The war is over....we lose ??

[NomoBreaks]

"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that ... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. "It's going to be settled in the political process."

So, he is saying that we really can not win in the field?

QUESTION
Is not being able to win the same as losing?

I think it is. If we can not win, we can either lose or draw. It's not a draw unless each side admits they cannot win, and stops fighting. The Iraqis have not made any such admission. They think, perhaps rightfully so, that they can outlast us.

So that means we lose...right?

From a military standpoint our efforts have been unsuccessful. Senior military officers say the long term solution lies in politics and diplomacy. They are telling the current administration that the military invasion and occupation of Iraq has failed, as they had predicted it would, and that the logical future course of action would be to pursue negotiations to cease hostilities.

Political and Diplomatic efforts. Quite like what the administration previous to Bush was doing. Successfully.

Call me crazy, but it sounds to me like...we lose!

[jzodda]

1. The best we can do at this point...

Is train them as best as we can, give them money and equipment and then leave. The insurgency will not stop while we are there and it will go on after we leave. They will have to settle it themselves in the end.

So is that a victory? No

Is it a loss? No

Overall it becomes a loss or win depending on what happens after we leave.

A win would be some kind of democratic state and little or no more guerillla war, and a country who thinks of us as a friend.

A loss would be a country that looks like Iran, or a country that splits apart, or a country that in the end decided we are the enemy just like the Baath party thought. In that case it would all have been for nothing.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. I think what should happen

is we start pulling out and all except those who are working with the Iraqi's and training them. Then do like Kerry wanted and take the Iraqi's and those training them to another location so they don't keep dying and other complications keep coming. Definitley find a way to give them money and help rebuild after everybody has left. Of course Bush will find someway to declare a victory and have another "mission accomplished" stage. :eyes: If they don't want us to help rebuild then just help with financies. They keep the oil!

[MichiganVote]

12. Overall we have a loser prez with a loser cabinet and a loser

Defense minister who in no way generates a friendly attitude toward Iraqi's. In the end, the only loss that is intolerable to this administration is/ was/ and forever will be--the loss of oil.

[NomoBreaks]

20. What am I missing here?

Your logic escapes me. It's neither a victory nor defeat yet it will be one or the other depending on what happens after we leave?

[wtmusic]

2. We lost before the war started

Those without a fundamental sense of right and wrong always lose.

[Hissyspit]

4. I was about to say... We lost the minute we allowed the Bush cabal to

manipulate the U.S. into this.

[mike_c]

3. the war against Iraq was never "winnable" under the terms...

...the neo-cons wanted. Yes, the U.S. military could have utterly destroyed Iraq, much as it did Falluja, killed everyone and sterilized the soil. That's probably the ONLY way we could have "won." The occupation is doomed- it's only a matter of deciding how much more damage the U.S. does before it withdraws.

[oblivious]

5. Baghdad Bob predicted it. (Monkie's post)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3833977#3834112

[jaxx]

6. "There are 26 million Saddams in Iraq"

and we're seeing them now with the insurgents multiplying daily it seems. I want to see how dubya will weasel out of this one. More bring em on, or we'll stay the course, or either you're with us or you're against us. Damn fool, they whole world is against us now.

[nolabels]

8. And U.S. Military Toll in Iraq Crosses 1,700

U.S. Military Toll in Iraq Crosses 1,700

By PAUL GARWOOD, Associated Press Writer Sun Jun 12, 6:31 PM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The military announced the killing of four more U.S. soldiers on Sunday, pushing the American death toll past 1,700, and police found the bullet-riddled bodies of 28 people — many thought to be Sunni Arabs — buried in shallow graves or dumped streetside in Baghdad.
(snip)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050612/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

What was the mission anyway :shrug:

[jaxx]

13. The mission that was accomplished on May 1, 2003?

The only other mission I know of is the one dubya names Mission Impossible.......going to a funeral of one of the 1702 dead american soldiers. Smirking SOB sleeps well at night too, so he says.

[NomoBreaks]

15. 1,700 MY FAT AUNT !!

More like 7,000 !

These bastards are fudging the reports. Their KIA stats only count those actually KIA on the battlefield. Those who die enroute to, or in medical facilities later are not included in that number. Neither are those whose death occured due to causes other than by ordinance.

[nolabels]

17. The other death tolls could be much higher than that in twenty years

Gulf War Syndrome, The Sequel

'People Are Sick Over There Already'

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior editor for TomPaine.com.

Soldiers now fighting in Iraq are being exposed to battlefield hazards that have been associated with the Gulf War Syndrome that afflicts a quarter-million veterans of the 1991 war, said a former Central Command Army officer in Operation Desert Storm.

Part of the threat today includes greater exposure to battlefield byproducts of depleted uranium munitions used in combat, said the former officer and other Desert Storm veterans trained in battlefield health and safety.

Their concern comes as troops are engaged in the most intensive fighting of the Iraq War.

Complicating efforts to understand any potential health impacts is the Pentagon's failure, acknowleged in House hearings on March 25, to follow a 1997 law requiring baseline medical screening of troops before and after deployment.

"People are sick over there already," said Dr. Doug Rokke, former director of the Army's depleted uranium (DU)project. "It's not just uranium. You've got all the complex organics and inorganics that are released in those fires and detonations. And they're sucking this in.... You've got the whole toxic wasteland."
(snip)
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7570

[FreedomAngel82]

11. It should be a show

Watch him do a total flipflop.

[fla nocount]

7. We might find that Saddam had it as right as he could manage given

the milieu he operated in. Reward and trust those he could communicate with, repress the religious wing-nuts who nobody could communicate with and penalize those who supported or showed tendencies of listening to the wing-nuts. He could have avoided a lot of trouble by not insisting that Iraqi oil was IRAQI oil. That was his mistake. If he had went to a few Bilderberg covens and danced the nuttin-buttin he would still be there.

[NomoBreaks]

10. As hilarious and pointed as that post is...

...there is a very grim truth in what you say.

Saddam got "too big for his britches."

[G_j]

14. US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5199524-103681,00.html

US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq

Michael Howard in Baghdad
Monday May 23, 2005

Guardian

US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.

Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.

"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.
..more..

[Poiuyt]

16. I'm surprised a military spokesman said that

"this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations,"

Boy, that does sound like admitting defeat. Has anyone from the Bush Administration commented on this?

[TrogL]

18. Depends if you consider it to be a zero-sum game

They will have lost the war in Iraq in the same way in which some people consider the US to have "lost" the war in Vietnam.

It just isn't that simple.

[ngGale]

19. We lost the moment we went into Iraq...

I knew that myself. A pile of kinderling ready to flame - and we poured gasoline on it. That bunch is a no foreign policy nightmare, but then they have other goals.