Report: U.S. can't win Iraq war

Remove all ads!

You can find an even more pessimistic view, from a neocon no less (though writing for a mostly liberal rag), here.

I have no problems agreeing with charges that the US administration has bungled many aspects in the lead up to the war and in the execution of that war. Nor would I argue that the majority of Iraqis are happy to have to rely on 150,000 US soldiers to keep what civil order there is; it will be best for all concerned once the Iraqis can keep their own civil order. What I do object to, though, is the attempt to cast the insurgency as an expression of Iraqi popular will, an idea that is obviously false. It makes me wonder about the motives of those who are so quick to embrace these people as freedom fighters, despite all evidence to the contrary. (I wonder as well as the kind of mental gymnastics that allows people to simultaneously hold the beliefs that 1) the elections are a sham because they are held under an occupation and will only elect a US-puppet government, and 2) the elections are a sham because the Iraqi people, swayed by their religious leaders, will elect a bunch of fundamentalists that will destroy all secularism and impose sharia on the population...)

 

a US Army Staff Seargent recently returned to Iraq after healing from being wounded.

he is now in induced comma after being wounded again; this time one of his legs is being amputated along with half his face needing reconstruction.

and the Bush administration continues to cut the Veterans Administration funding.

as long as the patriots of America feel the need, they will continue to offer themselves as fodder for this meat grinder.

and the conservatives win again

the war?

O I L

 

You know, since the beginning of the war, I've been hearing these baseless allegations of a war effort totally centered on the acquisition of oil. Where is this nonsense coming from? I'd love to see something from even a mildly reputable source supporting this rubbish.

 

"You know, since the beginning of the war, I've been hearing these baseless allegations of a war effort totally centered on the acquisition of oil. Where is this nonsense coming from? I'd love to see something from even a mildly reputable source supporting this rubbish."

It's called common sense

Can you think of any valid reason why they started the war there?
1/ Weapons of mass-destruction? There weren't any... And it WAS known before the war started.
2/ Getting rid of a dictator? Why not in any other country? (Because Iraq has OIL)

 

"Common sense?" Right.

1: No, it wasn't. As I recall, the weapons inspectors, up to AT LEAST the time that W. ordered Saddam to get out of Iraq within 48 hours, said that they suspected he had weapons. He wouldn't let them into half of the areas they were assigned to inspect, there was no proof anywhere that he had destroyed those he had agreed to... 20/20 hindsight, huh?

2: If for no other reason, animosity between Bush Jr. and Saddam... I've not heard any report, anywhere, of the US taking the oil for our own use. Please provide some sort of evidence to support this claim. It's irrational.

Other countries in the Middle East had more oil, and mad dictators, as well. Why not invade them?
There was no suspicion of the posession of WMD's, I'd wager...

 

Of course we can't win in Iraq! I see no grounds to believe otherwise. The Bush administration, with beady, darting eyes, takes a different view. Meanwhile the Iraqi elections (coming soon to a polling place near you) have already been declared a success (how much success can we take?), with only the actual formality of the voting, if any, delaying release of the results. Then, on to Iran...and Syria...and Lebanon. Say, isn't there an oil pipeline somewhere around there?

[ Fair enough, but this last bit has already been declared off-topic. Let's avoid keeping it going. ] - Beren

[ January 29, 2005, 07:26: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

I don't think the "US" is going to win in Iraq. Short of a national hug-an-opposing-tribesman day declared in Iraq, the US mission can always be declared a failure by someone looking at only the negative.

What will probably happen is a long (on the order of ten years) decline in insurgency. Even then, it will never totally disappear. The nations of Iraq have never learned to get along...and we are talking about since 850 AD.

However, the masses will see that cooperating with one another leads to more jobs, more public services, and an increased quality of life for all involved.

Why would they suddenly learn after a thousand years?

They will soon have a forum for discussion and an authority to implement their mutual agreements...what they had in the past was no discussion and the iron fist of a dictator.

Let's just hope wiser heads prevail...

 

Sorry, Beren. I didn't read all of the messages before posting.

[ No problem. ] - Beren

[ January 31, 2005, 04:27: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

The people comparing Vietnam to Iraq do make some valid points, but I think there is an over-riding issue here that no one has mentioned that was also present in Vietnam. Namely, that these people feel like they are fighting for their homes. Regardless of what arguements you come up with, many Iraqis see the Americans as an occupying force, just like the Vietnamese did. And as such, no matter how many of them you kill, there will always be more. The "war of attrition" is an oxymoron. There would have to be hundreds of thousands of US casualties or millions of Iraqi casaulties for this to start to enter into the equation, and we are so far away from these numbers that's it's silly to bring them into the equation. These people live there. The US does not live there. They WILL wait the US out, no matter how long that takes.