So .. did the US win in Iraq? (my opinion)

[hasan]

OK .. every now and then, some "so-called" "intellectuals" appear on Arabic Channels (and maybe American ones .. who knows) and they say, the situation in Iraq is very very bad, therefor the US has failed to achieve their goals, therefor the US lost!!! (bla bla bla)

DUH!!

What a bunch of bakas (that's Japanese for dummies/idiots).
Iraq is now much worse, therefor the US WON the fricking war. Yes, Americans are winning.

Remember back then .. in the .. well .. good days (relatively). When American soldiers were having their ass kicked and all? Every one was saying .. sooner or later the US will withdraw because it won't be able to afford the cost .. etc .. bla bla bla.

Well, guess what. Now Iraqis are the ones withdrawing from Iraq! Well, at least from Baghdad.
Really, I think Americans are having so much fun watching Iraqis killing each other instead of killing them.

Now, I've never been a pessimist, but it's really very very hard to see a way out. Oh well.

Oh .. and don't ever think that the Americans are "trying" to stop the civil war but failing .. heheheh .. that's bullshit.

Oh btw .. I forgot to say. It's me again!
I've been away for a long while .. I think that last time I posted here about Iraq was a year ago, near the "elections", oh .. aren't we so lucky for having democratic elections?

‏

حسبي الله و نعم الوكيل.‏​

‏

For those who don't know me, I'm from Iraq, but I don't live there.

 

[Tr0n]

No.

Edit: I will say they haven't lost yet ether.

 

[63]

You're a ****ing idiot.

 

[PvtRyan]

What a wonderful, insightful and especially precariously crafted post.

 

[Nemesis6]

6Three, I think you'll have to elaborate just a little.

 

[hasan]

What a wonderful, insightful and especially precariously crafted post.

Actually I just wrote it on the fly.

 

[Nemesis6]

Hasan, did you, as an exile Iraqi, get to vote?

 

[hasan]

Hasan, did you, as an exile Iraqi, get to vote?

Yes, this is the thread I wrote a year ago.
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=97723
edit: ok, it's less than "one" year.

 

[15357]

The US has its tactics wrong. If it wanted to occupy or annex iraq it should have:

#1 Slowly penetrated the leadership and cabinet with pro-American members and politicians, transforming it into a puppet state.

or

#2. Threaten the leadership with tanks until they sign treaties that benefit the US.

OR if they just wanted to get rid of saddam,

#1. Bomb the crap out of baghdad.

or

#2. With approx 1 mil troops, divided into a hundred divisions surround and take out saddam from the gorund.

or

#3. Bomb it some more. LOTS more.

 

[Stigmata]

I'm pretty sure the war isn't over. It's like me walking up to, say, a small child, and punching him in the face a few times, then having onlookers say "Hey cool, Stigmata won the fight!" while the kid proceeds to stab me in the kidneys with a screwdriver.

 

[kirovman]

That's the best analogy I've ever heard.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'd say that a more accurate analogy is if when you're bent over laughing at the kid you punched, you get assraped.

As for this thread, it's awesome.
Obviously the war is a success because it's turned into a some kind of bizarre genocide against those pesky iraqis!

 

[kirovman]

Mission Accomplished

 

[JNightshade]

Ahahahaha. You should go into comedy. Seriously.

 

[hasan]

I'm pretty sure the war isn't over. It's like me walking up to, say, a small child, and punching him in the face a few times, then having onlookers say "Hey cool, Stigmata won the fight!" while the kid proceeds to stab me in the kidneys with a screwdriver.

This analogy might fit well with events in May/June 2003.
Now, the small child had hit you in your stomach and made you bleed, so much blood came out, in fact it was one of the worst injuries of your life. but then you grabbed him from his shirt and threw him hard on the ground and stepped on his head very hard with your foot, and now he is lying on the ground, bleeding from his head .. about to lose his consciousness.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Nah, his analogy was much better.

But mine was the best of all!

Remember: you can't spell analogy without anal!

 

[hasan]

Nah, his analogy was much better.

But mine was the best of all!

Remember: you can't spell analogy without anal!

Which probably means you didn't get the point of my thread.

Edit:
Yes, the war is not over, but right now, Americans are winning/accomplishing their goals.

 

[Krynn72]

I agree with SixThree

You dont know the goals of the American military.

And please dont believe that all Americans support this war.

 

[Tr0n]

Which probably means you didn't get the point of my thread.

Edit:
Yes, the war is not over, but right now, Americans are winning/accomplishing their goals.

Wtf are you smoking? They haven't done any of them....

 

[kirovman]

I don't see how anyone can claim the the War in Iraq is being won. It's a hopeless mess, which will probably take decades to clean up, and at the end of it, there'll probably be a warlord dictator in charge, albeit propped up by the US and phoney elections.

Before 2003 there was one terorrist in Iraq - Saddam. He terrorised his own people and neighbours like Iran.

Post-2003, there's thousands of terrorists, all wishing they could get on a flight and repeat 9/11 over and over again.

No, the "war on terror" is not being won, it's exasperating things.

 

[Tr0n]

I posted this StratFor article in another thread a while back...might give you some insight into how things actually work hasan. If you don't know what StratFor is I advise you to google it.

The U.S. War, Five Years On
By George Friedman

It has been five years since the Sept. 11 attacks. In thinking about the course of the war against al Qaeda, two facts emerge pre-eminent.

The first is that the war has succeeded far better than anyone would have thought on Sept. 12, 2001. We remember that day clearly, and had anyone told us that there would be no more al Qaeda attacks in the United States for at least five years, we would have been incredulous. Yet there have been no attacks.

The second fact is that the U.S. intervention in the Islamic world has not achieved its operational goals. There are multiple insurgencies under way in Iraq, and the United States does not appear to have sufficient force or strategic intent to suppress them. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has re-emerged as a powerful fighting force. It is possible that the relatively small coalition force -- a force much smaller than that fielded by the defeated Soviets in Afghanistan -- can hold it at bay, but clearly coalition troops cannot annihilate it.

A Strategic Response

The strategic goal of the United States on Sept. 12, 2001, was to prevent any further attacks within the United States. Al Qaeda, defined as the original entity that orchestrated the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies in Africa, the USS Cole strike and 9/11, has been thrown into disarray and has been unable to mount a follow-on attack without being detected and disrupted. Other groups, loosely linked to al Qaeda or linked only by name or shared ideology, have carried out attacks, but none have been as daring and successful as 9/11.

In response to 9/11, the United States resorted to direct overt and covert intervention throughout the Islamic world. With the first intervention, in Afghanistan, the United States and coalition forces disrupted al Qaeda's base of operations, destabilized the group and forced it on the defensive. Here also, the stage was set for a long guerrilla war that the United States cannot win with the forces available.

The invasion of Iraq, however incoherent the Bush administration's explanation of it might be, achieved two things. First, it convinced Saudi Arabia of the seriousness of American resolve and caused the Saudis to become much more aggressive in cooperating with U.S. intelligence. Second, it allowed the United States to occupy the most strategic ground in the Middle East -- bordering on Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran. From here, the United States was able to pose overt threats and to stage covert operations against al Qaeda. Yet by invading Iraq, the United States also set the stage for the current military crisis.

The U.S. strategy was to disrupt al Qaeda in three ways:

1. Bring the intelligence services of Muslim states -- through persuasion, intimidation or coercion -- to provide intelligence that was available only to them on al Qaeda's operations.

2. By invading Afghanistan and Iraq, use main force to disrupt al Qaeda and to intimidate and coerce Islamic states. In other words, use Operation 2 to achieve Operation 1.

3. Use the intelligence gained by these methods to conduct a range of covert operations throughout the world, including in the United States itself, to disrupt al Qaeda operations.

The problem, however, was this. The means used to compel cooperation with the intelligence services in countries such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia involved actions that, while successful in the immediate intent, left U.S. forces exposed on a battleground where the correlation of forces, over time, ceased to favor the United States. In other words, while the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq did achieve their immediate ends and did result in effective action against al Qaeda, the outcome was to expose the U.S. forces to exhausting counterinsurgency that they were not configured to win.

Hindsight: The Search for an Ideal Strategy

The ideal outcome likely would have been to carry out the first and third operations without the second. As many would argue, an acceptable outcome would have been to carry out the Afghanistan operation without going into Iraq. This is the crux of the debate that has been raging since the Iraq invasion and that really began earlier, during the Afghan war, albeit in muted form. On the one side, the argument is that by invading Muslim countries, the United States has played into al Qaeda's hands and actually contributed to radicalization among Islamists -- and that by refraining from invasion, the Americans would have reduced the threat posed by al Qaeda. On the other side, the argument has been made that without these two invasions -- the one for direct tactical reasons, the other for psychological and political reasons -- al Qaeda would be able to operate securely and without effective interference from U.S. intelligence and that, therefore, these invasions were the price to be paid.

There are three models, then, that have been proposed as ideals:

1. The United States should have invaded neither Afghanistan nor Iraq, but instead should have relied entirely on covert measures (with various levels of restraint suggested) to defeat al Qaeda.

2. The United States should have invaded Afghanistan to drive out al Qaeda and disrupt the organization, but should not have invaded Iraq.

3. The United States needed to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan -- the former for strategic reasons and to intimidate key players, the latter to disrupt al Qaeda operations and its home base.

It is interesting to pause and consider that the argument is rarely this clear-cut. Those arguing for Option 1 rarely explain how U.S. covert operations would be carried out, and frequently oppose those operations as well. Those who make the second argument fail to explain how, given that the command cell of al Qaeda had escaped Afghanistan, the United States would continue the war -- or more precisely, where the Americans would get the intelligence to fight a covert war. Those who argue for the third course -- the Bush administration -- rarely explain precisely what the strategic purpose of the war was.

In fact, 9/11 created a logic that drove the U.S. responses. Before any covert war could be launched, al Qaeda's operational structure had to be disrupted -- at the very least, to buy time before another attack. Therefore, an attack in Afghanistan had to come first (and did, commencing about a month after 9/11). Calling this an invasion, of course, would be an error: The United States borrowed forces from Russian and Iranian allies in Afghanistan -- and that, coupled with U.S. air power, forced the Taliban out of the cities to disperse, regroup and restart the war later.

Covert War and a Logical Progression

The problem that the United States had with commencing covert operations against al Qaeda was weakness in its intelligence system. To conduct a covert war, you must have excellent intelligence -- and U.S. intelligence on al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11 was not good enough to sustain a global covert effort. The best intelligence on al Qaeda, simply given the nature of the group as well as its ideology, was in the hands of the Pakistanis and the Saudis. At the very least, Islamic governments were more likely to have accumulated the needed intelligence than the CIA was.

The issue was in motivating these governments to cooperate with the U.S. effort. The Saudis in particular were dubious about U.S. will, given previous decades of behavior. Officials in Riyadh frankly were more worried about al Qaeda's behavior within Saudi Arabia if they collaborated with the Americans than they were about the United States acting resolutely. Recall that the Saudis asked U.S. forces to leave Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Changing the kingdom's attitude was a necessary precursor to waging the covert war, just as Afghanistan was a precursor to changing attitudes in Pakistan.

Invading Iraq was a way for the United States to demonstrate will, while occupying strategic territory to bring further pressure against countries like Syria. It was also a facilitator for a global covert war. The information the Saudis started to provide after the U.S. invasion was critical in disrupting al Qaeda operations. And the Saudis did, in fact, pay the price for collaboration: Al Qaeda rose up against the regime, staging its first attack in the kingdom in May 2003, and was repressed.

In this sense, we can see a logical progression. Invading Afghanistan disrupted al Qaeda operations there and forced Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to step up cooperation with the United States. Invading Iraq reshaped Saudi thinking and put the United States in a position to pressure neighboring countries. The two moves together increased U.S. intelligence capabilities decisively and allowed it to disrupt al Qaeda.

But it also placed U.S. forces in a strategically difficult position. Any U.S. intervention in Asia, it has long been noted, places the United States at a massive disadvantage. U.S. troops inevitably will be outnumbered. They also will be fighting on an enemy's home turf, far away from everything familiar and comfortable. If forced into a political war, in which the enemy combatants use the local populace to hide themselves -- and if that populace is itself hostile to the Americans -- the results can be extraordinarily unpleasant. Thus, the same strategy that allowed the United States to disrupt al Qaeda also placed U.S. forces in strategically difficult positions in two theaters of operation.

Mission Creep and Crisis

The root problem was that the United States did not crisply define the mission in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Obviously, the immediate purpose was to create an environment in which al Qaeda was disrupted and the intelligence services of Muslim states felt compelled to cooperate with the United States. But by revising the mission upward -- from achieving these goals to providing security to rooting out Baathism and the Taliban, then to providing security against insurgents and even to redefining these two societies as democracies -- the United States overreached. The issue was not whether democracy is desirable; the issue was whether the United States had sufficient forces at hand to reshape Iraqi and Afghan societies in the face of resistance.

If the Americans had not at first expected resistance, they certainly discovered that they were facing it shortly after taking control of the major cities of each country. At that moment, they had to make a basic decision between pursuing the United States' own interests or defining the interest as transforming Afghan and Iraqi society. At the moment Washington chose transformation, it had launched into a task it could not fulfill -- or, if it could fulfill it, would be able to do so only with enormously more force than it placed in either country. When we consider that 300,000 Soviet troops could not subdue Afghanistan, we get a sense of how large a force would have been needed.

The point here is this: The means used by the United States to cripple al Qaeda also created a situation that was inherently dangerous to the United States. Unless the mission had been parsed precisely -- with the United States doing what it needed to do to disrupt al Qaeda but not overreaching itself -- the outcome would be what we see now. It is, of course, easy to say that the United States should have intervened, achieved its goals and left each country in chaos; it is harder to do. Nevertheless, the United States intervened, did not leave the countries and still has chaos. That can be said with hindsight. Acting so callously with foresight is more difficult.

There remains the question of whether the United States could have crippled al Qaeda without invading Iraq -- a move that still would have left Afghanistan in its current state, but which would seem to have been better than the situation now at hand. The answer to that question rests on two elements. First, it is simply not clear that the Saudis' appreciation of the situation, prior to March 2003, would have moved them to cooperate, and extensive diplomacy over the subject prior to the invasion had left the Americans reasonably convinced that the Saudis could do more. Advocates of diplomacy would have to answer the question of what more the United States could have done on that score. Now, perhaps, over time the United States could have developed its own intelligence sources within al Qaeda. But time was exactly what the United States did not have.

But most important, the U.S. leadership underestimated the consequences of an invasion. They set their goals as high as they did because they did not believe that the Iraqis would resist -- and when resistance began, they denied that it involved anything more than the ragtag remnants of the old regime. Their misreading of Iraq was compounded with an extraordinary difficulty in adjusting their thinking as reality unfolded.

But even without the administration's denial, we can see in hindsight that the current crisis was hardwired into the strategy. If the United States wanted to destroy al Qaeda, it had to do things that would suck it into the current situation -- unless it was enormously skilled and nimble, which it certainly was not. In the end, the primary objective -- defending the homeland -- was won at the cost of trying to achieve goals in Iraq and Afghanistan that cannot be achieved.

In the political debate that is raging today in the United States, our view is that both sides are quite wrong. The administration's argument for building democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan misses the point that the United States cannot be successful in this, because it lacks the force to carry out the mission. The administration's critics, who argue that Iraq particularly diverted attention from fighting al Qaeda, fail to appreciate the complex matrix of relationships the United States was trying to adjust with its invasion of Iraq.

The administration is incapable of admitting that it has overreached and led U.S. forces into an impossible position. Its critics fail to understand the intricate connections between the administration's various actions and the failure of al Qaeda to strike inside the United States for five years.

 

[hasan]

I don't see how anyone can claim the the War in Iraq is being won. It's a hopeless mess, which will probably take decades to clean up, and at the end of it, there'll probably be a warlord dictator in charge, albeit propped up by the US and phoney elections.

Exactly, this is why the US *is* achieving its goals.

Before 2003 there was one terorrist in Iraq - Saddam. He terrorised his own people and neighbours like Iran.

and frankly, the US gov doesn't mind that at all.

Post-2003, there's thousands of terrorists, all wishing they could get on a flight and repeat 9/11 over and over again.

but they are not doing it ..
you know why?
Well, it's like bush said, terrorist now operate on our land (Iraq), instead of the US.
He brought terrorism to us so that it won't go to the US.

I posted this StratFor article in another thread a while back...might give you some insight into how things actually work hasan. If you don't know what StratFor is I advise you to google it.

unfortunately I'm not in the mood to do that now .. I'm semi-sleepy.

 

[Krynn72]

unfortunately I'm not in the mood to do that now .. I'm semi-sleepy.

Did you at least read it?

Doubtful since you still seem so damn arrogant and stubborn on your own personal (and heavily biased) views.

 

[mortiz]

If winning is going in, causing a civil war, and then leaving (which they will eventually), then yes. Otherwise, no. If the war really was about the Iraqi people the U.S. would have done something about Darfur situation in the Sudan by now. The situation there is a lot worse than in Iraq when Saddam was in power.

 

[Tyguy]

we accomplished SOME goals and consequently created more goals to be accomplished.....so i might have to disagree as hard as it is for me. We should of been out of there long ago when saddam was captured.

 

[clarky003]

I'd say they've succeeded in the manor that the war has boosted manufacturing in that sector and subsequentley given a brief boost to the American economy.

Also they have a strong foothold in an area where cheap oil is plentiful, and with presence in Afghanistan giving them the ability to mediate and protect the new pipeline thats being built from the caspean sea down through the country. Plus Masses of buisness for Halliburton in helping to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure are a few positives for the US that come to mind.

So aside from their goal of creating democracey and peace in the middle east I'd say they think they have won because as the way the world is run they have gained an economic strategic advantage.

 

[kirovman]

Iran has become a power in the Middle East now, because it's two neighbouring, and hostile states have collapsed.

No Saddam or Taliban to fear? Great, Iran can start running the show in the Middle East now, it seems.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

1) The "brief boost to the American Economy" has cost several hundred billion dollars.

2) Their "strong foothold" is about as strong as the anti-gravity waves zapping from their secret fleet of perpetual motion UFO-cars.

3) Several hundred billion dollars and counting.

The war is a failure on any front you can name. Otherwise you're being incredibly charitable.

 

[clarky003]

1) The "brief boost to the American Economy" has cost several hundred billion dollars.

A boost in the military industrial complex, a specific sector, as was mentioned has ramifications for the main economy, specifically materials industry and design for production of parts and new gear.

If you can't see the long term economic implications of being able to access an area of cheap oil directly then there is no point in explaining it to you especially if your going to be derogatory.

Well their foothold seems quite strong with the bases they have set up in and around the region, they appear to be fighting Al Queda away from resource points.

Yes that is alot of debt D:, but there are Trillions of dollars of oil in the caspean sea, an economic feast.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You don't need a war to accompish this goal.
There are far less damaging and far more efficient make-work projects possible.

If you can't see the long term economic implications of being able to access an area of cheap oil directly then there is no point in explaining it to you especially if your going to be derogatory.

My especially goings are not to be derogatory!
I was spake your directly sciencing!
Fourteen hatred in the has had sandwich, clarky.

You're assuming that the war will be successful only if it's successful. Thats circular logic.
The assumption is that they'll have "direct access" to the oil, assuming that the country can be stabilized, a government can be set up, the government works closely to the US, etc. etc.

 

[clarky003]

You're assuming that the war will be successful only if it's successful. Thats circular logic.

It's not circular , your misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about the war in general as we all understand it 'A war on terrorisim'. I'm talking about it in the fashion of economic strategy, and how when your in charge of any countries future if your after goals like this, if you refer to PNAC you have to successfully increase the presence in the area. You seriously don't think they have spent all that money to just to attempt to create one democracey do you?

They already do have access to the Caspean sea, please read about it. New pipelines are already being built, again it's just a mere coincidence that the planned main line goes through Afghanistan.

Perhaps it should also be stressed that In your opinion you don't need a war to accomplish this goal. However those goals stated have already been set in motion and look likely to be fully realised with the use of larger military presence and expansion in the area.

My especially goings are not to be derogatory!

gotta love the Irony

Yes there maybe far less damaging and more efficient ways to accomplish those goals, but thats not always the case. Alternatively they can make deals with the saudi's to build. But on such a large stretch of pipeline that still doesn't guarantee it's long term safety from rouge groups such as Al Queda and other parties they are sour with.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It's not circular , your misunderstanding me.

I do not possess a misunderstanding, and that misunderstanding is not you.

I'm not talking about the war in general as we all understand it 'A war on terrorisim'.

I am also not talking about "A war on terrorisim".

I'm talking about it in the fashion of economic strategy, and how when your in charge of any countries future if your after goals like this, if you refer to PNAC you have to successfully increase the presence in the area.

I do not have any in charge of countries, nor do I have any after goals! Also, I do not need to increase my presence in Iraq in order to refer to PNAC!!

So the war is successful because they have gained no benefit whatsoever yet, nor into the projected future. Thanks for clearing that up.

You seriously don't think they have spent all that money to just to attempt to create one democracey do you?

I do not think they attempted to create one democracey!

They spent all that money on deposing Saddam Hussein. It is very clear that subsequent to that event, they had no clear plans. If their entire plan rested on the economic and social stability of the country, maybe they would have implemented a strategy that actually benefitted either of those things.

They already do have access to the Caspean sea, please read about it. New pipelines are already being built, again it's just a mere coincidence that the planned main line goes through Afghanistan.

They decidedly do not have access to the Caspean Sea!

The planned main line to the Caspian Sea is not being constructed by any united states company, and its production has stalled because the US drew focus away from afghanistan and let the taliban retake large sections of the country.

Yes there maybe far less damaging and more efficient ways to accomplish those goals, but thats not always the case. Alternatively they can make deals with the saudi's to build. But on such a large stretch of pipeline that still doesn't guarantee it's long term safety from rouge groups such as Al Queda and other parties they are sour with.

They cannot make a deal with the to build belonging to Saudi. The pipeline is not a long term safety from groups of rouge.

So, basically, your story is that the american government is smart enough to organize a ginormous financial conspiracy, yet dumb enough to fail at pretty much every single step in the plan besides spending vast amounts of their own money.
And that makes them successful.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

 

[Tr0n]

Exactly, this is why the US *is* achieving its goals.


and frankly, the US gov doesn't mind that at all.


but they are not doing it ..
you know why?
Well, it's like bush said, terrorist now operate on our land (Iraq), instead of the US.
He brought terrorism to us so that it won't go to the US.


unfortunately I'm not in the mood to do that now .. I'm semi-sleepy.

Read it.

That goes for everyone else. Hell why don't ya'll just subscribe to them..

http://www.stratfor.com/

 

[Stigmata]

I am also not talking about "A war on terrorisim".
I do not think they attempted to create one democracey!
They decidedly do not have access to the Caspean Sea!

lol, all of those turn up search results.

 

[Geogaddi]

If you had fun, you won!

So yes, we did win.

 

[clarky003]

lol, all of those turn up search results.

Aside from the fact that in his search he miss spelt Caspian.

They have already successfully built pipelines from the Caspian sea, and there is large US interest in the area, I can't quite be sure what Mech is talking about when he says that they don't have access, the map makes this very clear that access to the sea is not hampered, its the transportation to the coastline that is the issue.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/images/middleastmap.jpg

You'll also find these planned lines are being built by a consortium that has American, Russian and Chinese company's all as backers. The projected pipelines safety is obviously paramount.

They spent all that money on deposing Saddam Hussein.

They spent all that money on desposing of Saddam Hussein? they did? when they knew he had no wmd aswell. I wouldn't flatter the bush administration so much, the economy is far more important. After all it keeps the country ticking!.

The war as a whole may not be successful in everyones eyes, because people percieve the motives and importance of those motives for war differently, none the less they are all valid motivations for war, some logically more so than others.

But they do have their foot in the door and for economical strategic value it's successful so far, it just needs to be successful at engaging the totality of those goals. Really the question is are they successful so far, as nobody yet has given an accurately projected time frame that they are working within.

 

[madog]

I agree with SixThree

You dont know the goals of the American military.

And please dont believe that all Americans support this war.

I don't think you do either. It does not seem like you are a high ranking military official and if you are, why are you wasting your time on hl2.net.

 

[blck_prod]

Nobody has won...

Not the Americans, not the Iraqi-people...Not that this was a war against IRaqi-people. But they haven't gained anything since the end of the war. The contrary is true.
And the Americans have lost a lot. More people than on 9/11. Credibility in the world, they lost a lot of friends and trust. And off course the American economy lost a lot of money....

Some people have won with this war. Lot's of money
and to know who...you should check the companies who are 'aiding' in rebuilding Iraq.

 

[Max35]

Hmmm....considering we are under-funding the Afghanistan operation, how Iraq is fairing is only part of the issue. I don't watch the news much anymore, so I couldn't give an accurate depiction of the situation. My guess would be worse.

 

[hasan]

This should be an eye opener for some people:

This is a January 2005 report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

"The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."
(...)
"Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions."

I think this almost is exactly what is happening now.