it will still take a few years committment, it appears the disaster has finally turned around. General P. deserves whatever award can possibly be given. But Iraq was NOT a stable country before, the dude who was doing the weapons search for WMD's said that while he couldn't find those, what he did see was a society on the brink of total disaster.
2007-12-20 09:58:45 · answer #6 · answered by The Scorpion 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It can only be accomplished if that country and region of the world were to give up their religion, culture and entire belief system and agree to whole heartily take on another and I don't believe that any group of people are willing to do that, its sad, but if they want to kill, kill and then kill some more then let them be what they are destined to be in world history and that is an non-peaceful and always waring group of religious extremists. I have no problem if the citizens of that country are willing to humiliate their wives and families, rape their daughters and such in the name of whoever. Most of them want to live the way they have for 1,000 years and don't want what others looking in would call help. You cant save people who think they are already saved.
2007-12-20 10:11:34 · answer #7 · answered by E.F. Hutton 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
To make Iraq a safe, stable country, it will take the initiative of the Iraqi people, not a foriegn government. We are teaching them how to fish, we have even bought them a fishing pole, now it's up to them to use it.
2007-12-20 10:04:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If we set up a center piece of democracy and then it will spread through out the middle east..kinda like the domino theory but with democracy...my only fear is that Iraq will be a democracy then it will end up at war with all it's nieghbors like Iran and then we'll back them up and send troops....I think the middle east will be tons better in 200 years but I won't be alive to see it.
2007-12-20 10:04:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
no, the major players in the region (Iran,Syria,Russia), have to much to lose by allowing the u.s. to be seen as succeeding in their ability to gain influence in the middle east.
they all benefit by adding to the unrest thus causing the u.s. to waste their resources and to be seen as ineffective and bungling in their attempts to bring about peace, furthermore,with bush(the lamest of lame ducks) about to leave office in one year, why would they give him an opening to achieve a major policy goal. bush has said repeatedly that those three pose hurdles to peace and rejected any negotiations with Iran and Syria, and has begrudgingly asked Russia for assistance in dealing with Iran.
these three realize that they stand a better chance of getting a superior deal with the next administration then with the one that has labeled them as the axis of evil and the supporters of terrorist nations. those three and others will just wait out the clock before they make any serious offers to help the u.s. and in the mean time the u.s. just gets further and further bogged down in an untenable situation and the world gets to see the u.s. as more helpless and feeble
2007-12-20 10:45:13 · answer #10 · answered by Constipated CON. 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think "they" have stopped telling Americans they are at war, so they can forget about it before the elections
In 6 months people will be complaining that they can't keep George for a third term.
Americans, you are what your told
2007-12-20 10:03:09 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋