Iraq war - is it winnable?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by fly_past, Sep 17, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The War In Iraq is often being touted by lots of sides as 'Unwinnable'. Do you agree?
    Ideas for the Govt may be appreciated if posted here!?!?
  2. Not sure what winnable means in this context, let alone "Unwinnable". A well touted phrase is " we won the war but lost the peace" mainly because "we" had a great plan to overthrow Saddam & regime but were not so clever in planning for the aftermath.
  3. All we need to do now is train their army/police to a level where they can take care of themselves, and they reckon in Afghanistan that would take 5-7 years from now so make it your best guess when that happens.

  4. Of course it is winnable and the Iraqis must believe so too because they have almost won. It's not about land or theologies but about controlling their own oil. The smash and grab pulled by the USA and Tony Bliar almost succeeeded..........damn!!

  5. Not much then, considering how many policemen, etc get arrested for involvement in the insurgency. Why will it take 5-7 years in Afghanistan? It takes max 30 weeks to train a recruit, 2 years to train a PC, 6 months to train the commanders at various levels, a further 2 years assistance out in 4 years (oh yeh we've already been there for approaching 6 years and in Iraq for 4.5 years). When will they be ready to "take care of themselves"? It could never happen because they are useless in many areas of both countries and for every decent man there are 2 mediocre men and a handful of wasters taking pay under false pretences. When I hear of a successful ANP/army op against a credible target, with no sp from the coalition will be a day of joy I assure you.

    The question was is the war in Iraq unwinnable; using current tactics, with the current level of support from the UN, and more importantly the Arab (lesser extent Muslim) world it is my pessimistic opinion that it will be won but at an even greater cost in blood and suffering to the population and deployed foreign forces. The recent moves by"concerned citizens" protecting their own estates from AQ and actively driving them out is some encouragement but in light of the problems of government unity is it enough? Perhaps a related question could be how long will the US electorate believe that the cost is worth the goal? On CNN yesterday they were questioning people on the streets of DC about the recent military statements to Congress. One man made a very telling point when he said as long as they can make roadside IEDs [extrapolate and kill service pers] for the price of a pizza whilst the US are spending billions of dollars and are apparently defenseless the US will never win.

  6. The lessons of history are plain as bulldogs bollocks..
    No, we cannot win nor even contain the situation.
    We went in without one of the three basics of warfare, an exit plan. Whatever happens now, particularly for the U.S. which seems to specialise in not having exit plans, is going to be a mess.
    All that I care about is that the wounded servicement are properly looked after, and, that the nearest and dearest of both the wounded and dead are properly cared for.
    The U.S. must have been advised of the perilous nature of the expedition and yet they still went ahead. Which makes me among many suspect the motives and who was really pulling the strings.
  7. It was never a war for the winning, because it didn't have the backing of enough of the people. Alan Greenspan says it was about oil, which is something I've always believed and, although the monster Saddam has gone, there were always going to be enough sh1ts to take his place unless a proper peace was brought about.

    There are too many parties in the Middle East for whom fomenting disagreement in Iraq is their goal for there ever to be peace while there are "Western" forces still there. You need a brain to work out the possibilities in a case like this and, unfortunately, the US and UK couldn't come up with one between them when this round kicked off.

    Bush and Blairs combined legacy.
  8. Perhaps this was never a war in the sense that war is normally fought . The conflict in this region has been bubbling for many years with regular outbreaks of fighting . All that's been achieved really is to spread the people that cause the trouble like trying to put out a bush fire , stamp one out and ten more break out behind you . Thr ' war ' was never one that could be decided by a winner and loser , everyone is a loser . Now the exploding populations have been distributed throughout the world it is likely fighting will continue for many years even after Iraq is cleared of our troops . No doubt one almighty war will take place eventually to keep things quiet for a while but that probably wont be for some time . Meanwhile be prepared to live on edge as the fighting develops closer to home . With the spread of terrorism it is now like a world war but with an unseen foe .

  9. Clinton handed on a $3 Trillion surplus. Bush pissed it away before 9/11 giving tax cuts to corporations and the top 0.5% of the US population. The USA is now $9 Trillion in deficit and GWT is bleeding them dry.

    The bright side is that there some definite winners:-

    1. Israel is sitting back and watching us fight a proxy war for them.

    2. US Corporations have made a killing [literally].

    3. Iran will become the regional superpower and the Shi'ite crescent will extend into Arabia.

    4. Every member of OPEC has seen it's revenue for a barrel of oil increase by incentive to stop the war there.

    Colour me cynical but Bush seems determined to extend the war in Iraq until he can hand it off to the next [Democrat] president who will have real problem on his/her hands trying to sort this mess out.

  10. What is even more worrying for traditional "republicans" is the fact that the more Bush drags the party down the more chance the republicans will forever lose seats where traditionally they held them, a lot of red states are starting to turn very blue, even the Fundamentalists are starting to shy away from Bush, so yeah the next President will have a job on his/her hands, but he/she may just have a job for life (the Democrats) thanks to the Bush corporation... :afro:

    I see in today's rags that Gen Petreus (sp) is over in the UK to drum up thinks his welcome will be rather luke warm.. :farao:
  11. Define winnable and by whom?

    Given the ostensible reason it was never winnable in the conventional sense, since it wasn't supposed to be about a resource grab. And if you believe the public reasons then I've got this nice bridge for sale, only one careful owner....

    In terms of stabilising the region, well frankly if we hadn't destabilised it in the first place there wouldn't have been a problem. Iraq was contained, although it was taking a lot of effort to do that.

    And in terms of actually securing the resources, I really think it's failed miserably at that too.

    The lack of any long term recovery planning or clear political leadership in the immediate aftermath have got us to where we are now. In terms of what to do, damned if I know. I do think that there is an ethical obligation to mitigate for the damage that has been done, but I have no idea how to actually achieve that.

    I don't think there is a situation that I'd describe as won but I think we've lost a lot of political credibility and capital as a result of it.
  12. Iran won…
  13. Oi prosterior features calm it down... i didn't say it would take 5-7 years i left it open to assumption that i heard it from someone else. I was answering his question the best to my ability .. wasn't asking for dribble from you. ;)

    The question was is the war in Iraq unwinnable; using current tactics <<< NO this is the question.

    Re: Iraq war - is it winnable? again sly wink ;)
  14. Senator Jack Murtha is one of the very few politicians who talks straight and calls it like it is. He was also one of the first to call bullshit on the entire illegal Iraqi invasion. He is an ex-Marine [if there is such an animal] and his anger at the treatment of US Troops shines through. He spoke at the National Press Club over the weekend. Here is an excerpt of what he said:

    If you look back at what Napoleon learned in Spain, what the French learned in Indo-China and Algeria, what the Soviets learned in Afghanistan, and what the U.S. learned in Vietnam, the lessons of history are clear: there is a limitation to military power. Economic, political and diplomatic challenges must be solved. They can’t be solved by military means and they shouldn’t be distorted by rhetoric.

    Rhetoric, spin and slogans do not win wars. Likewise, the war in Iraq will not be won with charts, projections or sound bytes saying, "we will return on success."

    The Administration claims we are witnessing another turning point in Iraq. They claim progress is being made and now depending upon the "conditions on the ground," more troops will come home.

    But we have heard this before. The same predictions were made with Saddam’s capture, the adoption of the constitution, with national elections, and with the capture and killing of several terrorists in Iraq.

    A week ago on a Sunday talk show, a reporter expounded on a personal moment with the President in the White House when she asked him, "Mr. President, how do you continue to press forward when the war is so unpopular and things seem to be going so wrong in Iraq?" The President responded, "Because I am right."

    Right about what Mr. President?
    Right about weapons of mass destruction?
    Right about Saddam’s involvement in 9-11?
    Right about mission accomplished?
    Right about thinking he could fight this war on the cheap?
    Right at the ease at which Iraq could be transformed into a pillar of democracy?

    The original question was "Is the Iraq war winnable?"

    The answer is no.

  15. You are absolutely correct you didn't say it will take 5-7 years "they" did, but what you did say is as underlined above. My response was intended to highlight that this may be "all we need to do" but it is complex, frustrating, dangerous, time consuming and has proved futile in some areas (see my comments on arrests). Sly winks aside (!), please tell me why this is dribble. As far as I am aware what I have said is both accurate and a valid opinion.

    As to the rest of your post, what do you mean?

  16. Who cares? let 'em get on with it, or destroy the place completely and start again!

    Maybe we should do that with the world? better luck next time - maybe they said that last time
  17. was just using it as a more fickle word to make myself look smaller than i normally make myself...
    just seemed like your post was undermining me and making me look like a twat when i was just giving an opinion, whereas yours seemed to make an opinion more about how incorrect i was then to make an opinion valid to how you feel if it was winnable.
    No harm meant by my comments i tend to get a bit snappy and defensive coz i'm used to reading peoples faces when i see them talk :S

Share This Page