Are We Winning In Iraq?

[JMS]

Yes or No Question.. Wondering what people think?

[No_Pressure]

No. Our soldiers try but they are meant for fighting not peacekeeping and nation building. If it was a real war they would have won it by now about 500,000 times over but it isnt a real war as we know it, its completely unconventional. Suicide bombs, roadside sabotage, we have seen it all. We control the top tier of Iraqi people, we hold their cities, but as the Soviets could have told you in Afghanistan, that isnt enough to win a war.

The soldiers are winning on an individual level fighting, but we are losing because of the stupidity of our military and governmental leadership. We topped 3,000 dead a couple of days ago. Looking at a war like WW2 where my grandfather's division lost 5,000 and 15,000 casualties were reported in a week in the Hurtgen forest, it doesnt seem like a big number. None the less at least the soldiers of past wars had something worth fighting for, and if not that, a clear and at least partially intelligent objective. Iraq is not worth having Americans killed over and we dont have a good objective anymore. I wouldnt trade the life of an American for the whole Iraqi nation, but Bush seems to think differently.

The low part of all of this hasnt come yet however. We will feel at our worst when the puppet government we set up collapses under the pressure of religious, race, or whatever forces and some dictator who is as bad as or worse than Saddam comes into power and everything we worked for is a joke and meant nothing.

[FrFan]

Just like Vietnam or Afghanistan, Irak is a dead end.

[twa]

Anyone want to define winning? ;)


Meaning #1: succeeding with great difficulty

The adjective winning has 3 meanings:

Meaning #1: bringing success

Meaning #2: having won
Synonym: victorious

Meaning #3: very attractive; capturing interest
Synonyms: fetching, taking

[airborneskins]

We are closer to winning than losing. ;)

[Thiebear]

We are winning most of the battles.
We are losing the (President/Congress) of Iraq and their sympathies towards AlSadir
We are losing in not being able to take out his 40k troops

We should end up victorious.

[rdsknbill]

Search feature? :doh:

[vinva]

We are winning the battles but losing the war.

[herrmag]

Search feature? :doh:

He's the same guy that started the other thread. Apparently the new trend is that if you don't get the amount of replies you want in a thread, you start a new thread on the same subject. :doh: Its annoyance is amplified when involving an issue that has been discussed about 1,000 times.

[Blighty Skins]

In my opinion, we won in Iraq.

[Riggo-toni]

Just like we won in Lebanon and Somalia...err...wait....

[Lloyds' Mongolian Beef]

I think people need to define what winning this war means. From listening to some on this board, it ranges from one person to the next. At what point will we "win"? Will it be when the Iraqis are able to control their country without our assistance? Is it to eliminate all insurgency? Was it to just remove Saddam from power? I voted no, but mostly because I think it's impossible to "win" this war. Not for the cliche ideas like, "war never accomplishes anything" or "how much is a life worth", but for the simple notion that we haven't and never will be able to figure out what winning is, so obtaining an unknown goal is impossible.

[twa]

I think people need to define what winning this war means. From listening to some on this board, it ranges from one person to the next. At what point will we "win"? Will it be when the Iraqis are able to control their country without our assistance? Is it to eliminate all insurgency? Was it to just remove Saddam from power? I voted no, but mostly because I think it's impossible to "win" this war. Not for the cliche ideas like, "war never accomplishes anything" or "how much is a life worth", but for the simple notion that we haven't and never will be able to figure out what winning is, so obtaining an unknown goal is impossible.

That is a fair assessment,it is not a sport where you keep score. :cheers:

Unless you want to do the Nam thing with body counts. :rolleyes:

[JMS]

I think people need to define what winning this war means..


Winning is the process of defeating your enemy or rendering him harmless.

Loosing would be at the end of the month weather the oposition has a more effective fighting force than the previous month.


Lost would be the images of the American embassy in Vietnam after Nixon declaired victory and withdrew troops.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I say no. Because we are not meeting the initial goals of the war in Iraq.

I agree with the thought that we are pretty much going sideways in Iraq.

[twa]

Winning is the process of defeating your enemy or rendering him harmless.

Loosing would be at the end of the month weather the oposition has a more effective fighting force than the previous month.


Lost would be the images of the American embassy in Vietnam after Nixon declaired victory and withdrew troops.

Well, IF our enemy was Saddam and the Bathist party it is pretty much a win.

Of course if you wish to add nation building and suppressing dissent there is still a ways to go.

Just how do you define the enemy?

[Riggo-toni]

OK - here it is:
Winning would be the establishment of a permanent democracy in Iraq that is functional (namely, that can control violence to a reasonable level) that is not hostile to US interests.
Losing is when the country descends into civil war/chaos thus providing the ideal environment for terrorists (see Lebanon in the 80s, Afghanistan in the 90s.)
Getting rid of Saddam is not a win if the replacement is a lawless environment in which militias and terrorist groups have free reign. Saddam was an SOB, but not a significant threat to the US. Al Quaeda fighters roaming the Iraqi countryside with impunity present a far deadlier long-term threat.