Can anyone tell me how the US can win the war in Iraq when the US has no control over 2/3 of Iraq?

I was just wondering how you can win any war when your military only controls 1/3 of a country like the US military does in Iraq?





And since the US military can't control most of Iraq (even the areas controlled by the terrorists) what is point of having them in Iraq?Can anyone tell me how the US can win the war in Iraq when the US has no control over 2/3 of Iraq?
No it can't win this war as there is no war to win on first place..its just an illegal occupation of a place which does not belong to them at all !!





But Yes through media he can tell the world that ';he is winning' but who would believe? even his own nation has no faith in him anymore !Can anyone tell me how the US can win the war in Iraq when the US has no control over 2/3 of Iraq?
Well being that the U.S. can't control Baghdad it is almost an impossibility they can control 2/3 of Iraq as it is an impossibility to that the U.S. will win this war.





Thanks, see people, it's just common sense.
If this is a ';war'; we have one sad military. Iraq has no military yet we can't ';beat'; them after four years? We fought a world war on two continents and beat countries who were pretty good at manufacturing weapons of war in less time. It's all a diversion for some other purpose, I wonder what it is???
There is no war in Iraq. It's an occupation. The ';war'; was over when we failed to find WMD and removed Saddam from power. We are there to ensure that big oil companies successfully negotiate the production sharing agreements with the Iraqi government and control 70 % of their oil production. And that's a fact.
Considering 2/3 of Iraq are just farmers and nomads, I think we'll be fine.
Our strategy has and always will be to hand Iraq over the the Iraqi government so that we can leave. Most of Iraq is being controlled by the Iraqi army while we are helping to train them so that we can come home. I expect by the end of 2008 that we will have a significant draw down in troops.
your are right in pinpointing the problem. At first Bush wanted to have 400,000 troops in Iraq but he only got to use 100,000. We either need to do this war right and finish it, or not do it at all. Too many divides in the government if you ask me.
The US must work on a multilateral framework with Iran and Iraq on getting the countries to work together. Especially with Iran, if we can convince Iran to commit to regional stability, the Iranian governmnet would deter from its nuclear ambitions. Iran does have a leverage in diplomatic influence. We can obviously establish a forum where both parties' grievances can be addressed. The US would have to drop on its precondiitons and Iran might even agree to pull out its support of the various insurgent groups in Iraq. The key to actually ending this war is getting the cooperation of the Middle East, particularly its key player, Iran.





I support the notion of keeping our troops away from harm but as now, we can't pull them out or else a genoicde will most likely occur. If we are concerned for the Iraqi civilians and their general security, we must deploy more UN and EU troops to mediate the violence. We might gradually withdraw from Iraq but we can still send advisors to Iraq's military and support its political infrastructure.
data please
Well we are building our massive bases in iraq right now. As long as we keep the people of iraq in conflict with each other then i suppose america and the west can do as they please in that region. In the grand scheme of things 10-20 of our soldiers dying a week is not something that really bothers those in power. Winning depends on your interpretation of the word. If by winning you mean leaving iraq to the people of iraq in a free self governed country then i doubt it will ever happen. If winning to you means our hegemonic control of the regions oil reserves and important placement near other ';enemies'; of our Corporate masters then we probably are already winning.





In response to Ryan above, actually Saddam with his army did a pretty good job of containing sectarian strife. I honestly believe that we allow (if not help instigate) this strife, ever heard of divide and conquer? United we stand divided we fall....
Well, first of all you bring in lot's of alcohol and start passing it out for free. Then you inform all the Iraqi people that on a particular day the troops will be rounding up everyone who isn't drunk because the strict form of Islam that the terrorists practice forbids it. Then you start rounding up the sober ones because they are the terrorists. The rest of the terrorists who have not yet been caught will then quickly rush to obtain alcohol so as to blend in and avoid detection. Then blow themselves up when attempting to build IEDs while drunk.


Nah, I'm only kidding. My point is that lots of people smarter than we are have been trying to answer that same question and haven't so why would you possibly think you'd find the answer here?
The lord and savior George W. Bush will destroy the first born son of all the terrorist.
Well let's see, When the US entered WW2 Hitler controlled most of Europe and Japan controlled almost all of the Pacific, and I'm pretty sure we won WW2.
War is about killing people and breaking things. We are not doing enough of either to secure victory.





Remember WWII?





Our government is more worried about not hurting Iraqis than they are about protecting our troops in the field.





Shameful. Reminds me of LBJ and Vietnam.
The only way to succeed in any military action is to allow the generals to run the war. When politicians run wars, it never goes well.





If Patton had been required to be politically correct and ask Washington DC for permission for every action he took, we'd all be goose stepping and speaking German.
We need to immediately move on to the rebuilding phase. Let the Iraqi's see the terrorists blowing up Iraq's new school system, much needed electrical grids, hospitals (the things Americans are accustomed to) and see how fast the average Iraqi stands up. We will not defeat the terrorists without the ground support of Iraqi citizens. We must make them understand that we are truly in this for the good of Iraq.
I see your point, and it's a good one. I like President Bush, I'm angry because he has let Iraq ';go on'; for so long. If he would acknowledge that the US. just needs to pull out and leave Iraq to ';their own devices,'; that would end this. So many lives have been lost because a group of people with an understanding and language barrier just want ';out of the crap.'; The only way they know is suicide---the number of lives taken with the life of the suicide bomber's doesn't matter. Why can't Bush see that, sometimes, even the nation with the strongest power in the world fails? It's hard to except failure, especially in his position. He knows to everything there is a winning and losing side. So the US. fails on this one ';war';...Something that wasn't a war until HE decided to ';keep on keepin' on.'; I believe in that philosophy also. In this case, what have we achieved? More fighting in the streets. Congats Mr. President, we've now gone ';full-tilt';! I'm very American, go USA, go Mr. President. If we could only get my statements through Bush's head... You can't talk to a man who won't listen even if, like Ford Motor Company, you ';have a better idea';.
I think the stock answer to this question by Bush supporters is, ';Don't be so impatient. It takes time to build democracy.';





They remind us that the American Revolution lasted for eight years.





Of course... we were actually fighting for our own freedom, and the Iraqis are sitting back and letting us do all their fighting for them, so I'm not sure it's a valid comparison...
We could have ten million troops in Iraq and we would not win. This is a civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. No army in the world can make these two groups live with each other if they do not want to.
Iraq was the second largest oil producer in the world before the Bush family came to power. If they were to be on line oil would fall below $50 A BARREL and a lot of Texas Oil Crooks would have to cut thier expnses
I don't know didn't he call his party Social Democrats. He was only able to do it because people believed him. Some extremist right winged Christians seem to want to do it today.
Can't, ok lets send our troops home now. That is the answer, we can't. Russia tried with Afgahn for 14 years and made it no where. We are trying in a worse scenerio and have made 0 progress in 6 years. In fact as I think more and more not one time in history has there ever been an outside force that was able to contain and yet alone establish a region in the middle east. Time to say sorry and leave.
The war was over years ago and we already won. We are now trying to help our Iraqi allies gain contol over the country.
What war?