We've Lost the Battle for Baghdad

The day after Bush conceded for the first time that the US may have reached the equivalent of the Tet offensive the Pentagon has admitted defeat in its effort to secure Baghdad. This admission comes during one of the deadliest months for American troops since the invasion three and a half years ago with 73 killed since the 1st of October.



Ya almost have to feel sorry for the man. To have to admit that his policy is a failure has got to sting. But he dug this hole and has continued digging regardless of the obvious failures of his policy. The reality is with the Baker report due out any day now, the mounting death toll and the obvious civil war we, not only got ourselves into to but essentially started by our invasion in the first place, and the pending collapse of the Republican strangle hold on congress, the Bush administration really has no choice. To continue a insistent optimistic drumbeat would be to essentially admit their disconnect from reality.

Related News Links:



[edit on 20-10-2006 by UM_Gazz]

Lost the Battle for Baghdad?? Sounds more like can't keep the peace in Baghdad, is more accurate description than to say the insurgents took over the capitol from the American forces.

So please tell me what is the difference when the only part we (and the so-called Iraqi government) can control is the green zone?

Theres a big difference. If the insurgents have control of Baghdad, American forces be outside of the city. NOT in the city or around it patrolling and trying to keep the peace. Insurgents and terrorists using suicide bombs or sniper attacks on civilians or military forces is not the same as controlling the capitol. Green zone is to keep high govt. officials protected from enemy attacks like suicide VIEDs or sniper attacks. Kind of like the White House and its premises that keeps all other people away that are not allowed access to the place without permission.

Check your maps the green zone is right in the middle of Baghdad at a sharp bend in the river. American forces in Baghdad patrol from the green zone and obviously we are not safe on patrol but the green zone is often attacked as well. Essentially we are confined to a fort in the heart of the city and control little if anything else there. THAT is why there is no difference.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by grover]

Since when a country that wag a war on another country and then invaded that country destabilizing the entire nation is suppose to become peace makers.

I am still trying to absolve that one. Thanks for the joke Delta.

NO!!!!!!!!they are the enemies of that country that they invaded!!!!!Get it.

Yes if US lost Baghdad they have lost the entire nation.

Time to leave people.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by marg6043]

Ok so they lost the "battle" how about the war?

The war was won when US took Saddam, that was the best strategic plan that US had, splendidly performed in all its glory.

When US military might surrounded the Baghdad city with no casualties that was the most brilliant military campaign.

What happen.

Our politicians decided to play military and they turn what our military main brains has done and turned into CA-CA.

The failure is not our military they are the best of the best, the failure is our administration and the poor planing for post Iraq take over.

Grover, might as well as say the President and the U.S. govt. has no control of Washington D.C. because of the possibility of a hostile force that could kill the President or other govt. officials, since past history of attacks on the White House.

I would agree with what everyone has posted here.

Our troops are really the best of the best and they deserve we take our hats off to them. What we need to do is get rid of these lousy lying politicians. I mean we haven't necessarily lost Iraq... but it's time to devote more troops and resources to that fight or just leave. Is it not obvious that the number of troops we have on the ground is insufficient? Military commanders have asked for more troops but I believe politicians are hesitant because quite simply the idea of adding more troops would be publicly unpopular.... aka they lose their job.

Obviously our politicians have failed us and should be replaced with more honest and competent folks. Fortunately we have the perfect system (democracy) to perform this action. Oh ooops.....I almost forgot that voters are nearly as cowardly as the politicians!

That's not even close analogy deltaboy.

Grover, the White House is a fortress in the middle of D.C.

The white house is not surrounded by armed insurgents yet. Deltaboy. And as passive as Americans have become it isn't likely to be. Nor is it armed to the teeth like the green zone is.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by grover]

Grover, why does the White House barricades itself and armed to the teeth with countersnipers, EODs, emergency response teams, etc.? Even if the White House is not attacked, they still prevent any unauthorized personnel from coming in. Same thing for the Green Zone to protect VIPs from enemy attacks either it be light or heavy mortaring or suicide attacks, or no attacks at all. Do we call all of D.C. as Green Zone because we feel that the president is safe just walking around? We know that all of Baghdad is not safe, not even for the Iraqi people who inhabits that city.

The invasion itself was a success, and we won.

The occupation has been a failure, and we're losing.

Spin it anyhow you want, but it's as simple as that - the war is over, and we've snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It's just a matter of how long it takes the diehards to admit it.

Your analogy is just too thin...any occupant of the Green Zone who steps foot outside of it without armed escort runs serious risk of being killed or kidnapped, and even with an armed escort runs risk of being attacked nonetheless. The situation with the White House is nowhere close. They may think with the Democrats on the rise that they are under siege but it is a pale metaphor to the reality.

If we have failed in Iraq then who has won? Failure is not an option in this scenario.
Vietnam had an ending at least. The problem runs much deeper than what an army can deal with IMHO, Iraq needs a new ideology for the masses - herein lies the problem exponentially - a forced ideology will create a defensive backlash - it has to come from the true Iraqi people...is this possible with so much division and hatred amongst themselves?

Here is the Green Zone

It's basically down town Baghdad. You see all that area between the green zone and the airport. Thats where the "enemy" is. Actually... the "enemy" would be everywhere in Iraq EXCEPT the green zone, and now they are infiltrating the green zone.



The Zoo is a battlefield now to hold off insurgents... believe it or not.

Failure is not an option in this scenario.

It's too late.
Nothing that could be said to constitute "success" is even a remote possibility any longer.

It's over - and it will be remembered as the biggest strategic failure in US history.

This is what the neocons and their supporters have brought us.

YEP the biggest military failure in US history by the worst president in US history. If he had done as well for the 98% of the American people as he has for the remaining 2% (his owners) he could have gone down as a great one. As it stands his "We got ours and we want more of yours so screw you" owners won hands down.

P.S. Has anyone heard his latest? Twice he tried to have this lobbiest appointed as head of mine safety, (a lobbiest for mine owners who want to relax mine safety) and twice his Republican controlled Senate turned the man down. So now he does a recess appointment of the fellow. That is exactly the type of behaviour I mean...his owners, (mine conglomerates) vs the rest of us (miners) and who gets screwed, the miners.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by grover]