I have been hearing the same thing over and over and over--we can't win in Iraq, we just can't. Well why not? Why can't we win in Iraq? I don't see how victory isn't possible. We aren't the ones on the run. If we were really losing in Iraq, we would be the ones using guerilla tactics, setting up IEDs on the side of the road, kidnapping people, bombing buildings.

We can't just give up because there are some problems, a few setbacks, because we are taking casualties. I wish that we could have invaded Iraq, set up a democracy, developed and trained the Iraqi Army, and turned control over to them all without the loss of a single American or Allied servicemember. I that was possible but it just doesn't work that way. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Sacrifice is necessary to achieve anything worthwhile.

Insurgencies are nothing new to America. We have defeated insurgencies several times in the past. What makes the insurgency in Iraq so special? The Vietcong, the Nazi Werewolves, the South American guerillas during the Banana Wars, and guerillas during the Philippine-American War were all defeated.

But if you and the rest of the free world are going to have the attitude that we can't win then you are right, we can't. We can't win if we don't want to win. And that's the bottom line.

Originally Posted by The Cooler King

Insurgencies are nothing new to America. We have defeated insurgencies several times in the past. What makes the insurgency in Iraq so special? The Vietcong, the Nazi Werewolves, the South American guerillas during the Banana Wars, and guerillas during the Philippine-American War were all defeated.

Which Vietnam are you talking about? In the Vietnam war I was involved in, we weaseled our way out of the back door for the same reason as we're going to in this one.

You seem to have the very mistaken idea that the good guys always win. It just ain't so I'm afraid, well, not outside of Hollywood. Yes, maybe we do hold the high moral ground in the prosecution of the war, but this was also the case in Vietnam and it didn't do us any good there either.

How long does it take for politicians to realise that it is almost impossible to win a conventional war against a guerilla force. It is like taking to a hoard of killer mosquitoes with a baseball bat. If you can hit them you will kill them. But.....

What I/we know now that I/we didn't know in 2003 is that there are plenty of Iraqis - no where near the majority - but still enough of them, together with foreign Muslim mercenaries, who don't want what has been won for them - liberty from Saddam, democracy from totalitarianism, free market economy from state control. They hate other Iraqis/Muslims more than anyone else (except maybe Americans and Israelis) and are fighting and killing them.

Vietnam was not that, but since the above has manifested itself then (1) Coalition concedes peace can never be won and pulls out, or (2) Coalition shows more will-power and staying-power than the insurgents and demoralises them by staying the course rather than emboldening them by self-defeatism, or (3) separate the three waring groups into 3 new countries with boundaries that are agreeable to the three. This basically, but not perfectly, happened with the former Soviet Union. I now support (2) and (3) and add that Iran and Syria should never be allowed in!

Very well put, Padre. Iraq is not Vietnam. The situation in Iraq has changed and we must try to look at it as it is now. There are factions there for whom a peaceful resolution leading to a democratic government would not be in their best interest and they would rather never sit down and negotiate with anyone, especially the coalition. Further they have demonstrated that they'll do anything in their power to disrupt any semblance of government that they cannot otherwise control. They are adept at leading the western media by the nose in their efforts to blame their violent acts on the presence of coalition forces.
In view of the fact that Syria and Iran have been and continue to be the major sources of support for these disruptive forces, I must agree that neither of these two should be included in any negotiations. I would further add that they should be held fully culpable for the continued violence and instability that they have caused in the area. In simple terms they should be seen for the criminals they truly are.

IMO Iraq is NOT Vietnam.........may have a strange similarity but it's not Vietnam.

I think what happened was that the North changed tactics and the US failed to follow and failed................which might happen in Iraq.

They went from the battlefeild into our homes.........As DTop said, they've got our media by the nose. As did the Vietmanese.

Of course Iraq is not Vietnam, but the similarities in the way the war is being fought (modern weaponry not withstanding) are amazingly similar. A conventional force against a guerilla force.

In Vietnam if we could get the enemy to fight set piece battles we could beat him easily, but they realised that and waged a hit and run war. It was never a matter of beating the enemy, it was finding him before he found you. The same is the case in Iraq.

The enemy in SVN was being supported neighbouring countries. Same same.

The same goes for the holding of captured areas, we would defeat the VC in a locality then move on as we could never maintain an army in country big enough to occupy every area that was "pacified". As soon as we left the VC came back, or in many cases, "came out", as they were the members of the civil populace who were there all the time..... Does any of this sound familiar, if it doesn't, all I can say is "you weren't there".

Only last night on the news Colin Powell admitted the we are losing the war.

If you won't learn from history you'd better get to like humble pie.

Delicious.

And now, some people want to re-instate the draft. I am against that, in a big way.

Has anyone here read this past Sunday's Doonesbury cartoon? If you have, I believe that that sums it up well.

The draft is a quick fix done completely without thought for those already serving.

Would you like to be on active service with a bloke that just doesn't want to be there? Damned if I would.

No motivation, except the faster you die, the faster you go home.

I found this quote interesting. It was written by General Fred C. Weyand (former MACV commander) after the war.

"Vietnam was a reaffirmation of the peculiar relationship between the American Army and the American people. The American Army really is a people's army in the sense that it belongs to the American people who take a jealous and proprietary interest in its involvement... When the Army is committed the American people are committed, when the American people lose their commitment it is futile to try to keep the Army committed."